Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon

[edit] Zarbon (fifth request)

• Zarbon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• OJHomer (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Recoome (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 219.88.183.189 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 222.152.179.74 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 222.153.68.65 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 69.86.129.29 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• GO DBZ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: A, F

Okay, if you see the history page of Action figure, you'll notice that an account (OJHomer) was created by one of the IPs there just as a way to sway consensus. Here's the suspicious part: User:OJHomer was just newly created by one of those IPs moments ago and suddenly knew all about 3rr, sockpuppets, etc., what I'm trying to figure out here is which one of these IPs created this account. His obsession with the Zarbon image on that article just leads me to believe that he is User:Zarbon, an abusive user that used sockpuppets/meat puppets in the past to gain consensus and revert for him. He continued to evade his block several times and had even asked to be unblocked using an anon IP address; his request was denied[1]. He edited articles like, Zarbon, Action figure, and other similar ones in which he commonly used socks to do his work for him. I am begging to ask someone for help here becasue I do not know the "codes" to activate this CheckUser since I know it is the only way to figure out if this is truly Zarbon's work or not. Someone please help me... Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Hi. We can only accept a checkuser case under very limited circumstances, which are spelled out in the section above entitled, "Does your request belong here?" We can't even start taking action on this until you provide the examples of policy violations that you think justify this request. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: after the full details of this request were added, it has become clear that the code letter for this request is F (Evasion of community-based bans or blocks). I have added the letter to the appropriate spot. Also, this case has been history-merged from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/OJHomer, which was the initial place of creation, per a request from Jpgordon. Daniel.Bryant 07:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: further, it has been recorded by Rebecca (talk) that technical evidence indicates it is Unlikely that Zarbon is Recoome. Her comment was:

The behaviour does seem odd, but the IP information does not point to them being the same person. Considering the content, it could conceivably be a friend brought into revert, however. Rebecca 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zarbon#Zarbon (fourth request). Daniel.Bryant 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Likely that Recoome is OJHomer. Likely that the IPs other than the 69 one is one or the other of those. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that User:GO DBZ was added onto this page before, but the user was a clear sockpuppet, and I blocked him as such. No further use of checkuser is required. --Deskana (request backup) 13:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zarbon (fourth request)

• Zarbon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Recoome (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: F

Zarbon, the mucho blocked- and banned- user. Several users have expressed concern that Zarbon may indeed be editing Wikipedia using a new sockpuppet, User:Recoome. User:Power level (Dragon Ball) lists his concerns at my talk page, see User talk:Deskana#Some proof as to how User:Recoome may very well be User:Zarbon. Thank you. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: In addition, I request that the IP address of this user is disclosed, in accordance with the privacy policy relating to persistant vandalism, to enable me to target IP blocks should the sockpuppets once again come along. This user is persistant, and is consistently creating new sockpuppets and causing trouble. If you are unwilling to disclose the IP address publicly, please e-mail me the IP address and I promise I will both keep it known only to myself, and target blocks in a discreet manner in order to not violate the privacy policy. Thanks. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely. The behaviour does seem odd, but the IP information does not point to them being the same person. Considering the content, it could conceivably be a friend brought into revert, however. Rebecca 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zarbon

• Zarbon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Dodoria (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Code letter: E

Evidence: Zarbon has a long history of apparent sockpuppetry, and I just blocked him today for two months for what is at least his fourth 3RR violation (and possibly his sixth), this one to the article Zarbon. Dodoria also violated 3RR on that page and earned a 48h block, but if it turns out both users are identical, then I'll probably indef-block both for the wide variety of charges. Dodoria admits to being a "friend of Zarbon" [2], and picked up on the reverting of Zarbon after User:Zarbon had already violated 3RR. Dodoria shows strong knowledge of certain Wikipolicies for a user who's been here less than a month. I'm sure he's a sock of someone, but I need to know if he's a sock of Zarbon to levy appropriate blocks. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Diffs:

Reverts by Zarbon to Zarbon: [3], [4], [5], and [6]

Reverts by Dodoria to Zarbon: [7], [8], and [9]

Reverts by Zarbon to Dodoria: [10], [11], [12], and [13]

Reverts by Dodoria to Dodoria: [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18]

Confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 00:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zarbon

• Zarbon (talk · contribs)
• Wiki-star (talk · contribs)
• Andymack1986 (talk · contribs)
• 72.227.129.181 (talk · contribs)
• 72.227.132.62 (talk · contribs)

Zarbon has admitted to using many different IP addresses to bypass blocks in the past (see his talk page and his list of sockpuppets). It appears that he uses Wiki-star to edit Dragon Ball Z articles and upload copyvio images (as he does as Zarbon) while Zarbon is blocked, which is often. Wiki-star has the same issues with civility in his discussions[19][20], the same paranoia [21][22], the same poor grammar, and the same inconsistent formatting of indents and bullet points. Zarbon has claimed to have started the Brendan Filone article, and since Andymack1986's only edit was the creation of that article (just days before Zarbon registered) it stands to reason that they are one and the same. Zarbon is currently listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and it would be helpful to identify his sockpuppets for the purpose of the inquiry. Kafziel 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Andymack1986 is far too old for extant IP evidence. Absent a serious policy violation we don't comment on actual IPs. Finally Wiki-star is likely not a sockpuppet of Zarbon. Mackensen (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Kind of scary to imagine that there's more than one of him. Thanks. Kafziel 22:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 149.68.168.147 (talk · contribs) and 149.68.168.138 (talk · contribs)

Suspected sockpuppet of Zarbon (talk · contribs) who has been blocked and is using various IP addresses to bypass the block. Placed on checkuser per User:Nlu. Kafziel 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

He's already moved on to 149.68.168.138, and I'm assuming he can cycle through most of that netblock, since most of his other sockpuppets here are in that block. Everything from those IPs appears to be Zarbon at least in terms of editing the same articles he edits in the same way he does. 4.89.242.158 22:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Declined. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why??? Kafziel 13:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the policy above. This doesn't meet it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In what way? As I stated above, an admin asked me to post this here so she could be absolutely sure before blocking this IP. Just because he moved on to another IP doesn't mean that he won't be back - if you look at the history of all of his IP address contribs, you'll see he cycles through them. I'm not the one who wrote the whole "editing the same articles in the same way" stuff. The IP address I asked about (149.68.168.147) is clearly tagged and linked with actual proof. If that's too much effort, here you go.

What's the use of this page if not to link an IP address with an established Sockpuppeteer? In fact, what's the use of this page when everyone has to wait days for a reply, just to get summarily denied without explanation? Kafziel 11:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The use of this page is to deal with hard cases, where it is not clear whether sockpuppetry is going on, and where the answer to that question has significant ramifications. The criteria are deliberately narrow due to a consensus that privacy concerns govern except in the most egregious cases. You have to substantiate that the user is disrupting the site in an way that can't be dealt with using any other means as per the criteria listed. If someone is clearly being a pest from multiple IPs, just block them, don't list them here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

There, was that so hard? Why couldn't you just say that to begin with? Obviously, most of the people who are posting users to this page are spending a good amount of their time trying to improve Wikipedia, and in my case I specifically said that an admin asked me to post that IP address here before she blocked it. It wouldn't kill you to have enough courtesy to offer more than a "declined". Kafziel 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult or discourteous. This is a fairly new page and we're getting dozens of inappropriate requests, so I'm merely being brief. The majority of the the requests placed here don't meet the criteria, and I'm puzzled as to why people even post them since the page header makes the criteria pretty clear. I have tried to tighten up the wording somewhat on the front matter to help prevent such misunderstandings in the future. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)