Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ImpuMozhi

[edit] ImpuMozhi

• ImpuMozhi (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Muhammad al-Islami (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Scabbers the Rat (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Telex (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Vandalizing pages of rajput kings by adding derogatory rajput chief category and also changing ruling clans of india category. Jujinho 14:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Jujinho is one of more than 50 vandal sockpuppets created by one permabanned user with an Arbcom judgment against him; see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shivraj Singh / DPSingh for a partial listing. The complaint above is not to be taken seriously, but if Checkuser has time, please look into these 50 accounts (importantly User:Shivraj Singh and User:DPSingh) and publish a list of editors using the same IP. That may well prove useful. Regards, ImpuMozhi 14:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Small comment: Jujinho left this message in User_talk:Muhammad al-Islami, which says Suar/Sockpuppet back off. the first word being the Hindi/Indian term for a pig. I guess this checkuser is really a call for arbitration/mediation. --Ragib 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rajput#DPSingh banned. If you wish to file a request for checkuser against possible sockpuppets of DPSingh, please add the information to the top of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DPSingh and then list the page here. Thatcher131 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: A classical Checkuser against Jujinho and his earlier Rajput incarnations will hardly be necessary as the identity is obvious. For the mass-vandalism problem caused by this user, see recent AN posting by Dbachmann here [1]. The above request by Jujinho is frivolous and should be speedily closed/declined/deleted/whatever, as illegitimate activity of a permabanned user (possibly Speedy G5). The editors mentioned are simply doing the hard work of mass-reverting his daily disruptions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no speedy procedure for checkuser requests. This will have to wait until one of the checkuser admins rules on it. Thatcher131 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Declined. No evidence of policy violation presented. Mackensen (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)