Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jim16

[edit] Jim16 (talk • contribs) and 66.17.116.148 (talk • contribs)

It is my belief that Jim16 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 66.17.116.148 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) constitute the same person. While most actual vandalism is done by 66.17.116.148, neither engages in constructive editing. Further, each user is in the habit of "blanking" vandalism warnings (and anything else, for that matter) from the talk page and, most notably, from the other user's talk page. If my suspicion is correct, an extended block may be warranted for both accounts following the next case of vandalism by either. RadioKirk talk to me 19:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Blanking" of vandalism warnings since the original request

By User:Jim16 to User talk:66.17.116.148, here, and by User:Jim16 to User talk:Jim16, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Why this request is valid

This user is under the impression per User:William M. Connolley that he is allowed to blank his talk page, and might argue that warnings to not vandalize his talk page are, therefore, inapplicable. It is expected that CheckUser will demonstrate a history of blanking warnings, including against vandalism to Wikipedia articles, and of vandalism itself (usually when the user is not logged in, to present a façade of innocence). RadioKirk talk to me 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Likely. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim16 et al

• Jim16 (talk • contribs): suspected puppeteer
• 66.17.116.148 (talk • contribs): established puppet
• Elliott Johnson (talk • contribs)
• Goat322 (talk • contribs)
• Goat455 (talk • contribs)
• Policy debator (talk • contribs): suspected puppets

• Original RCU

The Reader's Digest version (if possible...): this started with problems with User:Jim16, an account that appeared to be created so the user could vandalize as User:66.17.116.148 while logged off—except, he appeared to forget several times who was which, leading me to initiate the original RCU (that first example alone convinced me: look at the next two edits). Within the last few days, User:Jim16 apologized for and claimed to renounce vandalism, and asked me for help with an article he had created in January. Six hours later, User:Elliott Johnson (created in mid-March) showed up (after four edits to his own pages, two productive edits and then nothing for a month), ostensibly with a legitimate editing question, only to vandalize my page less than 20 hours afterwards. A similar attack came only 90 minutes later from User:Goat322, who tried lamely to cover that he aimed at me alone before doing it again. Today, I was hit with the same vandalism by User:Goat455 and User:Policy debator.

How is this potentially tied? User:Jim16 says he's "a liberal Democrat from South Dakota"; IP 66.17.116.148 traces to Swiftel Communications, Brookings, SD (these two are tied for sure, as above); User:Elliott Johnson claimed to be "a debator" (note the misspelling) from Brookings, SD, before erasing it; and, the timing from the rest certainly raises eyebrows. Finally, guess who reverted the last vandalism to my talk page, within a minute after it occurred? You got it: User:Jim16—who also has edited Policy debate (as, for that matter, has User:66.17.116.148).

I do want to WP:AGF and believe that User:Jim16 is sincere about turning over a new leaf, but the smell of socks permeates the room. At best, someone is setting him up... RadioKirk talk to me 03:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed I've taken the step of blocking the associated IP address indefinitely. An examination of the block log reveals persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)