Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zer0faults

[edit] Merecat

• Merecat (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Zer0faults (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

I am asking for this to prove to the people who are constantly accusing me of being a sockpuppet that I am not. I would like to add the 74* IP I do not mind being published as proof, however the other IP is a linked directly to my Job and I would like that one not to be published, the company that starts with an S was merged with the company that starts with a C, which is where I work now. Unfortunatly I have to take this step as I am still being accused of being a sockpuppet. zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You already had a checkuser done, why are you wasting database resources on this nonsense? Also, please I hope someone realizes that 74.64.40.102 isn't actually in Virginia, anymore than, oh I don't know, 205.188.117.72 is, further more, while cpe-74-64-40-102.nyc.res.rr.com seems like it is pretty obvious, the IP range is actually assigned to California, exclusively, although the server is located in Brooklyn, I'll give them that--205.188.117.72 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated. Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 70.87.34.82

• 70.87.34.82 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Zer0faults (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Haizum (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 216.153.214.89 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

Two anonymous IPs, 70.87.34.82 and 216.153.214.89, posted stupid messages with my signature in order to throw mud on me after I had been blocked erroneously for an alleged 3RR violation. [1] [2] [3] I got blocked for "evading blocks" after the IPs' comments. [4] As what they did shows they were aware of the case and they did so very fast after it had started I would like to know if it was one these two users who were involved, who were in a conflict with me and who have a history of frequent reverts and disruption: Zer0faults (writes on his user page that he is from New York as is one of the IPs, evidence for conflict with me, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zer0faults) or Haizum (evidence for conflict block log).
Also note the comment left to me on my talk page about this:
your anonymous adversary is remarkably using the same ISP (Choice One Communications Inc and ThePlanet.com Internet Services, Inc) as suspected puppets of Rex.User talk:70.84.56.166user:216.22.26.46(3) Let's call it coincidence, just as the eery similarity in behaviour between Zero and Rex, and the odd choice of names Neutral arbiter (talk • contribs) and Zer0faults (talk • contribs). You could look into that some more.221.146.211.193 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Añoranza 12:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: 70.87.34.82 appears to be a backslashing open proxy, indef blocked, probably most recently used by Thewolfstar (judging from this edit and the fact that she has used a number of open proxies from this ISP). 216.153.214.89 belongs to an ISP headquartered in upstate New York but a reverse DNS lookup show a Massachusetts location. Thatcher131 12:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Why does the edit you pointed to make you think that it was Thewolfstar? That user has been blocked since 10 May and I had never been in contact with him, so why would he do this to me? Añoranza 13:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am challenging my inclusion in this RFCU, as these have started to become a fishing expedition and an intimidation tactic. This is the 3rd RFCU including me in it simply because these users do not agree with my opinions. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also the user who made the comment on Anoranza's page is part of a series of users from Kornet/Koreanet who have been banned. More personal attacks. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Declined. I see nothing here that requires checkuser. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously users knowing the case and wikipedia as a whole very well used IPs in order to throw mud on me. In how far does this not require a checkuser? Añoranza 14:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: There is no checkuser case here; no evidence of any policy violation, no evidence that it is in any way a serious matter, no evidence that the editors named have any connection to one another or the IPs listed. Checkuser is not for fishing. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No policy violation? No serious matter? Posting with the signature of another user, leading to him being blocked? I beg your pardon. There were only two editors in conflict with me who knew of the case and have a history of abuses that make it plausible to believe they are capable of such tactics, so I think I can ask for a checkuser. Añoranza 14:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated. There is no evidence it was either one of them, and that's a prerequisite to a check being run. However, it's obvious this isn't going anywhere until you get your way, so I ran the check. There is no connection of those IP addresses to either contributor, or to anyone else. Feel free to ask another checkuser to confirm. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course there is a connection between the IPs and an editor, maybe not one of the two I suspected, you are just unable to discover it. Añoranza 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)