Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Shake 3000

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

Shake 3000



 * Code letter: B


 * Supporting evidence: USEDfan was blocked a while ago (numerous times, actually) for disruptive editing on The Used article. A day later, another account, namely Shake 3000, was created, which myself and Pwnage8 believe is his sockpuppet. He has been editing the article for Ratchet & Clank, USEDfan's favorite video game, as seen here. He has also made a couple reverts to Template:The Used, which were deemed completely unnecessary and reverted. He also made an edit to In Love and Death that was almost an exact copy of one of USEDfan's edits. I have every reason to believe that this Shake 3000 account is a sockpuppet of USEDfan. Have a good investigation. :) — Fatal Error 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this looks like a bit of a fishing expedition to me, WP:SSP may be the better way to go. Tiptoety  talk 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He already had a sockpuppetry case. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is no fishing expedition, the editing patterns, and articles frequented are exactly the same. He is also edit warring like always. If nothing else there are some major coincidences. The two of them also share the same horrible grammar and editing styles. Landon1980 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the many similarities is USEDfan always spelled the word grammar "grammer" such as he did here The account was created the day after used fan was blocked, the new accounts edit all of the exact same articles, in the exact same way, and is edit warring with the exact same people. Landon1980 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also want to add this quote of USEDfan's


 * "fine, i have so many sock puppetts, i have about 100 accounts banned indefinitly anyway so w/e. i still have my othe rusedfan account, and ip adress, and my silverorion account, the silverorion was the ebst, i made it to cause a distraction adn i acted against eveyrthing i did on that account to try to draw attention away from this one, but o well at least that 1 isnt banned yet heheheh.USEDfan (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)" Landon1980 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, what is this now? I thought you people nicknamed me Used fan because I edited the used page. I didn't realize you were accusing me of being someone else. I don't get why you all bully the new guy. It is very unprofessional and rude. Shake 3000 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indef'ed as an obvious sock of . I have been actively monitoring the editor, and was preparing to block later this evening if the edit warring continued. I have been comparing the edits of the editor to that of USEDfan, but had not dug back nearly as far as some of the above commentators have, and I am endorsing their findings. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅: See talk page for further details. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, seeing as he addmitted to maintaining at least 100 other accounts, I say a checkuser needs to still be performed to clear out this sock farm. Tiptoety  talk 03:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One has already been done. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well in that case... nevermind ;) (This is the relevant talk page). Tiptoety  talk 03:34, 10 July 2008 (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.''