Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ThreeE

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

ThreeE



 * Code letter: E
 * Code letter: E
 * Code letter: E

Use of an IP address to avoid violating WP:3RR in violation of WP:SOCK.

If this is found to be accurate, this is ThreeE's third 3RR offense in less than 45 days.
 * --Deskana (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ThreeE



 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

User:ThreeE has twice been blocked for revert warring on Fightin' Texas Aggie Band in as many days. The second 3RR block was based on repeated addition of a, and the 3RR report can be found here. User:ThreeE was subsequently unblocked by User:Johntex to participate in an RFC against him, filed by User:BQZip01 in regard to the same article, which can be found here. However, User:ThreeE was asked by the unblocking admin to limit his edits to participation in the RFC until the duration of the original block had expired.

The IP address made an edit about 24 hours into the 36 hour block very similar to those User:ThreeE had been making. User:BQZip01 brought up the possibility that the IP could be a sockpuppet of User:ThreeE on User:Johntex's talk page here. I'd be interested in knowing if the IP address matches User:ThreeE's, which will help us decide whether to revert the edit, whether User:ThreeE has continued his questionable behavior, whether the RFC should take a new direction, and whether there have been further edit-warring disruption. Thanks. -- RG2 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: To clarify, I don't think User:ThreeE was sockpuppetering. Nor does User:Karanacs, who has also been following the situation. However, User:ThreeE has agreed to a checkuser, if only to help clear the air. See User_talk:ThreeE. -- RG2 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, why is this check needed if the participants don't think the IP is a sock of ThreeE? We don't run checks to "clear" people. Also is this a persistent problem? unless there is clarification demonstrating a need here. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Long story short, ThreeE agreed to the CheckUser to "clear" himself of a sockpuppeteering accusation. But I agree that it's not necessary -- I wasn't sure if this would go through, but I forwarded the request here from an extremely wound up BQZip01, who requested a RFCU on a non-CheckUser administrator's (Johntex) talk page.
 * Thanks. -- RG2 02:18, 20 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.''