Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthCrusader/Archive

Report date March 12 2009, 05:00 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Calton | Talk

Low-level harassment of my User page by, based on the original IPs, the indefinitely banned. A Checkuser was run on suspected new sockpuppet, who suddenly came back to life after a long absence and took up where the Czec Republic IPs of TruthCrusader left off, but was declared unrelated because (according to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz himself) he's on a different continent. Well, IPs are back, but this time they're from North America, so I suspect TruthCrusader is back in the US.


 * Comment: Boy, those comments below take me back: the over-the-top tone, the blustering denials, and the (evergreen) demands that I be blocked. Admins with access to deleted pages may wish to compare the style and claims against TruthCrusader's on his now-deleted talk page. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

User:Calton is simply making malicious accusations. He has no real evidence to support his claim that I am some intercontinentally traveling nemesis of his. His reasons for making the claim is his bitter resentment of my successful effort to remove a flagrant BLP/NPA violation from his user page -- an edit for which Jimmy Wales said I might "have been thanked for right action." |comments Instead of admitting that he was wrong, he is continuing to harass me and to accuse others who disagree with him of being in league with each other, and with bad folks. He is uncivil and malicious towards anyone who disagree with him, as here. He knows I was already cleared by Checkuser, but he continues his dirty little campaign of slander. If I ran Wikipedia, his repeated false accusations would result in his losing his editing privileges. Certainly other people have lost them for much less. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Calton: If you had evidence you'd present it. You don't have any, and you know your accusation is false. Anyone who wants to can compare my contribution history and summary   to Truthcrusader's  . Calton's only pretending that the important "evidence" has been deleted so he can't provide it. As for "over the top," simply consider Calton's comments to admins and others who don't share his rather unique priorities for improving Wikipedia.   Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Youre beating a dead horse here. Nothing will be done to Calton, your name is on their list now. Remember, some animals are more equal than others. 67.232.54.156 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Calton | Talk 05:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I can't find any previous CheckUser. Any pointers? -- lucasbfr  talk 09:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weird. I can't find one either, and I recollect that there was one. HB certainly claims that there was one. The issue cropped up here, originally, but I don't see direct evidence, either. --Calton | Talk 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was here, and not in response to a sock puppet investigation. pushthebutton  &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  14:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only mention I can find, of User:TruthCrusader is here. Hope that helps a little.  Syn  ergy 01:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Czech IPs are TC of course. But I don't know enough about it to say whether the US IPs are a match; if he has edited from the US as you say, I don't know have those IPs to compare. The only possible US IPs of his (based on the log, but they are from 2007 before we used log summaries, so I'm not certain if it's related or not) that we have are from a different part of the country. Dominic·t 10:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well? Where are the results of this misguided little test? Or, as usual with Calton, is this being swept under the rug? 67.232.55.249 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, that would be those results contained in the paragraph above your vitriolic little post...? pushthebutton  &#x007C;  go on...  &#x007C;  push it!  07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Syn  ergy 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions