Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Allgoodnamesalreadytaken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Allgoodnamesalreadytaken}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Allgoodnamesalreadytaken

main edit links history watch
Filed: 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Replace this text with your explanation of your request for checkuser and examples of policy violations. Bsharvy 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Allgoodnamesalreadytaken and Gtadoc are supporting each other, e.g [1] and [2]. Allgoonames's Talk page consists entirely of complimentary exchanges between Gtadoc and himself. Allgoodnames created his account 10AUG at 20:54, and Gtadoc's first comment on his Talk page was at 21:00 (6 minutes after the account was created)[3].

203.34.164.71 forged a complimentary comment on Gtadoc's Talk page, signing it "Stephen."[4] Gtadoc then edited the signature to make it a wiki-link to the Talk page of editor Stephen [5]. Stephen later asserted the comment was not his, at which point Gtadoc deleted the entire section.

Allgoodnames and Gtadoc post on the exact same themes: medical research and complaining that nobody respects their expertise [6] (this is Allgoodnames commenting on Gtadoc's Talk page, another case of supporting each other). IP addresses should not generally be considered sockpuppets; I sometimes forget to sign in before posting. However, in this case the IP posting is represented as someone other than Gtadoc (it is supporting him), and it involves forging a signature of another editor, which strikes me as extremely serious.

Here is a timelines of activity provided by a different editor:

--SXT4

Allgoodnames is primarily a single-puprose account: until yesterday, it had never edited any page except the page on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaskai, and he always weighed in on the same side as Gtadoc. The account user is remarkably skilled at using Wikipedia. Even though he registered less than a month ago and made his first edit two weeks ago, the user knows how to make WP complaints on the "incidents" page, place warning templates on User pages, make accusations about "wikistalking" and other violations of privacy, and track user contributions. In this part of the Talk page [7], he expertly explains why the page is protected even though the events he describes happened before he had even registered, and several weeks before he had ever edited.

In the same Talk page, he defended Gtadoc's comments against another editor's criticism that Gtadoc and I were using the page for personal disagreements. All this is on the Talk page for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only entry Allgoodnames has ever edited. Both he and Gtadoc have taken sides on various issues discussed there, creating the impression that there are two "votes" for those positions instead of one. Fake support on User Talk pages is probably less serious, but it still creates a false impression of sentiment on Wikipedia re the discussed issues. He/she/they have routinely complained about the uninformed, rude (insert various insults about rectums, dicks, and whatnot, here) editors in their "mutual" experience, and since their only "mutual" experience is the one Talk page, it is pretty clear whom they "mutually" criticize (me). All of these insults are propped up by the sockpuppetry. They are a fake show of support for one editor's view. Gtadoc edited the forged signature on his Talk page make it a wiki-link to the User's Talk page. When the User (Stephen, an admin, I think) wrote that it wasn't his comment, Gtadoc deleted the whole thing. The fake comment from the IP address was, of course, a show of support. So the basic violation is faking shows of support, deceiving other editors about editor sentiment, and outright attacks in the name of defending the "other" editor (sockpuppet).Bsharvy 04:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not "serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" --Deskana (talky) 09:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You can change the Code to A or G if you like. I've never made a checkuser request before, so I'm not sure how the categories/terms are meant. There is clear sockpuppetry, the account is a single-purpose account, and about half its posts are attacks. Bsharvy 13:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...where do I file complaints about harassment and stalking...apparently even of of WP? Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Allgoodnamesalreadytaken is now edit warring in the exact same page that Gtadoc previously edit warred, over the exact same paragraph, over the exact same points in the paragraph, and with the exact same editor (me) as Gtadoc previously edit warred [8]. What an amazing coincidence. Bsharvy 11:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a checkuser, here. Gtadoc hasn't edited recently. --Deskana (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You may be right, although the sockpuppetry lingers. Allgoodnames just reverted my revert of a Gtadoc edit here [9] (and pronounced me a vandal). So he can still create a show of two "votes" for the same position by defending all of Gtadoc's edits, and reverting any attempt to improve them. Also, personal opinion: forging editor signatures is an intensely disruptive behavior and the indivudal should be spanked sharply if possible. I don't know enough about the system to say whether that is an appropriate or possible use of checkuser. Over time, the post-mortem sockpuppetry will probably fade, so as long as no new puppets are reseurrected, I don't feel strongly about this checkuser request. Do spank signature-forgers, though. Bsharvy 03:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is just Bsharvy's attempt to reopen a request that was already terminated by --Akhilleus. As usual if Bsharvy can't get his way he just asks again after a few weeks, or in a different spot. Fortunately a RFC/U is being drafted on him atm (its looonnnggg).Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 19:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a clearer pattern of harassment and vandalism now. He has filed a 3RR on me [10] as a result of editing the Hiroshima article [11]. This is an edit of Gtadoc's that I added to; Allgoodnames has never edited the article in any way (other than to revert me). He has vandalized my Talk page three times in 24 hours. I go into more detail on the 3RR page. He is following me around reverting my edits including edits to my own Talk page. It's interfering with my ability to edit. Bsharvy 12:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not even going to bother responding anymore the the above types of nonsense. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 14:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

While Allgoodnames was blocked for a revert war, an IP reverted to the Gtadoc version. Was it block-evasion? [12]
  • The IP also edited the article on the Mayo Clinic [13], [14]
  • Gtadoc edited the article on the Mayo Clinic [15]
  • Allgoodnames and Gtadoc say they work together--at the Mayo clinic [16],

[17]

With my CheckUser hat off, it seems highly likely that the two users are the same person simply because of the amount of evidence you have linking the two together. However, disclosure of a CheckUser opinion is unnecessary due to the fact that the first account has now stopped editing. Any sort of conclusions from disclosure of CheckUser evidence would not help with anything. --Deskana (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I double checked with Deskana. This CU request is closed as Unnecessary. Kwsn(Ni!) 14:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.