Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthteller86

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

Truthteller86



 * (Kdbuffalo's original name mentioned in his RFC #1)
 * (Kdbuffalo's socks mentioned in his RFC #1)
 * (Kdbuffalo's socks mentioned in his RFC #2)
 * (Kdbuffalo's socks mentioned in his RFC #2)
 * (Kdbuffalo's socks mentioned in his RFC #2)
 * (Kdbuffalo's socks mentioned in his RFC #2)


 * B, possible C

User User talk:Kdbuffalo was blocked for editing warning via consnesus at Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2, Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo, Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo. That user has not edited in a while. Thus, if the check user is proven it is a violation of the ban, and the rfc.

's first ever edit was a revert of POV that was excluded previously with discussion on talk. Since then the editor's activity is the same reverts

The give away is that Truthteller86 and Kdbuffalo sign their user names the same by repeating the user name. Example "User:Kdbuffalo|ken 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo" and "User:Truthteller86|Truthteller86 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86".

Also Kd and Truthteller reply in the same manner. "TO: Dunc, once more I ask that you to stop your..." and "truthteller86 responds to"

User won't answer if he is the blocked user in question.

As for that user wanted the material in the article, reverted aggressively and is a WP:SPA (has never edited any other article). While I don't think SYITS is a sock, the user is involved and this will provide vindication. Arbustoo 17:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

❌. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 16 April 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.''