Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/UnclePaco

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

UnclePaco (3rd)



 * Code letter: G block log
 * Supporting evidence: Several reverts:
 * 00:11, 7 February 2008
 * 23:55, 6 February 2008
 * 15:14, 6 February 2008
 * 06:05, 6 February 2008
 * 04:44, 6 February 2008
 * 02:00, 6 February 2008
 * 03:30, 3 February 2008
 * And obvious vandalism:
 * 08:32, 3 February 2008
 * 05:05, 3 February 2008
 * 03:28, 3 February 2008
 * 22:31, 1 February 2008.
 * (Added 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC), please see note below) --B (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 06:05, 6 February 2008
 * 04:44, 6 February 2008
 * 02:00, 6 February 2008
 * 03:30, 3 February 2008
 * And obvious vandalism:
 * 08:32, 3 February 2008
 * 05:05, 3 February 2008
 * 03:28, 3 February 2008
 * 22:31, 1 February 2008.
 * (Added 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC), please see note below) --B (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For a week, until recent semi-protection, several IPs that may actually be the indefinitely blocked user UnclePaco have been trying to keep the Dominican Republic article at a particular version; the IPs have many similarities to UnclePaco in terms of contribution history. Besides the reverts (which have been unexplained and undiscussed, btw) they've been adding blatant vandalism. Thank you. (Sorry if I didn't quite get this right; it's my first checkuser request.) SamEV (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added 64.131.204.90 and MiGustaToto to this CheckUser request. MiGustaToto made the same edits as UnclePaco at Dominican Day Parade. 64.131.204.90's first edit was a 3RR report. In the 3RR report, he listed the violation reporter as YoSoyGuapo, who was a confirmed in a previous CheckUser request to be a sockpuppet of UnclePaco. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, this is not a code letter B request, since the indefblock of UnclePaco was not imposed by ArbCom. This does not fit any of the other code criteria, so code letter G is appropriate. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I changed the code letter. SamEV (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * as we already know where UP is from, all those ones in NY are possible, however, he has only edited his main account from one IP which are not the NYC IPs listed.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, self-identifies on my talk page as UnclePaco.  I have added this user up top. Would it be useful for checking any of these others? --B (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

UnclePaco (2nd)



 * Code letter: E (3RR using IPs)
 * Supporting evidence:: Four reverts as follows:
 * 1st revert: 16:44, 10 January 2008 UnclePaco
 * 2nd revert: 22:02, 10 January 2008 UnclePaco
 * 3rd revert: 22:20, 10 January 2008 68.199.204.86
 * 4th revert: 22:55, 10 January 2008 67.87.197.9.
 * 3rd revert: 22:20, 10 January 2008 68.199.204.86
 * 4th revert: 22:55, 10 January 2008 67.87.197.9.

In the prior request, there wasn't really an alleged violation - the user wasn't blocked at the time and the IP edit didn't constitute a fourth revert. The user said it wasn't him and there was no reason to check to see otherwise. But now IPs from this same block seem to be helping UnclePaco once again and some of the prior edits from Special:Contributions/67.87.197.9 look like they are definitely UnclePaco. Please check to confirm whether UnclePaco has violated 3RR. Thank you. --B (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The weight of evidence here isn't very strong, however they're ❌ - A l is o n  ❤ 04:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you tell if they're related to anyone else involved in this dispute or is that too broad of a question? --B (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no - -  A l is o n  ❤ 05:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the fact that UnclePaco,, , and some of their socks all share or have shared the IP , I'm inclined to conclude that UnclePaco = the banned user Mykungfu. (Blnguyen has already confirmed Armyguy11 = UnclePaco and UnclePaco has admitted that on his talk page.)  He denies being , but a checkuser long ago confirmed that Mykungfu =  and Armyguy11 was autoblocked by a block of ReadyToLive with the IP 64.131.205.111 .  Now, that said, please take a look at the edits of  (one of the Hicksville IPs).  This IP has an obvious interest in Mykungfu and has edit warred on behalf of UnclePaco.  Is there anything else that can be checked to confirm (1) whether or not Mykungfu = UnclePaco et al, (2) whether or not Mykungfu can be tied to the Hicksville IPs through checkuser evidence, or (3) whether there is any other evidence of reincarnations of Mykungfu? --B (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Related case: Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu.


 * -- lucasbfr  talk 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * -- lucasbfr  talk 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * -- lucasbfr  talk 10:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * - and older socks
 * Based on the IP addresses above and previous checkuser info, I can say that is  in relation to
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 07:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * - A l is o n  ❤ 07:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

confirmed ones blocked and tagged. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

UnclePaco



 * B: Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee
 * Supporting evidence:
 * Supporting evidence:

UnclePaco was edit warring on the article on Dominican Day Parade and filed a 3RR case. I claimed that his 3RR case was bogus. Shortly thereafter, an anonymous IP made wild and unsubstantiated allegations against me. This anonymous IP continued to make edits to Dominican Day Parade. UnclePaco was later banned for edit-warring. The administrator, User:B, claimed that the anonymous IP contacted him and said that he was not UnclePaco. I do not know how User:B received this information (perhaps e-mail?) because it's not in the IP's contrib list. In any case, his suspicious edits suggest they're the same person, so I thought an RFCU would be a good idea in case it hasn't already been done behind the scenes. Zenwhat (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I said that UnclePaco said that he was not the IP. Nobody contacted me - I saw the comment on UnclePaco's talk page when I was updating my statement for the arbcom case.  I hadn't intended to accuse him of anything - I had just assumed since the IP used the same edit summary on the same article that it was him editing logged out.  Editing logged out is not prohibited and plenty of people occasionally do it accidentally.  I didn't mean anything whatsoever by it and removed the comment as soon as UnclePaco said it wasn't him. --B (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see how it could be misunderstood and I have clarified on the arbcom page. --B (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

'''Disregard my comments above. This request is withdrawn.''' See this diff. Also, UnclePaco's writing style appears to be quite different from the anonymous IP. Zenwhat (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Listing as declined, in that case. – Luna Santin  (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also ✅ - spotted by JzG. FT2 (Talk 10:45, 21 March 2008 (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.''