Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Examples

Example of a case where trimming is warranted


User:Mr. Tibbs
Please check User:Añoranza and User:Mr. Tibbs. Both of these editors are agressive POV warriors at Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq. Mr. Tibbs was recently blocked for 3RR and I am reasonably sure that this is the same editor splitting his edits between users to game the 3RR system. Also suspected with this is User:Nescio. 69.46.20.59 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I also support a look into this as these editors seem to work in concert to get their edits across. I do not know if they are the same person, or they simply just manage to always want the others opinion voiced. If you followed Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq you will often see one user reaching their 3RR limit, then another coincidentally pops on to Wikipedia and reverts it back to the other users. Its almost as if they are at least working in tandem off wiki to maintain their edits, perhaps circumventing it via AIM discussions or emails, so I wouldnt call the RCU above a bad faith one as I would be willing to submit one. I will lay out why below:


 * Incident# 1
 * Anoranza's edit was changed by Wom


 * Mr. Tibbs reverts back to Anoranza's version


 * Incident #2


 * I zer0faults made some edits and Mr. Tibbs reverts them. I then revert his revert because he doesnt even state a reason.  Then arrives Anoranza to revert mine.  I revert Anoranza and in comes Nescio to readd what Anoranza had put in earlier. Later the same day I reside to just editing their work and not reverting and back comes Mr. Tibbs to revert back to Nescio's version, removing my edits.  Wombdpsw makes some edits again. Nescio steps in and reverts his work citing some discussed version which I could not find.  Wombdpsw reverts him back  and then appears Mr. Tibbs to revert back to Nescio


 * Anoranza steps in and makes some edits along the same lines as Nescio and Mr. Tibbs and then I revert back to Wombdpsw since I feel Anoranza's edits are putting too much into the overview and causing undue weight. Anoranza reverts back with no summary.  I revert asking for a summary or justification.  Anoranza reverts again calling my information "lame."  I rewrite the 2nd paragraph.  Anoranza puts it back without citing it as revert.  I revert again warning Anoranza about 3RR.  Nescio then appears and reverts back to Anoranza's.


 * Anoranza then puts her version back without citing it as a revert, she just took the entire 2nd paragraph that was being reverted before and plopped it back after it was removed to war rationale, she then removes the head and other parts.   So its once again the paragraph she originally had, her reason is that it overlaps with a below section, which would make sense cause the whole paragraph is located there. After me and Amibidhrohi add some information Mr Tibbs comes and puts the paragraph back to how Anoranza had it.


 * I shorten the paragarph because at this point its almost entirely mentioned in war rationale section, then Mr. Tibbs comes and reverts the entire paragraph again back to Anoranza's version.


 * Oddly enough on the 30th neither Anoranza nor Mr Tibbs edit the article. We even have a very odd edit by Mr. Tibbs on Template:War_on_Terrorism where he had not be previously involved in discussions. He reverts back to Anoranza's version of the article, I revert and ask him to participate on talk  where its already being discussed, and he reverts back to Anoranza's version again stating "No one needs to pander to a filibuster."  which is odd because there is no relevant survey on the template war on terrorism talk page, did he revert the wrong article 2x? After this he never reappeared on that template page again.


 * If you look at the history of that page oddly enough the only other time he made an article edit was on the 18th of May, once again reverting me.


 * In closing I support this checkuser request, perhaps as I said they are just talking on AIM to make sure there edits stay in place and they arent in fact the same user. Just odd how they always agree with eachother and revert back to one another, then all vote to have people checkuser'd as well. -- zero faults  talk  16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to delete yet another frivolous accusation that clearly is a response to the RFCU against suspected socks (this anon) of a disruptive user.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You do know this anon isnt even in the same state as the other anon you asked for a CUser of and neither are in Texas ... Frivolous would be RFCU being used as a means of interogation against anyone who supports merecat/rex or posts opposing views on the impeach bush article. Perhaps more evidence then the person uses "lets keep it NPOV" is in order before RFCU's are issued. -- zero faults  undefined  23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You have of course seen that the new IP's fall within the known range of Rex/Tex IP's? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton  23:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They are not even on the same ISP, nor the same state. Do a ARIN lookup or a Reverse DNS for yourself. Oddly enough this wouldnt really prove much still cause I can use my girlfriends computer to frame Mr. Tibbs if I wanted cause we are in the same state same ISP. That is why RFCU is not a fishing expedition you have to have some credible proof. Them using a "keep it NPOV" summary is not proof, its a pretty common passive agressive summary on Wikipedia. -- zero faults  undefined  00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)



User:Mr. Tibbs
Please check User:Añoranza and User:Mr. Tibbs. Both of these editors are agressive POV warriors at Iraq War and 2003 invasion of Iraq. Mr. Tibbs was recently blocked for 3RR and I am reasonably sure that this is the same editor splitting his edits between users to game the 3RR system. Also suspected with this is User:Nescio. 69.46.20.59 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion removed to history.
 * Summary: Concerns from User:Zer0faults about coordinated editing, from User:Nescio about retaliation. [clerk signature]