Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle

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

Snle 9



 * Code letter: C, F

This may be a new sock puppet of Snle or it may not. From the contributions, it appears that he/she is trying to appeal the case to the administrators notice board and Jimbo Wales as well!--Niohe 19:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * New evidence has surfaced regarding the above mentioned user. He/she has restored comments by a banned user and violated WP:3RR once.


 * First edit
 * Second edit
 * Third edit


 * Furthermore, he/she has vandalized my userpage by placing a sock puppet tag and posted rude comments to my talk page. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a sock puppet of User:Snle.--Niohe 20:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you be so stupid. The second one is done by yourself. User68732 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will not dignify the statement above with any comment. It is clear from the diffs provided above that User:User68732 has violated WP:3RR.--Niohe 02:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The following is the contents of the dispute:


 * Hello! I recently made the following comments on the talk page of Chinese people and was blocked indefinitely. The reason given to me is a sock puppet case. Requests for checkuser/Case/Snle. The computer I used is one at my university computer lab, which is shared by all students. I think the administrator's action is totally unfair. I took a look at the sock puppet case and didn't see many similarity among those blocked editors. Most of them are just temporary accounts people use for the purpose of not revealing IP address. The accused user SNLE was indefinitely blocked only for sock puppet. I don't think sock puppet is justifiable for indefinitely block, as indicated in the Sock puppetry page. Anyway, I think the administor is too arbitrary in making his decision in case of shared IP address. I wonder if some outsider could come and solve this case or at least ask the administrator to stop blocking people on unjustified bases. Thanks.User68732 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * " This disambiguation page contains too many unnecessary misleading information. According to Wiki's policy, a disambiguation page should be a simple list of the relevant links that make readers easy to navigate. There is a standard disambiguation page at Chinese, where Chinese people are properly disambiguated.


 * Chinese people, people of Chinese ethnicity
 * Zhonghua minzu, the supra-ethnic Chinese nationality
 * Han Chinese, the dominant ethnic group in China
 * Ethnic minorities in China
 * Overseas Chinese
 * I think this pagre should look something like this. Poepl 15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by User68732 (talk • contribs)
 * ✅, , , and . Dmcdevit·t 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Snle 8



 * Code letter: C, F

No further comment necessary. See below for full case.--Niohe 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and another sock puppet appears!--Niohe 22:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅ all, as well as Uibox, 主義, Huxe, Yucuieh, Beijyu, Hminte, and Hainte. Dmcdevit·t 17:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle 7
I appears that Snle is violating the permanent block with a new User ID.




 * Code letter: C, F

I also want to check the following users, who are suspected previous sock puppets of Snle. If they are indeed identical with Snle, they show a pattern of abusive and disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Please note the only edit by Manchus as an example of this.




 * Code letter: C, F

Since Snle is clearly not abiding by the bans, I will request that Manchuria and Talk:Manchuria be semi-protected. That is probably the best course of action for the time being.--Niohe 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I've added Azakhs to the list, whose behavior is almost identical to Snle's. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and Khakie as well, as his comment at Talk:Chinese people is typical of Snle. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Arrrghhh. I wish he would slow down...I've now added Manenefits., who's making the exact same claims about the map as Nres. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a number of accounts that I recently found to the list. Hope this case can be resolved soon.--Niohe 23:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that Snle has started a new user account, to discuss the Manchuria page and I've added it in the list above. Could someone take care of this user check request? It's several days already and suspected Snle sock puppets keep accumulating...--Niohe 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a bit convoluted because many of those names given are too old to check. I put a ✅ next to the newly confirmed ones. Also was found to be confirmed. This is ridiculous. These are coming from a university, too. Would someone else more versed in the actual abuse that led to banning help me out here? I need a good summary of why he was banned and some representative diffs. Email it to me and I'll append the IP evidence and timestamps so the university can deal with it. The alternative is that I'm very close to range blocking the school if it doesn't stop. Dmcdevit·t 04:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to come up with something. Talk to you soon!--Niohe 11:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle 6



 * Code letter: C, F

I would like to have User:Disambiguation checked against Pezh and Snle. His edit patterns are similar to Snle's sock puppets and he made a completely unwarranted disambiguation without much prior discussion, which earned him a temporary block. If you look at Talk:Manchuria it seems that this user has been making edits both to the main page and the talk page under different user accounts.--Niohe 15:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's nonsense. There has been nobody suggesting create a disambig page for Manchuria so far. I don't think there is a need to have a dicussion, even though I'm discussing it. There is a policy to follow. Disambiguation 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * to the OP: request needs a code letter. ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I think it is code F.--Niohe 18:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is so ridiculous. How can someone have so many infinitely blocked sock puppet? And there are new socks coming? Disambiguation 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus Christ., didn't even edit anything. How can they be socks? Disambiguation 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe most of these socks are innocent. Otherwise it is just too ridiculous. These users should be unblocked. Disambiguation 16:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also there is an overlap with ? How stupid is that? Disambiguation 17:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also want to add that User:Disambiguation has already deleted content from Manchuria and violated the 3RR rule when reverting other editors restoration of that content.--Niohe 23:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation ✅. Dmcdevit·t 03:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Were the other two users listed therefore declined, confirmed as well, or unrelated etc.? Daniel.Bryant 04:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, in the two previous requests below, Pezh appeared unrelated and Manzhouri was confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 05:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle 5


See below for more information.--Niohe 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably ❌, different ISP. Dmcdevit·t 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle 4


It seems that the blocked User:Snle has opened a new account. Please see discussion below for more details.--Niohe 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked as Snle's sockpuppet as it seemed rather obvious in  and. If checkuser provides a contrasting result, please unblock ASAP. Thanks --Srik e it (Talk 04:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I've added User:Shenyang, due to the similar editing pattern. Also, this edit matches Snle's long-time obsession with historical names in Chinese city articles (the policy violation is ban evasion). &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ✅ both, and also, , , , , , , , , , and several others that are already blocked, like , , and . Note the overlap with Edipedia. Perhaps they're the same person; I don't know much about that case. Dmcdevit·t 19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle 3


It seems that Snle has kept a different account active, which he/she is now using to reinsert by the User:13569 edits, which Khoikhoi deleted yesterday. Judging by the contributions, User:Manzhouri is nothing but a sock-puppet of Snle.--Niohe 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs and the code letter from the list at the top of the base page so that the checkuser that looks at your request may fully understand the nature of it. Thank you. Kevin_b_er 19:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well Snle was recently indef. blocked for sockpuppetry (see below). Yesterday one of his sockpuppets, 13569, was confirmed by checkuser. Because of this, I deleted his comments on the talk pages of the articles that Snle edited: Dalian, Harbin, and Shenyang. Today Manzhouri reverts me by re-adding 13569's comments on two of thee talk pages. Also note here where Manzhouri replaced 13569's sig with his. I am almost positive that Manzhouri is another one of Snle's many sockpuppets, used to evade his ban (the behavior is almost identical). &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If I were an admin, I'd be blocking. Reclaiming a confirmed sockpuppet's comments as your own. Try finding an administrator (WP:ANI or WP:SSP too) who's willing to block based upon this.  Will probably be faster than waiting for a checkuser. Kevin_b_er 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll do just that. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

✅ Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle 2


After Snle's sockpuppetry (below) was proven, he was was indefinately blocked. His (rather obvious) sockpuppet has returned to continue the discussion on all three articles he edited: Harbin, Dalian, and Shenyang. The user exhibits a virtually identical pattern of behavior to that of Snle's previous sockpuppets, and I have no doubts that he is evading his ban. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

✅ Also likely,. Dmcdevit·t 02:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Snle

 * (?) see comment below.
 * (?) see comment below; may well be an attempt to cover tracks, used in combination with 918
 * (?) see comment below.
 * (?) see comment below; may well be an attempt to cover tracks, used in combination with 918


 * Code letter: E

Revert of recovered common names of cities, e.g., in Dalian article:
 * 1) 18:49, 30 September 2006 Zhang Qiang
 * 2) 21:57, 30 September 2006 Zhang Qiang
 * 3) 00:38, 1 October 2006 Zhang Qiang
 * 4) 21:01, 1 October 2006 Snle
 * 5) 21:21, 1 October 2006 Snle
 * 6) 21:26, 1 October 2006 Snle
 * 7) 00:35, 2 October 2006 918

Two relatively new accounts engaged in revert war deleting historical names from Dalian, Harbin and Shenyang. Both of them have similar pattern, including misleading edit summaries. `'mikka (t) 17:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: 918 has now started to revert as well. &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction: it was actually User:九·一八事变, see e.g.,  The number 918 popped up probably because en-wiki soft cannot process non-English names properly  (and the account  was actually blocked for this reason). But I may be mistaken. `'mikka (t) 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Code letter and links/diffs as appropriate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. `'mikka (t) 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

✅ Zhang Qiang and Snle in which light the remaining ones may be obvious. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked them all indef Jaranda wat's sup 22:25, 4 October 2006 (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.''