Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tazchook

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

Tazchook



 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A

Vandalism to United States per this extract from Talk:United States

A look at user contribution pages of "editors" Tazchook, Humanproject , and Wen Hsing  makes it quite obvious that this a trolling/vandalistic assault on the article. Real editors, please do not engage in pointless discussion with "them."—DCGeist 05:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur this thing about bear attacks, while funny, is trolling and vandalism in violation of all core Wikipedia policies. Any admins out there, please block all those accounts referenced by DCGeist. --Coolcaesar 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the initial addition was vandalism, but Humanproject does not appear to be a troll or vandal to me. He (or she) is just someone who is unaware of Stephen Colbert (yes, such people exist) and was fooled into believing this was legitimate. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Wen Hsing also does not appear to be a vandal/troll. Tazchook is the vandal here. The other two are more or less unwitting victims. Also, even he does not yet appear to be an active enough vandal to resort to blocking. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with your assessment, Ben. Please note that Tazchook's vandalistic edit was his first Wikipedia edit in three months. Now what are the odds that Wen Hsing's first Wikipedia edit also in three months would be to restore that same vandalistic edit? And then what are the odds that Humanproject's first edit in five months would be to work on that very same vandalistic edit? Reading a few of the older edits of each of these "characters" further confirms what already seems very evident: for Humanproject, see, for instance ; for Wen Hsing, see, for instance, . The sense of humor, expressed in exaggerated faux offense, is obviously of the same ilk.—DCGeist 18:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you make a convincing argument. I hadn't thought about the possibility of puppetry. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --Richard 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * . --Deskana (talk) 15:04, 29 September 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.''