Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tobias Conradi

[edit] Tobias Conradi

• Tobias Conradi (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Chrisjj2 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Hauke (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Sockpuppet denials on userpage [1]. Contributions look like people from tangotango.info, which he claims they are. See 15:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC) timestamp for claim of friendship Possible meatpuppets, would like confirmation. ShaunES 07:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Another admin, User:Pschemp, has been saying that a checkuser has confirmed that these are socks of Conradi. Conradi vehmantly denies this. I have looked for the previous Checkuser, which would have had to have been in the last couple of weeks, but cannot find it. If there was a previous checkuser, then all that is needed to settle this is a pointer to that checkuser. If not, then it would be nice to have this officially settle this once and for all. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tex was so kind to point me here. I did not claim nowhere that they are from tangotango.info nor tango.info. They are tango dancers and friends of mine. Hauke lives in Rostock and Chris in the UK. I strongly doubt that there could be any checkuser evidence that says they are me, because I use Deutsche Telekom, Berlin. I would like to see the other checkuser that Pschemp claims to have confirmed sock puppetry [2]. They are not meat puppets nor any other kind of puppets. They are Hauke and Chris people that can decide by themselves what they do and what not. And yes, they know tango.info and contribute to it as do many tango people. Thank you. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked in the chekuser request history and could not find any edit by Pschemp. What other way can people go to request checkuser? Are there logs were all checked users can be found? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That means little, Tobias. Nothing says that Pschemp made the request. And the clerk below makes that point that some requests do not even go through this page. I would just like to know if it was performed. If so, what was the official result. If not, I would like to see it performed now to try to settle this.

On a side note, if a new check is performed... Just before the two above accounts came into question, there were a series of edits by Tobias from several IP addresses. Tobias has admitted these were done by him, so there's really no need to bring them into the check. The only issue in contention at this point are the two other IDs listed above. - TexasAndroid 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and confirm. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: The situation was discussed at WP:ANI here (bottom of the page), although it does not seem to be in the ANI archives (a bot archiving problem?). I can also not find any record of a public checkuser request before, although the name rings a bell. Not all checkuser results are posted here, as sometimes the checkuser admins discuss cases on talk pages, ANI, etc. However, Chrisjj2's only edits were in response to Voice of All's denial of removing the protection from User talk:Tobias Conradi, which was proposed by Hauke [3]. Thatcher131 19:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not a bot archiving error, the ANI bot only archives topics that have not had any edits in the past three days. pschemp | talk 00:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: We've moved beyond the point of providing info that the checkuser might need for the request; I moved the rest of the discussion to the talk page. Thatcher131 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There's really no reason to continue with this request, it has been established that the two accounts are meatpuppets, and that Tobias used IP socks. The checkuser will tell you that one meatpuppet in in Germany, the other is in the UK, and will show the multiple ISP's and IP#'s that Tobias uses and besides, it has already been run. People with checkuser can verify this in their logs. pschemp | talk 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It was Pschemp who claimed that the checkuser confirmed they are sockpuppets. Please proceed. And she did not yet provide the checkuser info that she claimed was made. It has not been established that the two user's are meat puppets. Stop this wrong claim. And also stop the wrong meat puppet claim itself. As pointed out several times before, Pschemp should read WP:SOCK. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Declined. This whole thing is a mess, and at this point, I can't make heads or tails of what anybody is saying. If there is actually anything at issue here, take it to the Arbitration Committee. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you decline if you don't understand? Shouldn't you post the questions that you have? Feel free to ask. To clarify: the checkuser was used by Pschemp as part of a justification of an 8 week block of me and for to hold up sock puppet allegations. I would really like to see it. -- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what checkusers pschemp may or may not have had, but if you read the header on Requests for Checkuser, you will see that results are not released, ever. I don't see a case for running a checkuser here; everyone involved is of the opinion that these are different people, leaving no reason to check. If there is anything to be done, it can be done, as I said before, by the Arbitration Committee. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This reasoning I perfectly understand. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)