Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1

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/Tony1}}
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] Tony1

main edit links history watch
Filed: 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been in a dispute on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and does not agree that there is a consensus. A new account, CharlesFinnegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) appears whose first edit is to remove the same section. Nakon 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Added Knocklittle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) due to first edit disruption on ANI. Nakon 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion about whether this checkuser should go forward, as it will undoubtedly absolve Tony, but the ongoing attempts to disrupt and drive Tony off of the MoS pages need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nakon that the edits by the sock are suspicious and need to be investigated. Fnagaton 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Clarify my reasoning - When warned about 3RR Tony1 replied with this uncivil edit. Also note the uncivil reply. Then note the "get a life" uncivil edit comment. It's clear the user is angry, perhaps angry enough to create an extra account.Fnagaton 23:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so the evidence is two diffs, that two editors removed the same (very contentious) text that has been disputed for days (weeks?). That's a fishing expedition. I'll remove that silly disputed text, too, if it's still there, so call me Tony's meatpuppet. So, we have a CU based on two similar reverts brought by someone who admits on AN/I that s/he doesn't know the dispute and doesn't know the editors involved (in other words, doesn't know Tony's ethics and doesn't know he's likely asleep). But please run the CU; I'd love to see the results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to run a check on Tony. I have checked the other throwaway accounts though, and they are on Tor, so call it an Inconclusive as to who they are operated by. Dmcdevit·t 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Darn, I so wanted to see those results :-) Well, at least I know that, like me, Tony has no idea what Tor is or how to get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of Fnagaton and he is trying to drive Tony off MOS Tictactoo (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Another new account created with Tor? Fnagaton 23:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Somebody's in over their head :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's why my talk page is semi-protected, to ward of these evil spirits. ;) Fnagaton 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these are all on Tor. Now blocked. Dmcdevit·t 09:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference; Tor (anonymity network). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but ... nice article; I don't understand a thing in the lead :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How ridiculous: as if I'd do something so transparent. I do think the issue should be followed up if the perpetrators can be identified. TONY (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: closing report; no actions taken, and no addition to the public archive at present. Anthøny 21:54, 2 May 2008 (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.