Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SuperDeng

[edit] SuperDeng 5

• SuperDeng (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Beenhj (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: F

Page for the original one month ban. Extended to 2 months for sockpuppet use later on. Ban expired. And then he was rebanned due to sockpuppet use confirmed in the SuperDeng4 case.

Here we are again. On November 5th, User:SuperDeng was blocked for the upteenth time for sockpuppet use, as documented in SuperDeng 4. Well just before SuperDeng was blocked, User:Beenhj started to edit. Beenhj has all of the earmarks of SuperDeng (as documented before). He's editing at all of Deng's haunts (i.e. Joseph Stalin, Operation Barbarossa, Eastern Front (World War II) and World War II). He's "restoring" old sections [1], [2]. We also have the constant misspellings that are a hallmark of Deng. In this edit, we have "chargeing", "dolphines", "speel". We also have the changing of numbers, another Deng hallmark. This edit has him raising the number of Russian war dead in the Eastern Front. Here is another example of Deng disputing numbers. If you look at the Eastern Front (World War II) talk page, that page was protected for over 2 months, mostly due to Deng not budging on his #s. Beenhj disputes the #s again here, even referring to the "man who wrote half of the page", which would be Deng. And here we have Beenhj removing other people's numbers.

I think it's pretty clear that this is Deng again. If this is proven to be him, I really hope the SuperDeng account is blocked indefinitely. We keep going through this over...and over...and over...and over again. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And here the weird long sentences [3]. Obvious SuperDeng sock puppet.--Constanz - Talk 07:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether Deng really disrupts Wikipedia or wants to improve the project. I did not follow the case that led to his being blocked. When I did I had seen much less disruption from him than from Constanz, among others. He was opinionated but not disruptive. So far it seems like a case when the blocks create problems rather than solve them. Could you refer me to a summary of his past "abuses"? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

All you gotta do is look at his talk page and his block log. He's been blocked for personal attacks, stalking, 3RR and now several times for using sockpuppets. He violates policy over and over and over again. The ends do not justify the means. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Ghirla has used the place as his 'claims' vehicle... I feel obliged to mentiona that I haven't really caused much trouble (breaking rules), compared to, say, Deng, or, actually, the accusing guy himself.Constanz - Talk 08:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't engage in unrelated ad hominem arguments here. Whether Constanz or Ghirla is disruptive is irrelevant to an inquiry for an IP check of a blocked user. As to whether Deng really disrupts Wikipedia, I performed the check because block evasion most assuredly is a policy violation. If you question the merit of the block, WP:AN is the better place. Dmcdevit·t 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Beenhj, Cvaltnm, Klingoner, Bignra, Gipornm, Fgbvnm, Mblafg, Nickmolo, Mortcv, Toadfootre, 83.249.102.38 are all SuperDeng (more rescently The Green Fish). Dmcdevit·t 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperDeng 4

• SuperDeng (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Daborhe (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Lokqs (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: F

Page for the original one month ban. Extended to 2 months for sockpuppet use later on. User:SuperDeng is likely to be the puppet master of all these accounts. SuperDeng characteristics: are found below and similar style by now indefinitely banned User:Daborhe. Similarities between SuperDeng and Daborhe: firstly, the choice of articles and the similar emphasis/POV. Language similarities:

• those uncapitalised first letters in article space contributions
• and extremely long sentences, where strange misspelling occur [4] *[5], (plus form 'dosent'). Most probably, SuperDeng was the puppet master of this account plus its sock puppets.

And to consider new account User:Lokqs as well: [6]. Interests similar to those of Deng and Daborhe, similar long sentences, same misspellings.)Constanz - Talk 13:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request. I have long experience with Deng (as is evidenced by the block log and his talk page) and it certainly sounds like Deng to me. --Woohookitty^(meow) 15:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I need more information. None of the two previous accounts are recent enough to check for IPs. Unless you have somethingI can check it against, you'll have to make a judgment call based on behavior. Dmcdevit·t 22:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will thoroughly go through Lokqs contribs tonight. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: You'll need to provide the code letter. [ælfəks] 12:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Provided. This edit shows the block extended to 2 months for sockpuppet use as documented in the other SuperDeng cases. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Many things strike me when reading this, but first I would like to make it 100% clear that we are not the same person.

