Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/LUCPOL: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:17, 26 February 2007 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,541 edits Archive← Previous edit Revision as of 08:18, 26 February 2007 edit undoDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,541 edits spNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>
{{subst:rfuca}}
<!--
If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name.
-->
{| class="messagebox"
| style="text-align: center" | 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 </br><span style="font-size: 125%">'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''</span></br> to the checkuser page . Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on ] (but will still appear here).
|}
<div style="background: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;">
<center>''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it'''</font>.</center>
<!-- END ARCHIVE TEMPLATE -->


=== LUCPOL === === LUCPOL ===

Revision as of 08:18, 26 February 2007

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
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/LUCPOL}}
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.

LUCPOL

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: A

Multiple accounts that appear to me to be the same user. They have all been suspiciously active at similar times on the same select pages as LUCPOL. I have already argued with him a number of times over his vandalistic edits which, as it seems to me, he claims to justify, or "erases them from memory."

He has already had some of his sockpuppets blocked:

He has already been blocked 4 times:

Here are just a few examples: *

  • (personal attack)
  • (happens yet again here)
  • (R9tgokunks' historical moves of Silesia City, which both took place after LUCPOL had moved Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union 2-3 times, without consensus)
  • (User LUCPOL finally decided to use factual information, and he agreed and put Silesia City up for Speedy Deletion with the title "The name is wrong... please delete!")

-- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 05:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 Clerk note:
  •  Additional information needed. We need a reason to run a checkuser, and evidence supporting that reason. Please describe what has he done that rises to the level of checkusering, and please provide diffs demonstrating this conduct. Essjay (Talk) 09:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

no Declined. I can't make heads or tails of what is being alleged here. Checkuser requests should be formatted in a manner that demonstrates a clear connection between the puppetmaster and the puppeteers, with particular emphasis on allegations of specific violations of Misplaced Pages policies, naming those policies and showing relevant diffs of the violations, with explanation as needed. Essjay (Talk) 02:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LUCPOL

Multiple accounts that appear to me to be the same user. All involved in the same edit wars on the following pages, Rapcore, Limp Bizkit, and Fred Durst, two of which have been protected. All the users show the same weak grasp of the English language, their talk pages and edit summaries would seem to be perfect support of this.
With the exception of LUCPOL and SZPANER all the users only edit on articles involved in the edit war.

Users have posted in support of eachother in talk pages, using similar grammar, spelling, and arguements.

The main SOCK appears to be Hans Schwarc, who has been banned twice for being suspected as a SOCK, and was used to evade a block which led to the second block.

John Amber, besides his rather frequent timely appearances to save LUCPOL from violating 3RR, made two edits that I believed to indicate he thought he was posting as LUCPOL while signed is and John Amber, in both cases responding to messages to LUCPOL and responding with messages that LUCPOL had previously used on his own talkpage, among other places. When asked about this he edited the responses, still using language very similar to LUCPOL'S own.

SZPANER is only listed here because LUCPOL listed him in his list, of users that supposedly are not, even though I don't think SZPANER was ever accused, nor have I seen anyone question LUCPOL about this. Looking into the users history he does show some indications of being a SOCK, but LUCPOL's comments are what really made me suspicious.

83.18.242.234 is listed just because I believe it to be LUCPOL's IP, or at least one he has access to. It is from the same country as LUCPOL Poland. The IP also, much like LUCPOL and the others, accuses all those agaisnt him in edit wars of vandalism and uses broken English.

I believe there is little or no chance that these users are not SOCKs, and even if they arent they work as a group to edit war across multiple pages.

Wildnox 22:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked Hans Schwarc indefinely as an obvious sockpuppet/throwaway account. He only edits articles edited by LUCPOL, and only after LUCPOL has been blocked. I'm not sure about the others, though. alphaChimp 00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved comments: discuss here --Wildnox 04:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 Clerk note: Please keep comments to a minimum per line 2 of the RFCU procedure. Please use the talk page for discussion. Thank you. Kevin_b_er 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 Confirmed. All accounts (save the IP) controlled by the same user. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2006 (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.