Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/HK30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• comment: This is not a valid CheckUser request in my opinion because the user already admitted on his/her talk page that the anon IP is his/hers, and he used it before he created an account and did not know about the 3RR rule. After he recieved the warning message, he apologized and agreed to follow that rule. I see that he has so far. So, this user check serves no purpose at this point. Also, rehashing ancient history about me, even though its said above that I'm not involved, is also not appropriate here as I have no connection to this other than the fact that this user shares a similar POV, it seems. Certainly all the speculations above about other users and when I was away for a few days (I'm often away!), it a bit funny. Such speculations it seems to me is not warrented for their negative predjudical effect it has, and its not fair. Anyone can be creative and try to connect tenuous leaps of logic and speculate openly in such a negative manner without any evidence (incuding bring up things in the past that have been proven to be wrong), but such is not fair and its an exmaple of assuming bad faith. Giovanni33 02:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry to clog up this page, but I would urge that the check still be carried out. Giovanni has a history of massive edit warring and sockpuppetry to get his way. The BelindaGong account showed up shortly after he registered, reverted immediately to his version, continued, like him, to violate 3RR when warned (i.e. not an accidental fourth revert having lost count), followed him to several other pages to vote for what he was voting for, to revert to his version, and to support him on talk pages, giving the impression of consensus. The two accounts pretended to have no connection to each other, despite being repeatedly asked. Finally, after a user check showed that they were the same, he then said she was his wife. Then, while he was blocked, the Freethinker99 account turned up, said he was new and had read the talk page and agreed with Gio, began to revert to his version, several times, and then answered a question addressed to Gio on Gio's talk page,[1] forgetting he was logged on as Freethinker, hastily changed the signature,[2] and then, since we had seen it, said that in fact he did know Gio, and had let him use his computer while Gio was showing him how to use Wikipedia. The whole of Talk:Christianity/Archive 24 is devoted to the issue of Giovanni's sockpuppetry.

• As the user has agreed on his talk page that the IP address is his, there is no need to verify that. I would still request a usercheck, however, as there is a disturbing history of brand new editors turning up to support Giovanni, and as two of them have been shown to have an IP connection, and as two others show from their contributions that they are on Wikipedia for the purpose of reverting to his version, as HK30 is using similar arguments, similar behaviour, and similar edit summaries, as he is showing non-newbie familiarity with terms such as "NPOV" and "pushing a POV" (despite claiming that he wasn't aware of the 3R rule), and as he has now, a few hours after registering, started voting at an AfD. The claim that he wasn't aware of the rule is unlikely, given his obvious familiarity with Wikipedia, and the fact that he made his last three reverts plus two talk page contributions after I informed him of the rule on his talk page, so that orange bar would have been flashing up on his screen for every single edit, until he went to his user talk page. Thank you. AnnH ♫ 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is just a fishing expedition of sorts. As I've said the digging up of questionable history, only parts of which are true, is a rather lame attempt to justify further user checks without sufficient probably cause. Its not true that this user has the same style, and comments in the edit summaries and elswhere--at least not anymore than almost anyone else. Its clear this is part of an agenda, a vendetta based on the fact that I've been in various content disputes over POV's with Musical Linguist, so she has an axe to grind, hence the pasting of the above ancient history, which Im frankly not even going to bother to refute, except to point out that past user checks proved I was innocent, and BelindaGong is my wife, who I offered to prove (but no one cares that its true); the other user was my friend I was introducing to Wikipeadia, and I used his computer while at his house to respond ONLY to a commment on my own talk page. Again, all this is rather irrelevant. I just think its inappropriate to make this about me, again. But, if you want to check on me again (I guess they will keep checking anytime there is anyone who is not a Christian), then I will continue to be proven innocent. Its a wild goose hunt. Giovanni33 02:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

User:HK30 has been indefinitely banned - see WP:AN/I

In this users defense, he/she was new and did not originate that site or spread it. He seems to just want a response from the users who it is about, in effect alerting them, and having the real problem it talks about openly discussed. I also note that the user, after being notified of his vio for the 3RR reverted himself so as not to violate the rule, and promised to follow the rules. I think he/she is a good user and that this bann is not just, esp. not indefintitely. Giovanni33 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)