And even if we were there has been no evasion of any block my block was lifted on the 22 of sep the user lokqs was created on the 28th.

The only abuse here is from admin Woohookitty who knowingly and willfully knows that there has been no evasion of blocks and still procedes to try and get my block for a crime I have not done and above that gives me no notice what so ever that he is doing so, so in fact he has participated in this ilegal proceding against me willfully and knowingly knowing that there has been no evasion of block and still tries to get me blocked

How Can it be an evasion of a block when I was not blocked when the character was created --> it cant be

The only person who should be blocked here is Woohookitty for clear admin abuse. Deng 12:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Um. Deng? Look below this notice. Your use of sockpuppets has been proven multiple times. And the CheckUser folks only say "confirmed" when they are 100% certain. And that's why your block kept being extended. So please don't act like this is all a figment of our imagination. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And btw, I didn't even bring this case! All I've done is add the code and say I was going to check the contribs. I'm not the one who brought it nor am I the person who noticed the similarities between you and Lokqs. So I think this "this is all Woohookitty" thing is a bit misplaced. --Woohookitty^(meow) 13:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that it would be abuse, in case Daborhe turned out to be SuperDeng (see block time). --Constanz - Talk 13:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And if Loqks turns out to be Daborhe, one should block the former - for the latter is an indefinitely blocked one.Constanz - Talk 13:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear case of admin abuse, first the text said lokqs and possibly Dabhore was a sock puppet of me, then the text was altered. The fact still remains that Lokqs who is not me was created after my block time expired so there was no policy violation except ofcurse the admin abuse from Woohookitty who submited to this witch hunt by willfully and knowingly trying to block me for nothing. Lokqs was created after my ban expired so there has been no policy violation from my side the only policy violation is the admin abuse. And Dabhore is just a pathetic atempt to blame all blocked users who have ever been blocked on me. But the fact remains that no policy violation except ofcurse the admin abuse has happened here. Deng 10:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The case been declined. Can someone close this? --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Declined since no check is possible. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed Per Dmcdevit [7], also The Green Fish (talk • contribs). Thatcher131 22:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

& voila! Why I'm not surprised...--Constanz - Talk 12:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperDeng 3

• SuperDeng (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• BobShoe (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

SuperDeng is blocked for two months following the previous checkuser finding. Now there appears another user BobShoe, with similar interests as SuperDeng. abakharev 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• As an example of similarity see their edits on Georgy Zhukov: Bob Shoe's and RabbitHead's (proven SupeDeng's puppet). Or see User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#User:SuperDeng_avoiding_blocks_by_using_sock_puppets abakharev 02:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Both users seem to have an interest in edit warring over similar topics. BobShoe tends to focus more on content removal, but they both have the same views about Stalin and the counteratack order ([8][9]). Voice-of-All 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Deferred to Kelly Martin (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), who ran the most recent check. I suggest contacting her directly, as she may not be checking the page regularly. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Likely I found a copy of a prior CheckUser in my email. The information there combined with certain details of the edits of the two users give me a pretty high confidence level. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Additional information: BobShoe (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser) is pretty clearly also Supermos (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser) and also Jaymano (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser). Kelly Martin (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed I have run previous checks in this one as well, and the records I have lead me to call it flat out confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Update

• Ijalm (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser) His first edit is to his own user page and then he dives straight into fighting over the definition of Scandinavia. Looks a lot like previous socks. Haukur 19:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible. Essjay (Talk) 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperDeng 2

• SuperDeng (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• RabbitHead (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

