Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/V. Z.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
V. Z.
Suspected main accounts:
- V. Z. (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Zacheus (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Semenáč (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
Sockpuppets:
- Čauky, upravenče (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Petr Vokáč (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Mrdkožrout (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Nácíček Ignác (talk • contribs • block user • block log • checkuser)
- Code letter: A, C, possibly B (accounts may be operated by cs:User:V. Z., banned for a year and permanently blocked at the moment on Czech Wikipedia)
This is a follow-up of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nácek Ignácek. The vandal with a grudge has struck again, attacking here, here, and here. There isn't much to be added to what I said in the previous case (in short, User:-jkb- suspects these accounts to be operated by cs:User:V. Z. because they keep attacking the users involved in his arbitration case), except for that the last time the possible main account(s) could not be checked because it was (they were) too old. This time Zacheus/v has made enough edits (both at and off English Wikipedia). User:Zacheus has confirmed to be V. Z. here. For more details, see User:-jkb-/Vandalism and impostors and pages linked from there. I would like to reiterate my request for a cross-wiki check in order to discover more accounts operated by the same vandal. - Mike Rosoft 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Due to a substantially identical comment on my talk page, Semenáč may be the same person as Zacheus/V. Z. - Mike Rosoft 12:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Additional information needed: please provide a diff showing that V. Z. is a banned user on Wikipedia, and otherwise why any of the unblocked suspected socks would be abusive sockpuppets. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)- In any case, Nácíček_Ignác (talk • contribs), Mrdač ovcí (talk • contribs), Mrdkožrout (talk • contribs), Čauky, upravenče (talk • contribs), Petr Vokáč (talk • contribs), Koukálečínek (talk • contribs), Hrdý komanč (talk • contribs), Nácek_Ignácek (talk • contribs), Ignác_Pospíšilů (talk • contribs), I_don´t_like_rasism (talk • contribs), Uz_fak_nevim,_co_vymyslet... (talk • contribs), Koukal (talk • contribs), Koroto (talk • contribs), Chnee2 (talk • contribs), Koukáleček (talk • contribs), Koukálek (talk • contribs), and Ignác Pospíšilů (talk • contribs) are all one vandal, not related to any established users I can see. The IPs involved so far have been 83.148.22.7/24, 83.148.17.128/24, and 83.148.9.127/24, and there is very little chance of collateral. Dmcdevit·t 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- All the information (including several examples) is available in the previous checkuser request. cs:User:V. Z. was banned on Czech Wikipedia after cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž. As far as the listed sockpupets go, it's fairly obvious that they are being used for abuse (with the exception of Chnee2 (talk • contribs) who didn't seem to do anything - should it also be blocked as a sleeper account?): vandalizing articles and/or user pages, sometimes in an extremely vulgar way, and their name are often vulgar or racist terms, or impersonating or attacking other Wikipedia users. (If you need more details of their abuse, I may e-mail them to you.) Regarding the top three accounts, they didn't engage in anything of that sort, but if they are operated by the same person, they should probably also be blocked and banned from editing Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 15:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- The vandal I listed above doesn't appear to be connected to other established accounts, including the non-vandals you listed. Even if the other three are all the same person, there is no violation unless they are either a banned user or some other abusive sockpuppet as defined by WP:SOCK. Please provide evidence of that if so. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- You asked me to provide evidence that V. Z. is banned on Czech Wikipedia; I already did so. (Here's the user's block log: He was blocked for a year as a result of the arbitration case linked above, then permanently blocked after he published his password.) I think it is fairly well established that the three users are operated by the same person - apparently a different one from the vandal with a grudge (I have also linked the edits), so I am not sure what you want from me. Evidence that Czech and English User:V. Z. is the same person? Here you are. - Mike Rosoft 09:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- The vandal I listed above doesn't appear to be connected to other established accounts, including the non-vandals you listed. Even if the other three are all the same person, there is no violation unless they are either a banned user or some other abusive sockpuppet as defined by WP:SOCK. Please provide evidence of that if so. Dmcdevit·t 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- All the information (including several examples) is available in the previous checkuser request. cs:User:V. Z. was banned on Czech Wikipedia after cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž. As far as the listed sockpupets go, it's fairly obvious that they are being used for abuse (with the exception of Chnee2 (talk • contribs) who didn't seem to do anything - should it also be blocked as a sleeper account?): vandalizing articles and/or user pages, sometimes in an extremely vulgar way, and their name are often vulgar or racist terms, or impersonating or attacking other Wikipedia users. (If you need more details of their abuse, I may e-mail them to you.) Regarding the top three accounts, they didn't engage in anything of that sort, but if they are operated by the same person, they should probably also be blocked and banned from editing Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft 15:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments moved to talk page. - Mike Rosoft 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: The arbitration case has only prohibited the user from contributing on Czech Wikipedia ("... se zcela zakazuje přispívat do české Wikipedie po dobu jednoho roku"), making this case probably moot. I haven't found any concrete evidence of his disruptive behaviour on other projects. (I'll inform you should I find some.) - Mike Rosoft 15:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- You should already known that no ArbCom has a power beyond its own project. It's logical since otherwise it has to elected by people from other projects as well. -- Zacheus 22:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
