Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny 17

[edit] Danny 17

• Danny 17 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Specialservice (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Lancastria (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 77.98.177.54 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Code letter: B

Banned permatroll User:Lancastria/User:Specialservice has resurfaced again using the exact ip User:77.98.177.54 and now the login name User:Danny 17. See the original banning case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Specialservice. Proof that "Danny 17" is "Lancastria/Specialservice" is elemantary.

First the previously indentified and banned ip 77.98.177.54 made an edit to his old hunting ground here. After being reverted User:Danny 17 then makes the exact same edit here. Danny 17 then begins to troll on my talkpage here, a favorite pastime of User:LancastriaUser:Specialservice. There is no doubt this this banned user is back Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose request as per policies listed above. Request for Check should be declined- Please ask the user Riana for input. He/She created my userpage by way of my official college email address as my college's IP is blocked from editing. I will copy the email exchange we had if this is required. Please see my userpage which Prester has added several "message boxes" to without my consent. I have asked advice from another user (sorry can't remember the username) who said I should just keep out of Prester's way. I'm happy to do that. Ask Riana, she or he will confirm that I am a college username. I think this is being blown out of proportion by Prester because I asked him to remove a slightly inflammatory message on his profile page. --Danny 17 13:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I must ask how me reverting one of your edits makes me the same person who did the edit originally? --Danny 17 13:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did create Danny's account. I don't know how this proves that Danny isn't a sock, but he certainly did e-mail me from his college e-mail address on the 11 of September. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't we check what the Winstanley college IP address is? Then we will see that the college IP and the IP listed above are different. --Danny 17 13:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading through the Check Users policy I see no justification for this check? Prester could you point it out to everyone... or just drop the whole thing :) --Danny 17 13:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And one final argument (sorry). Prester, understanding my lack of knowledge of profile pages was helpful enough to create mine for me - shame about the content http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Danny_17&action=history - another violation of policy. --Danny 17 13:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, our e-mail doesn't contain your IP. Winstanley College is located in Wigan and WHOIS for 77.98.177.54 places it in Preston, but I know that British IPs aren't great for geolocation. I guess a Checkuser will tell. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Should be OK. It'll have to wait until monday morning when I go to college then I can get our IP off the system. Will I need to use the same computer to get the IP or should they all be the same. If they are different I will have about 50 Greater Manchester IP's listed LOL. And one more thing - checkuser's are apparently very strict on the circumstances they are operator. This is definately not one of those circumstances. --Danny 17 14:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to sign off now but will continue this discussion on Monday. --Danny 17 14:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm the other user mentioned by Danny 17. I happy to detail what I know. Nothing at all. Why was a user banned indefinitely for two edits? How can it be established that the user is the same one, if it is from a college ip? Pardon my ignorance of this process, but I think it is overused, invasive, and I seriously doubt there is any benefit the community. A genuine new user would not be back after such treatment, I imagine this 'proves it' in the imaginings of the conspiratorial minds of its supporters. Does such heresy earn me a check user, would I be informed of this? Cygnis insignis 14:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! I wasn't even told when this was filed! Now I really do need to go. Back Monday Morning! --Danny 17 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that my IP address is 212.219.56.194 as confirmed by trying to edit with it just now--Danny 17 08:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Prester John is vandalising my user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADanny_17&diff=164671683&oldid=164609306 - I will not have my edits discredited without evidence. PJ should ask a senior Wikipedia editor to brand my profile with "SOCKPUPPET" if he feels this is justified. Though without evidence am confused as to why this is justified --Danny 17 08:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Danny - my advice to you is don't object to the RFCU. If you are not who PJ says you are or you haven't violated WP:SOCK, then the check user will work to your advantage by clearing your name. regards --Merbabu 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand but why should I fall to PJs violation of policy just to prove my innocence. It is a matter of principle. There is no point in policy making the Check user neccesary or legitimate. I must continue my opposition --Danny 17 11:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There would be no violation of privacy, as were I to check I would not reveal any personally identifiable information, inline with our privacy policy. I find your opposition to this check rather curious. --Deskana (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not worried about privacy - the people on this site aren't criminals, I have revealed my college on my profile as you can see. I object because of such a clear violation of policy. It's not right --Danny 17 09:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Declined at this time. Prester John can be assured that I am watching the situation very closely, including that IP and the behaviour of Danny 17. --Deskana (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, I reviewed this checkuser case. I felt the evidence linking Lancastria to Danny 17 was insufficient. However, I still decided to check Lancastria's old IPs to see if he was operating any sleepers. Having checked Lancastria's old IP for sleepers, I found that Danny 17 was Lancastria. However, given that I did not find sufficient evidence of that, I wondered whether perhaps Lancastria had reformed somewhat, so I contacted Danny 17 privately and promised him a second chance if he would agree to a few terms, and that I would tag the case as "Declined" should he agree. I made him promise to stay away from Prester John and articles he edits. I said that if Lancastria truly wishes to be a productive editor, he can easily stay away from Prester John's articles since we have over two million. He agreed. Despite promising not to edit the same articles, he has continued to do so, stating that he must revert "Prester John's racism". As he is incapable of sticking to the terms I have layed out, Danny 17 is hereby blocked indefinitely as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of User:Lancastria. --Deskana (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)