SuperDeng was blocked for a month on June 6th for various rule violations. User:RabbitHead started editing on the 9th and he is making the same sorts of edits that SuperDeng does. He's editing the same articles and has the same misspellings as Deng. Deng's nemesis, Kurt Leyman was accused of using socks to get around his block a couple of days ago. I'm guessing that this is something similar. RabbitHead is making the same sort of incivil edits as Deng...the same attacking style. Woohookitty^(meow) 04:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I also confirm that SuperDeng (talk • contribs) and RabbitHead (talk • contribs) are, in all probability, the same editor. I would note for the record that I consider the request a investigation, however, and would likely have rejected this request as insufficiently vague had I been the one to review it. If you're going to allege that an editor has "the same attacking style" as another editor, links to at least one or two edits that exhibit the alleged style would be apropos. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, while diffs are welcome and encouraged, I prefer that requests be consise, as they have often been long and filled with unneeded information. I would much prefer to have consise requests and occasionally have a legit request be initially declined or additional information requested, than to have long, verbose requests that add nothing to the decision of when or not to check. Extended discussion of the subject, however, is probably best done on the talk page of RFCU, rather than on an individual request. My thanks to Kelly for the confirmation. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SuperDeng

• SuperDeng (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Woohookitty (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DMorpheus (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ksenon (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Constanz (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Victory Day (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)

I need someone to check the ips of all these people because Constanz (talk • contribs) and DMorpheus (talk • contribs) and Ksenon (talk • contribs) andConstanz (talk • contribs) have accussed me of creating Victory Day (talk • contribs) as a sock pupet which I havent. I believe that either Victory Day (talk • contribs) acctually is a person who agrees with me or that Victory Day (talk • contribs) was created by one of these Constanz (talk • contribs) and DMorpheus (talk • contribs) and Ksenon (talk • contribs) and Woohookitty (talk • contribs) people to disscredit me. So if someone would please check the ips of all of us and tell us what country of origin all the ips are from It would really help.

(Deng 19:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

The problem here is that Deng has no EVIDENCE that any of us created this account. We have evidence but not enough to request a checkuser here, which is why we haven't. But he has zilch. None. And I'm not even involved in the debate at Eastern Front (World War II) nor have I said that he used socks. In fact, I said I don't think he did. I said there was evidence he might have, but again it's so little that I didn't bring a request. He's basically looking for what amounts to a block CheckUser with no evidence. I told him that this was the place to request a CheckUser check but not in this manner. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see this evidence but more importantly I would like someone to show the ip of Victory Day and me to prove that we are not the same person and most likely not even from the same country. After that has been done I would like someone to check the others ip who would gain from diss crediting me and see if they are from the same country ass Victory Day and if so from the same city as well.

(Deng 00:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Clerk note: Closed without action (stale). 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ksenon (talk • contribs)

• ksenon (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser),
• Backnumber1662 (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Victory Day (talk • contribs) are all the same person and checking their ip will show that they are all posted from the city or at least from the same country.

Ksenon can not win a dispute he is in so he created Backnumber1662 to post his pro nazi views and also made Victory Day to disscredit me.

Check the ips and you will see that they are all from the same city and/or country.

(Deng 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] SuperDeng (talk • contribs) and Victory Day (talk • contribs) and Victory Army (talk • contribs)

I suspect that SuperDeng (talk • contribs) may have used the sockpuppet of Victory Army (talk • contribs) and Victory Day (talk • contribs) in a single entry on the Eastern Front page. User Victory Day made only a single entry on the discussion page; I asked on that page if the account was a sock puppet. Since then the account has not been used as far as I can tell. I do not wish to get into any sort of personal conflict with this user. But I note that the misspellings and grammar of both users appear similar, and the sole entry by Victory Day was to praise Superdeng. No other entry has been made. The Superdeng account has denied being a sock puppet, but we have not heard anything from the other accounts. User Superdeng is engaged in a two-month-long effort to edit the Eastern Front page against the consensus of other active editors. I request that the administrators take whatever action is appropriate in this case. Thanks. DMorpheus 20:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And you are also engaged in this conflict and why you would make a seperate request when I have just requested that everyone involved get checked is very intressting.

(Deng 11:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Nothing is provable in any of these. I would suggest taking this to further steps of dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)