Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wassermann

2nd request

 * Is there any disruption?  Voice -of- All  22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Wassermann keeps editing despite his indefinite block. There is major disruption by the combined set of his socks. For general history, see here. For more recent complaints (mostly using anon IPs in violation of his block), see here. Crum375 01:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Crum -- please do not lie and continue to slander me. NONE of the edits from my IP addresses have been in any way disruptive. In fact, my edits from these IP addresses have been entirely constructive. Also, when did this turn in to a perma-block (?), because until yesterday it was only temporary. By the way -- I've been tagging these IP addresses with the [sock|Wassermann] tag on my own in order to prove that I have not been evading, disrupting, vandalizing, or making personal attacks. I'd also like to begin the appeal process of my block, especially considering the fact that the original 1 week block was extended for the most bogus reason(s) imaginable (i.e., I had no clue that using IP addresses to constructively, quietly, and non-confrontationally edit Wikipedia in good faith during the original 1 week block would lead to me being perma-blocked [when was that rule introduced?]). If I would have known that, I would have obviously avoided it. Also, the only reason I am continuing to edit via these IP addresses is because I must defend myself from these false charges because I cannot edit anything except my talk page when I am logged in as Wassermann. However, so what if I continue to constructively edit and categorize articles on WIkipedia while I am also defeding myself? What is the big deal (do you have proof of any wrongdoing?) and why should I be perma-blocked for it? Is it just so a few editors can satisfy their own personal dislike of me and my good work here on Wikipedia? In all truthfulness, I am here to improve the project, not waste all of this valuable time arguing and bickering over the most petty inconsequentials imaginable. --User:Wassermann --172.145.151.161 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why evidence for disruption is necessary in a request for a mere checkuser. The fact that he has been blocked indefinitely and has shown repeatedly to be evading this block with sock puppet accounts should be evidence enough. I understand the reticence to encroach on users' privacy, but this many sock puppets and this high a level of belligerence is ridiculous, and 4 full days after an RFC no action outside of a question of disruption has been taken. &mdash; Sam 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the belligerence? Where is the evading? Where is the disruption? Where are the personal attacks? Oh, that's right...there is none of that to be found, only the highly constructive editing that I have been doing. I'm obviously being irrationally screwed over in a big way by you all, and Wikipedia is going to lose a very good editor/user in me if they continue to block my account. --User:Wassermann --172.145.151.161 08:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The claims of you evading the block are beyond a reasonable doubt true, especially since you actually confessed to being a sockpuppet on a number of occasions. Whether or not you see this kind of behavior as acceptable, it violates Wikipedia's block policy. The block discussion itself has cited a number of violations. You continue with this defense of doing Wikipedia a good service — how is ignoring policy and other users' judgment at all helpful to the project? The reasons for blocking are well-justified, and the fact that you have a history of sockpuppetry warrants a checkuser on this very similar user. &mdash; Sam 11:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)