Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zer0faults

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

Zer0faults

 * AKA
 * because of this
 * In light of this edit, I just thought we shoudl make it official. Please don't ignore this request just because it was filed recently. The Evil Spartan 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In light of this edit, I just thought we shoudl make it official. Please don't ignore this request just because it was filed recently. The Evil Spartan 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Did we not go through this already. I already laid down and stated MONGO won. I was leaving. Do you not ever just let things be? What happens if this says I am not him? Then do you leave me be? I am sure you will not, so what is the point of this. As usual I object to my privacy being violated. For those not keeping track, this is the 6th RFCU that has been filed against me. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The diff has been deleted, but is in the page history. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Still ❌. Dmcdevit·t 08:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Zer0faults

 *  later renamed to
 *  a previous RFCU found this IP has been used by Zer0faults.RFCU result
 * was blocked witrh the statement "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (block evasion - obvious reincarnation of User:NuclearUmpf)"
 * was blocked witrh the statement "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (block evasion - obvious reincarnation of User:NuclearUmpf)"
 * was blocked witrh the statement "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (block evasion - obvious reincarnation of User:NuclearUmpf)"
 * was blocked witrh the statement "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (block evasion - obvious reincarnation of User:NuclearUmpf)"

Code letter: B

Ruling and enforcement of it: Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults

RFC on Zer0faults: Requests for comment/Zer0faults

Suspected socks of indefblocked AKA

Background

started editing Iraq resolution in a very belligerent way, deleting without discussion everything he disagrees with. As a result he was warned and blocked for edit warring. At this point I found his behaviour was identical to that of. Because of that I filed for mediation which led to the inclusion of material GATXER wanted deleted. He also tried deleting sourced material on another article. After this this user stopped editing.

Enter who continued the debate  GATXER started, also attempting to exclude sourced material. Almost immediately he is interested in an RFC against me, without further attempts at WP:DR regarding the content dispute. Amidst our discussion he, out of the blue, then made reference to an edit made by Zer0faults. For some reason Ipankonin is familiar with the edits, and the response to it, by an editor that was indefblocked months before the creation of the Ipankonin account. He then elevates what essentially is nothing more than a content dispute to the RFC he was preparing on me. Coincidentally this RFC refers to another frivolous RFC on me instigated by Zer0faults. Interestingly he also knows a former tag-team partner of Zer0faults, eventhough any contact I had with that user was about a year ago, and decides to mention the new RFC. After filing this RFC the GATXER account comes to live to support Ipankonin yet fails to make further contributions to Wikipedia. In short, Ipankonin is aware of the details surrounding this blocked user and all users share his behaviour regarding WP:GAME, WP:TPG, WP:HARASS, WP:DE, WP:NPA thereby passing the duck test. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Found additional information prepared by another editor, used in an RfArb, suspecting this user is evading his block: User:MONGO/Ban evasion, Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds, evidence for ArbCom. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 07:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Response
I am being accused of being everyone under the sun. Lets see now: Gaxter, Ipankonin, Lovelight, Rex, zer0, Nuclear, Giovanni, Bmedley Sutler, Fairness, Rootology. Take your pick, it seems to be a game now: You can feel free to check, but obviously not reveal my IP. I think it will be enough proof I am not whoever I am most recently being accused of being. Just to note the "indef block" applied to me was removed when numerous people and admins challenged the "evidence" of me being Nuclear. It is currently pending the bottom RFAR. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/SixOfDiamonds
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/SevenOfDiamonds
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni33
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Lovelight
 * Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

IMHO this is just another way Editor N trys to bully people off Winki. Hes accused me of being a sockpuppet before and was of course 100% wrong. Im my case it some what worked.....Ive stopped All edits.....its just not worth the fight. The Admin wont do anything to stop Edotor N's action. GATXER 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I not supposed to be notified about being named here? The extent of my relationship with Zer0faults is as follows: I saw that he added a source that might be useful in another article. I sent him an email asking for a quote from the book, and he never responded. The end. As for the duck test, one can use the duck test on Osama bin Laden and Kieth Olbermann and come to the conclusion that they employ the same speech writer. What Nescio has done here is to name people with similar opinions that he doesn't like. One of them happens to be banned. As for his allegations of my breaking policy, this is not the place to have that discussion. However, if anybody is interested, the full story can be found at Requests for comment/Nescio 2. Isaac Pankonin 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

