Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/UCRGrad

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

UCRGrad
I have compiled evidence of the sockpuppetry here.
 * - probably inactive. (Thus, no need to investigate this one specifically.)
 * - this user was accused earlier by someone else; I doubt it's UCRGrad, but if it happens to come up through investigating UCRGrad or UnblockingTau, it makes a difference. I am not requesting that this user be investigated, only that it be noted if investigating the other users causes this username to come up.
 * - probably inactive. (Thus, no need to investigate this one specifically.)
 * - this user was accused earlier by someone else; I doubt it's UCRGrad, but if it happens to come up through investigating UCRGrad or UnblockingTau, it makes a difference. I am not requesting that this user be investigated, only that it be noted if investigating the other users causes this username to come up.
 * - this user was accused earlier by someone else; I doubt it's UCRGrad, but if it happens to come up through investigating UCRGrad or UnblockingTau, it makes a difference. I am not requesting that this user be investigated, only that it be noted if investigating the other users causes this username to come up.

UCRGrad seems to be using these sockpuppets for POV pushing, personal attacks on talk pages, and edit wars on University of California, Riverside. A few days ago I tried bringing it up on RFI, and Petros471 said I had enough grounds for requesting a checkuser. I wasn't sure, but since then there have been multiple personal attacks and incivility (check the RFI link for examples) and accusations of bias and sockpuppetry on me and others coming from these users, in addition to a few more edit wars and heated talk page discussion. A checkuser would definitely help clear things up, especially if arbitration is requested against UCRGrad, which seems likely at this point given the number of users supporting it.

To be fair, these are the editors that UCRGrad (or his suspected socks) have accused of being sockpuppets:
 * - implied only
 * - implied only
 * - implied only
 * - implied only
 * - implied only

– Tifego (t)03:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The end of the one-week window in which edits by the suspected sockpuppets have occurred is quickly approaching, so I think it is becoming increasingly-urgent that this RfCU be looked into. 71.110.253.193 13:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tifego. This needs to be settled quickly so we can move on and resolve the dispute. Calwatch 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, I think what Tifego is trying to do constitutes harrassment. If you read my contributions to the article, they have all been fair, and I have always made a strong effort to respond to concerns that anyone might have had in the discussion page. At times when I have been unable to meet WP guidelines for content, I have allowed that content to be removed. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible here. However, there are a number of individuals in Tifego's camp who have tried to think of one reason after another why certain content should be removed, even though I have addressed all their concerns and I have not violated any rules. This seems to be their last-ditch attempt to silence an editor because they were not able to come up with any other rational justifications as to why a few of my contributions to the UC Riverside article should be removed. If they had, I would gladly yield to them. Honestly. If you read the discussion, you will find that this is the case. These so-called "personal attacks" are far and few between, and they are mild at most. The actual evidence -- the discussion page -- supports what I'm saying. I am opposed to running a RfCU for a number of reasons.

1) It constitues unjustified harrasment. Tifego and his camp don't have valid reasons as to why my contributions should be removed, therefore, they are trying harrass me through other means.

2) I do NOT have sockpuppets.

3) I am worried that it is always possible that other users who contribute to this article may use the same block of IP addresses - they may use the same ISP, the same network, they may be affiliated with the same institution, etc. Since I do NOT have sockpuppets, the coincidental finding of similar (perhaps even overlapping) IP addresses would yield a "false finding of sockpuppetry."

4) For the record, I do not consent to having my IP address reported publicly. I also do not give consent to have my location or other details related to my IP address reported publicly. If there is any kind of breech of my privacy, and I suffer damages as a result, I would expect compensation from parties involved.

5) Finally, I, too, believe there is sockpuppetry in Tifego's camp. I would like to request an investigation into these individuals: Tifego

Calwatch

TheRegicider

DtEW

138.23.21.216

Dandan

Dandanxu

6) Most of the individuals in Tifego's camp are either UCR students, UCR graduates, or UC-affiliated in some way. They have made accusations of bias and they threw up the NPOV tag, but none of them have really been able to give reasons as to why (that weren't easily scrutinized).  I tried to explain the difference between a negative BIAS and the presentation of true, negative facts, but I think a lot of these individuals would prefer to have zero negative facts presented, even if this meant sugar-coating data and deleting pertinent and important information about their school.  Now it has resorted to this!

7) I appreciate your consideration in this matter. UCRGrad 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going to point out what's wrong with the above comment, but I believe it speaks for (i.e. against) itself. Also, note the list formatting peculiarities, which 909er has also made identically &mdash; compare the following two diffs: . – Tifego (t)18:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Confirmed that there's sockpuppetry afoot. 909er is a sockpuppet of UCRGrad. UnblockingTau, HisBundleAblation, and Jokersmoker are sockpuppets of Insert-belltower. These groups appear to be distinct. Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. Those results are a bit surprising, considering how much more reasonable Insert-Belltower tended to be than the others. I hope the article will settle down now, but if it doesn't, there's solid ground for taking action about it. – Tifego (t)01:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mackensen, thank you for your help in this inquiry.Sharqi 01:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION MACKENSEN: I am outraged that I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. Your RFC procedure is FLAWED - because it does not rule out the possibility that two distinct people may be using the same network and/or sets of computers. I will admit that I know who 909er is (though I should not have to reveal this), and that there may have been some collaboration on a few posts. If there are some shared elements of style (such as bolding), that is because I may have directed it. However, my understanding is that this type of activity is not necessarily prohibited. It certainly does not warrant having a "sockpuppet" label on my talk page because this does not strictly meet the definition of a sockpuppet. I hereby request that this sockpuppet business be removed. UCRGrad 01:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Responded on talk page. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 1 May 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.''