Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Newport

• Newport (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Brownlee (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 20.138.246.89 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Also, possibly:

• Poetlister (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Londoneye (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: D

Main user has a history of sock puppetry accusations. [1]

Users are prone to POV-push on most articles. They are extremely revert trigger-happy. They often leave identical edit comments. They often finish each other's conversations on TALK pages, backing up one another on every possible occasion and repeating the exact same arguments. Users rarely edit except when an article on their watchlist is edited.

Often one username begins the argument in talk, and others join in out of no where. This gives off the appearance that their POV is shared by more than one person. Despite working so seamlessly on Article talk pages, and continuously reverting all but each other's edits on their twin articles of interest, these users have never left a comment on each other's talk pages.

Users stack AFDs and CFDs, often re-appearing from month-long hiatuses to vote on an AFD or CFD. Usually they leave "rhetorical questions" as their reason for keeping an article or category. They rarely if ever respond to inquires on talk pages or on AFDs/CFDs. Users often POV-push for a certain ideology on articles, and seem to spread information to one another without ever talking to each other - at least on wikipedia. They/He/She often takes edits to their watchlisted articles very personally and rarely if ever attempt to find a consensus.

One of these users has been accused for participating in similar edit wars where they pretend to be more than one user to give off the illusion that there is a majority view versus a minority view. This is my main reason for suspicion. Users main contributions are adding categories to articles, reverting, and bio-flagging. They do not assume good faith very often either. They occasionally leave "sarcastic" personal attacks, but other than that are civil despite having issues separating personal viewpoints from a objective content dispute. Often try their best to get the user they argue with "blocked" "banned" or "warned" so they do not have to continue the disputes and can implement their POV.

They appear to utilize these multiple usernames to the best of their ability to skew opinions. This is the main issue besides the possible vote-stacking.

There are many example to give so I'm not sure which to list. Perhaps it can be suggested to me a specific one if needed. Jujugoe 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed Code. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Code D could apply here I guess Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_12#Category:Christian_mathematicians, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_12#Jewish_mathematicians though other things may apply outside this scope like illegitimate uses of sock puppets

I have indef blocked Jujugoe for trolling. The only edits by this user are a smiley on their user page and this request for checkuser. Feel free to reverse my action if you don't consider it justified. Tyrenius 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tyrenius. This seems to be an attempt to smear people who have been in edit wars with Antidote and his sockpuppets in retribution for the blocking of these sockpuppets following thios recent RfCU[2]. It is not true that the main user has a history of sock puppetry accusations; she was accused and blocked once, but subsequently unblocked.--Runcorn 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]