❌. Mackensen (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Merecat




I am asking for this to prove to the people who are constantly accusing me of being a sockpuppet that I am not. I would like to add the 74* IP I do not mind being published as proof, however the other IP is a linked directly to my Job and I would like that one not to be published, the company that starts with an S was merged with the company that starts with a C, which is where I work now. Unfortunatly I have to take this step as I am still being accused of being a sockpuppet. zero faults  undefined  18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) ❌. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You already had a checkuser done, why are you wasting database resources on this nonsense? Also, please I hope someone realizes that 74.64.40.102 isn't actually in Virginia, anymore than, oh I don't know, 205.188.117.72 is, further more, while cpe-74-64-40-102.nyc.res.rr.com seems like it is pretty obvious, the IP range is actually assigned to California, exclusively, although the server is located in Brooklyn, I'll give them that--205.188.117.72 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

70.87.34.82




Two anonymous IPs, 70.87.34.82 and 216.153.214.89, posted stupid messages with my signature in order to throw mud on me after I had been blocked erroneously for an alleged 3RR violation. I got blocked for "evading blocks" after the IPs' comments. As what they did shows they were aware of the case and they did so very fast after it had started I would like to know if it was one these two users who were involved, who were in a conflict with me and who have a history of frequent reverts and disruption: Zer0faults (writes on his user page that he is from New York as is one of the IPs, evidence for conflict with me, see also Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults) or Haizum (evidence for conflict block log). Also note the comment left to me on my talk page about this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A%C3%B1oranza&diff=57693243&oldid=57691300 your anonymous adversary is remarkably using the same ISP (Choice One Communications Inc and ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc) as suspected puppets of Rex.User talk:70.84.56.166user:216.22.26.46(3) Let's call it coincidence, just as the eery similarity in behaviour between Zero and Rex, and the odd choice of names Neutral arbiter (talk • contribs) and Zer0faults (talk • contribs). You could look into that some more.221.146.211.193 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)] Añoranza 12:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

70.87.34.82 appears to be a backslashing open proxy, indef blocked, probably most recently used by Thewolfstar (judging from this edit and the fact that she has used a number of open proxies from this ISP). 216.153.214.89 belongs to an ISP headquartered in upstate New York but a reverse DNS lookup show a Massachusetts location. Thatcher131 12:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. Why does the edit you pointed to make you think that it was Thewolfstar? That user has been blocked since 10 May and I had never been in contact with him, so why would he do this to me? Añoranza 13:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am challenging my inclusion in this RFCU, as these have started to become a fishing expedition and an intimidation tactic. This is the 3rd RFCU including me in it simply because these users do not agree with my opinions. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the user who made the comment on Anoranza's page is part of a series of users from Kornet/Koreanet who have been banned. More personal attacks. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

. I see nothing here that requires checkuser. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  14:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously users knowing the case and wikipedia as a whole very well used IPs in order to throw mud on me. In how far does this not require a checkuser? Añoranza 14:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no checkuser case here; no evidence of any policy violation, no evidence that it is in any way a serious matter, no evidence that the editors named have any connection to one another or the IPs listed. Checkuser is not for fishing. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No policy violation? No serious matter? Posting with the signature of another user, leading to him being blocked? I beg your pardon. There were only two editors in conflict with me who knew of the case and have a history of abuses that make it plausible to believe they are capable of such tactics, so I think I can ask for a checkuser. Añoranza 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

❌. There is no evidence it was either one of them, and that's a prerequisite to a check being run. However, it's obvious this isn't going anywhere until you get your way, so I ran the check. There is no connection of those IP addresses to either contributor, or to anyone else. Feel free to ask another checkuser to confirm. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Of course there is a connection between the IPs and an editor, maybe not one of the two I suspected, you are just unable to discover it. Añoranza 15:27, 17 June 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 below, in a new section.''