Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/subwayjack

[edit] subwayjack

• subwayjack (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Truthtruthtruth (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• JohnMoore (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Organizedconfusion (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Houston McCoy (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 71.115.108.98 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
• 68.187.194.251 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)
• 68.187.204.214 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip)

I suspect that User:Truthtruthtruth is yet another sockpuppet of John Moore, who has edited as User:Subwayjack (blocked indefinitely), JohnMoore (talk • contribs) (blocked indefinitely), Organizedconfusion (talk • contribs), Houston McCoy (talk • contribs) as well as IPs 71.115.108.98}} & 68.187.194.251}} and static IP 68.187.204.214}}. Now we have Truthtruthtruth, who is following the same pattern as John's other socks. John has a pattern. He makes edits feverishly for awhile, gets blocked, goes away for 3-4 weeks, hopes that everyone has forgotten about him and then comes swooping back in on the same 2 articles, Charles Whitman, Houston McCoy. And he seems obsessed with removing links, which is the main activity of all of his socks. This edit is 71.115.108.98's and this is Truthtruthtruth. John also has an obsession with references that don't have links or that have links but require you to log in or to create an account, even though we've explained this to him many many many many times. Truthtruthtruth's link above is an example of this, removing a link that "you can't read" even though it isn't even a link. It's just a citation of an article. As the static IP, John removed legitimate links because they were unfavorable to what he wanted to push. I cannot find the diff at the moment, but for awhile, he kept removing the Amarillo link in the McCoy article because "it led to nowhere" One of the first things truthtruthtruth has done is to create an article on another one of the officers involved in the Whitman shooting, Ramon Martinez, which is something that Moore called for. And that's all related to the removal of the links since John had argued many times that links involving others shouldn't be in the Whitman or McCoy articles, again, despite explanations to the contrary. Again, I could cite more. John is completely unscupolous. This is the man who has posed as his own "brother" as well as "Houston McCoy". I would be absolutely floored if truthtruthtruth isn't Moore as well as he John hadn't edited since early July, so the timing is right. --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Organizedconfusion blocked indef. Also, this[1] is an odd edit summary. Voice-of-All 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Declined This seems pretty obvious. Mackensen (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Obvious it is a sock or isn't? I don't follow. --Woohookitty^(meow) 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a sock.Voice-of-All 22:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: To avoid any confusion about this from people reading this in the future: declined would indicate that mackensen has not used checkuser. It is likely a reference to policy #2: "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser.". Kevin_b_er 23:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)