Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Frater Xyzzy

Moved from main CheckUser case page. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank MSJapan for opening this checkuser. I was never a sock of Jeffeson Anderson, my account has been unjustly blocked while I was moving, unblock requests have been denied, the system refuses to allow a user to ask to have themselves checked. I used to work with J.A., both he and I explained that my company puts everybody behind the same router. I have moved. Please check me against J.A. and unblock my account. 204.122.16.13 21:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So you just admitted you're Xyzzy, correct, and have therefore violated policy by creating another account when you were blocked? Thanks for the proof of my supposition. MSJapan 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a long explanation and you just edit conflicted me. I an not Jefferson Anderson, that is the point. And I have not created any account. I am an individual who has never been blocked for any reason other than mistaken identity. And I have every right to edit. 204.122.16.13 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Jefferson Anderson was blocked for one week for allegedly using Xyzzy as a sock. However, he wasn't using Xyzzy as a sock, so both his block and the block of Xyzzy was unjust.
 * 2) Even if I were J.A. which I am not, his block has expired, so he could not be evading a block.
 * 3) If I am not J.A., then I am not using an IP as a sockpupet and I am doing nothing wrong.
 * 4) J.A. stated here that I was a co-worker behind a router, before anybody was blocked.
 * 5) J.A. (and Xyzzy) were removed from the arbitration here as having nothing to do with the Starwood case. See also this edit comment.
 * 6) The only reason Xyzzy was blocked was for being a sock of J.A. Since I am now in Seattle, and since J.A. is in Boulder, Colorado, it should be a simply matter for checkuser to prove that I am not Jefferson Anderson and if I am not Jefferson Anderson there is no reason I should be blocked at all.
 * 7) MSJapan is engaged in trying to win a content dispute by removing those who disagree with him, see Talk:Obligations in Freemasonry, here and . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.122.16.13 (talk • contribs)
 * 8) Xyzzy was blocked while he was moving and could not defend himself. Process has been followed, unblock request denied and blocking admin will not respond to email. There is no place to post a grievance on WP even in one could post and checkuser will not accept request from someone asking to clear them of sockpuppetry. By all means, please verify that I and J.A. are not even editing from the same city! I am not anybody's sockpuppet! 204.122.16.13 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thatcher131, on Jefferson Anderson's talk page: "The bad news is that while I was analyzing the case I became convinced that Frater and Anderson are the same editor. It may not be proveable in a court, but the evidence is much stronger than is normally required on Wikipedia." ~ Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And completely disproven if checkuser shows me in a different city after I posted that I was moving on 19 December and J.A. confirmed the same on 18 January before I had gotten back online again and my IP address clearly identifies that I am in a new city. And you're still claiming that somebody's opinion trumps that? Holding a grudge, eh? 204.122.16.13 23:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while you're at it, please explain why an unblocked user would have any need to use an IP address to edit an article? He's perfectly able to edit the article logged in and has done so. I haven't voted in the AfD because I'd just be marked as a SPA and ignored, yet he has withdrawn his perfectly valid vote because of you and WWW claiming falsely that I'm his sock. He has no motive to use a sock IP, he's not blocked!!!! 204.122.16.13 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)