Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sfacets

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

Sfacets

 * Code letter F - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
 * Supporting Evidence - User edits a large number of the same topics as Sfacet in the exact same manner, usually pertaining to cults and cult deprogrammers. User started editing with a fairly advanced knowledge of Wikipedia.  User started editing after indefinate block of Sfacets.  Several articles user has edited, specifically  and  are rarely edited, and relatively obscure.  Sfacets known to use sockpuppets extensively in the past.  Now, all of this is evidence provided by User:Will Beback, the blocking admin.  I have reviewed the information, while responding to an unblock request by Couchbeing.  I find the evidence provided compelling, but not condemining.  That is, it certainly could be Sfacets, but I see enough differences between the two to have some reasonable doubt.  If the evidence were better, I would have declined the unblock request by now.  However, I could not do that, since there was still some room for doubt in my mind over whether or not this was Sfacets or whether or not this was a new user who happened to trip into the wrong types of articles to edit. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sfacets has a list of IPs used by Sfacets, as well as some recent socks. In particular, may have been recent enough to show up.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sfacets has a list of IPs used by Sfacets, as well as some recent socks. In particular, may have been recent enough to show up.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thatcher 13:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sfacets



 * Code letter F - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Also, Code letter E, depending on which accounts, if any, are socks.
 * See also: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335
 * Code letter F - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Also, Code letter E, depending on which accounts, if any, are socks.
 * See also: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335
 * Code letter F - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Also, Code letter E, depending on which accounts, if any, are socks.
 * See also: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335
 * Code letter F - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Also, Code letter E, depending on which accounts, if any, are socks.
 * See also: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335

Sfacets was blocked several times in the last month, and a couple of these accounts became active (or reactivated) during his blocks. He recently added a note saying that he may use socks. Sfacets apparently lives in Melbourne, Australia, but also travels, including to Europe. Try-the-vibe, Teamantime, and 121.210.52.44 appear to be the same person, and may be the puppet master of the oter accounts. The other IPs and accounts are harder to discern. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Will Beback also thought I might be Sahaj Hist on another occasion. Which evidence are you providing Will? A link to my block log? The note on my Userpage says that I may or may not use socks.  S facets  06:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an illegitimate case - no link to any closed arbitration committee case (F) and no links to four or more diffs showing the 3RR violation (E).  S facets  06:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever confusing Sfacets and Sahajhist, but since the accounts edit the same articles with the same POV it would be easy to do. Regarding this RfCU, the reason is "evasion of community-based bans or blocks", and I have linked the block log as proof of five blocks on the last month. As for the 3RR, two of those blocks were for 3RR, and the same user made numerous other reverts during that period. If any of these are his socks, they'd probably involve at least another 3RR. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that evidence? Please read the guidelines on how to correctly submit a checkuser case. S facets 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The harassment and bad-faith accusations continue. While I won't comment on the possible motivations behind this RCU, WIll Beback's history of edits concerning me can give a prety clear picture of what is going on. S facets 05:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yogasun and Simon Dikon Montford Mardini are ❌.
 * Windinthetrees, MonitorMan, and Try-the-vibe are to be Sfacets.
 * Teamantime is to be Sfacets.
 * No comment on the IPs since none of the connections are strong enough to justify a statement on them.
 * ✅ that WikiPossum = Sahajhist = MonitorMan (but not likely to be Sfacets)
 * Phew. Dmcdevit·t 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So I was just changing my much-too-wellknown user ID to a new one and I get caught up in this. Yuk. For the time being I'm back to Sahajhist. Anyone care to advise on how to change in a legit way? Sahajhist  15:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you were using the accouts at the same time that excuse doesn't carry any weight. See WP:CHU to change your username. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently anyone can ask for a checkuser now, without any evidence whatsoever. Nice. Why was MonitorMan blocked? SahajHist, you could place the template on MonitorMan's userpage and explain the situation there... The account MonitorMan has only been active since the 6th December. S facets 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * MonitorMan became active in November. Sahajhist was using multiple accounts in a manner that abused the rules on sock puppets. The blocking admin was gracious enough to mnot also bock Sahajhist's main account. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * MonitorMan made one edit in November. Perhaps SahajHist didn't know the rules on Sockpuppets - he states above that he wished to change accounts, but isn't sure how to do so.  S facets  22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts is not typically a problem. Using multiple identities to revert to each other, as happened on November 12 at Sahaja Yoga, however, is a problem. That is why the decision to identify them was made. Now, if you would like to debate the merit of any administrative action taken as a result of these findings, take it to a proper noticeboard or talk page, not here. Dmcdevit·t 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No evidence was provided to justify a checkuser for these editors/accounts. In this case the requestor (Will Beback) should have: and I did point this out above.
 * Provided a link to any closed arbitration committee case (F)
 * links to four or more diffs showing the 3RR violation (E)

It is clear that Sahajhist is not familiar with Wikipolicies, so one or two transgressions should be permitted per Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy. Will Beback is using this illegitimate request (which was granted) to smear the editor's name. I will take this no further, this is just for the record. S facets 22:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)