Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RodentofDeath

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

RodentofDeath





 * Code letter: B
 * ArbCom case Requests_for_arbitration/RodentofDeath


 * Per AE. Likely possible block evasion . ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, likely socks. Similar tactics and interests. RFCU needed. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Results
I would say block on behaviour if, in fact, the behaviour is disruptive. However a cursory review does not suggest that the behaviour itself (pointing out issues on the talk page) is entirely without merit, However I defer that decision to admins who have been investigating more closely. ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * HurryTaken == RodentOfDeath by admission, if I'm reading things right (corrections appreciated). Checkuser technical results support that this is (although not confirmed) true (findings are not inconsistent with them being the same person and not inconsistent with them being different people).
 * It is but not confirmed, based on checkuser findings that HurryTaken == Luzonman. (again, findings are not inconsistent with them being the same person and not inconsistent with them being different people).
 * Correction, HurryTaken denies being RodentOfDeath, but several others allege that HT is an obvious sock. Sorry for any confusion on that point. No change in how I view the technical results. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I have admitted to is following the history between Rodent and the editor. I still maintain I am not Rodent. It honestly seems like I am in a no-win situation here. Anyone who comes and points out problems or has issues or concerns with certain articles is automatically accused by default of being a SP of Rodent. Assuming good faith, but it almost seems like an effort to challenge any idea or any editor that does agree with their ideals or the way certain topics have been edited. I find that extremely unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected given the history of those articles. It is too bad you guys can't go back into the server logs to my first post in the AfD on March 8th and see how many times I hit the "Show preview" button. That was my first ever on Wikipedia and it took me about two hours to make it. HurryTaken (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, once a user gets banned, and a pattern of sockpuppetry is established, or thought to be established, there certainly is a tendency to view every new editor that fits the pattern of interest as a likely sock. That's unfortunate but it's also understandable I think. I'd advise uninvolved editors to evaluate the material presented, regardless of source, and work to make the article better... this matter is ultimately a distraction I think, because there are issues with the articles (at least in my very cursory view), and there are a number of editors here who have fairly strong POVs that may interfere with the ability to construct an unbiased article on the subject matter. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not entirely fair to say that every editor who gets involved in a topic previously frequented by a banned user will be similarly accused. If, for example, Rodentofdeath was from Germany, HurryTaken was from Canada, and Luzonman was from the US, we could fairly rule out any connection.  Here I agree with Lar that the IP histories do not allow us to rule out a connection between these editors, as they have a degree of similarity. Thatcher 15:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm just saying that such a tendendcy does sometimes seem to exist. But this is far afield of the topic. I concur with your further analysis of the particulars. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, after having a thought and rechecking, I need to revise my findings. I think, based on the locations of the April 27 edits, that there are two people involved.  I would not be surprised if they knew each other, and either one could be RodentofDeath. Thatcher 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

RodentofDeath

 * Code letter: C
 * Code letter: C
 * Code letter: C
 * Code letter: C
 * Code letter: C
 * Code letter: C

Aggressive page vandalism and blanking session on Human trafficking in Angeles City (page is now protected) by IP users, minutes after RodentofDeath blanks warnings from own Talk page. RodentofDeath has a history of edit warring on Human trafficking in Angeles City, and has in the past been temp blocked for 3RR in Angeles City over similar content disputes.
 * Evidence

Anons have similar edits, despite wide range.
 * 58.69.78.199 –
 * 124.107.144.240 –
 * 124.107.145.0 – apparently same user, changing IP to evade block

History of edit warring, different from above, but the identical clumsy edit each time. Seems cagey.
 * 208.52.112.70 –

Elidizon exhibits similar talk page behavior.

Circumstantial, but there has been similar suspicious activity in the past. Entirely possible this is semi-organized meat-puppetry, but if so today's spree was well synchronized. / edgarde 12:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry guys, not me. i dont blank pages. even my own page was only blanked to move the discussion to the talk page as per a suggestion posted by someone else. i dont mind people barking up trees but in this case you are barking up the wrong one.RodentofDeath 01:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

. Deal with it through normal channels (AN/I or such) Voice -of- All  23:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath



 * C (I think)

The above IPs are vandalizing and making personal attacks that would appear to be in support of RodentofDeath. For example in this diff, there is a clear implication the vandalism and personal attacks are motivated by an ongoing content dispute. At the moment the target of the vandalism,, is in a dispute with RodentofDeath.. Susanbryce has almost exclusively edited the following articles: Angeles City (154 edits),	Human trafficking in Angeles City (77 edits),	Preda Foundation (44 edits) and Prostitution in the Philippines (33 edits), in these articles the only editor to revert war against her is RodentofDeath. Addhoc 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some similarities in some aspects, but there are no matches and the IPs are on different networks.  Voice -of- All  07:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''