Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo

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

RunedChozo




User:RunedChozo indef-blocked per discussion here. Fairly new User:PSPMario turns up at the blocking discussion for RunedChozo, and makes the same edits to PS3 as RunedChozo had been   Very similar editing to RunedChozo so request a CU. Thanks. Trebor 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC) Added User:CountPointercount who has turned up to this discussion with a half-hour old account. Trebor 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Code letter: F


 * . --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since when did we start using weasel words to describe something that should be a yes or no result? This is unfair, I know for a fact I am no sockpuppet, and I highly doubt given edits that PSPMario is either. CountPointercount 15:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * -- I forgot to add
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a case brought without good faith, but as a design to kill the messenger, because they are submitting only those names that do not agree with their lopsided viewpoint in a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. CountPointercount 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo





 * Code letter: F.


 * As discussed at here at WP:AN/I, I believe there is need for a thorough CU on this case. Regards, Asterion talk 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been asserted that the user RunedChozo has been using the account as a sockpuppet for the following reason:


 * The majority of use by the account NotAWeasel, coincides with a period in which RunedChozo was blocked from editing.
 * Similarities in edit history. Note the focus in both users edit histories for articles relating to Beit Hanoun
 * The similar strange habit of adding new sections to talk pages by editing a pre-existing section as noted here and here
 * The unique claim of the feelings of ownership of the article PlayStation Portable by the user ZakuSage for both users on the same day as seen here/here and here.

It should also be noted that in the past this user has been confirmed to be engaged in the act of sock puppetry with the use of the account, and by acting as a separate person with the IP.

If anyone else has further evidence please add them here. - ZakuSage 21:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion

The user RunedChozo has been using the account NotAWeasel to personally harass me in some sort of sick grudge in both editing the article PlayStation Portable and in editing the article's talk page. After the sockpuppet account was banned, the puppeteer user continued to harass me by falsely claiming that I was attempting to claim ownership over the same article. He then went way out of line by making entirely false accusations on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ZakuSage|Administrator's noticeboard]]. I fear continued harassment by this user and will be seeking further help in dealing with him. In the meantime I would like him exposed as the sockpuppeteer he is. - ZakuSage 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence and no case. I have no relation to NotAWeasel, I note that wikipedia policy mentions that users on contentious issues like Beit Hanoun will often arrive. I note that YOU have serious page ownership issues and continually revert any changes made to the PSP article since your version some months ago. I am also tired of your harassment campaign against me.RunedChozo 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw his claim, despite your illegal removal of comments that you just didn't like, and I saw that it had meaning. There's nothing to your so-called proof and you know it. RunedChozo 23:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to talk about this, but not only were his/your comments entirely disruptive, they were a personal attack which has no place on Wikipedia and I was entirely justified in removing it. - ZakuSage 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can confidently assert you're not him, why don't you agree to a checkuser? My experience, and that of others, is that users tend to puff and blow smoke when asked for a checkuser if it'll turn up true, but they'll jump at the chance to clear their name if not. So how about it, RunedChuzo? Patstuarttalk 00:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This case is just ZakuSage's bad faith and a method by which he is harassing me. He's done so on a temp page I am working on to try to improve an article, he's lied about me and other users, and he is behaving in nothing but bad faith. I have no problem with a CheckUser because I know it will clear me, just as I know it has already shown before that I am not the person he is accusing me of being. RunedChozo 19:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is now engaging in moving the report for vandalism purposes. - ZakuSage 20:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I got confused about what was being created, because the filthy liar ZakuSage KEPT CREATING THIS LYING BULLCRAP IN MY USER SPACE. I apologize for moving it and THIS page I won't move again. RunedChozo 20:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * THAT was moved long ago. Please cease your childish behavior, I have already reported you for vandalism. - ZakuSage

As noted, a checkuser has been done before to establish the NotAWeasel was not an apparent sock of RunedChazo, as they edited from distinct locations. New data might be available per the last month of contributions, but it is not listed here. Interpersonal debate is also not what the checkuser form is for; this is not a prosecutor's forum so defense is not required. This may devolve into a fishing request based on the comments above, I am here to second Asterion's request for a checkuser based solely on the merits in the request and not the conversation between the involved users that developed. Pardon the drama. Teke ( talk ) 05:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Some notes from a non-clerk
 * --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo



 * Code letter: F

These accounts have been engaging in similar anti-Muslim attacks and incivility, calling admins who have blocked tools (see from RunedChozo and from 70.114.237.14) and posting incivil comments to WP:ANI (see the contribution histories for both users). They have also both had involvement at the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident page. --  tariq abjotu  23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After the previous CheckUser for RunedChozo was completed, one suspicious account and one suspicious IP were added to the request, but they were not processed. I would like to add them to this request as well, since the same main user is involved. The account is User:Al'Ilah (indefblocked), the IP address is User:70.114.236.109. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Added Aecis' additions to list, above. Luna Santin 23:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For propriety, the discussion that led to 's block is located at WP:ANI#Itaqallah_and_friends_lying. --  tariq abjotu  23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

. Essjay   ( Talk )  02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

RunedChozo





 * Code letter: C.

These accounts have all engaged in an edit war at Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident. They have reverted to each other's versions, they have engaged in similar personal attacks (e.g. accusing others of being "racists" and "bad-faith pov pushers"), and they have supported each other in votes and surveys on Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident and Articles for deletion/Israeli shelling of Beit Hanoun. The diffs of a few reverts as example of the problematic behaviour: RunedChozo, RunedChozo, NotAWeasel, NotAWeasel, RunedChozo, 129.7.35.126, NotAWeasel, 129.7.35.126, etc. See the history of Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident for the full revert war. If these are indeed sockpuppets, RunedChozo (the main account) has been able to avoid his blocks, he has been able to claim a larger support for his view than there actually was and he has been able to circumvent 3RR. A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 17:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅ that RunedChozo is Wheelygood and edits from 129.7.35.0/24. NotAWeasel appears distinct. Dmcdevit·t 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to this request, as he makes use of the same personal attacks (e.g. "moongod worshippers") as confirmed sock .  A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding, similar edits, also from houston &rArr; bsnowball  12:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to protest this, all it looks like to me is a witch hunt. 70.114.236.109 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I also demand you sockpuppet-check the various muslim users conducting their edit war and POV pushing behavior. 70.114.236.109 14:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know wheelygood, he is a friend of mine who I told about things that were going on here and he decided to join wikipedia to deal with the biased entries that these editors are trying to push. I have already spoken with him about paying closer attention to civility standards. Of course we will have similar IP addresses, we are both math students. Checkuser is obviously flawed, or he happened to use the same computer in the lab. Either way, you are wrong. RunedChozo 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * response from falsely accused user

''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.''