Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikzilla

[edit] Wikzilla

• Notnoteable (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wikzilla (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: F
• Supporting evidence: Wikzilla now a well known sockpuppet user and fanatic has boasted that he possesses many sleeper accounts to circumvent his ban [5]. In the past it was proven that he used dozens of sock accounts for unscrupulous activities : [[6]] Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla has resumed his activities in his favorite targets the Parallels between this new account and previous socks like Downtrip are quite apparent [7] [8]. Freepsbane (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as socks of Wikzilla (talk · contribs) -

1. Notnoteable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
2. Mtheaded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
3. Awisemansaysso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 18:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

All now blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikzilla

• Philbaaker‎ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wikzilla (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: F
• Supporting evidence: Note that Wikzilla has been rather active with many IPs and socks: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikzilla

Philbaaker reinserted some known Wikzilla content in a dispute with User:Freepsbane after a preliminary sockpuppet ID by Freepsbane, specifically, [9] and [10] - AGF, the insertion could simply have been putting back everything Freepsbane deleted, including some of Philbaaker's content. However, it's sufficiently suspicious that I believe a CU is in order. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 05:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: tagged and blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikzilla

• Wikzilla (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Downtrip (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 70.18.12.85 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 141.157.252.153 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 70.18.1.60 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Code letter: F
• Supporting evidence: Wkizilla a user blocked for incivility, vandalism and sock puppetry claims to have many sock accounts [11] several have already been uncovered by users. [12] However after the ought right socks were blocked several more ambiguously named accounts surfaced. Accounts that none the less still continue about the same type of edits that the original made;[13] these suspected accounts have the same tendency to operate primarily in Military air craft pages [14] [15]. And have the same means of retaliation against editors who annoy them. [16].[17] [18]. A review of user contributions suggests a relation but lacks conclusive evidence as such, a check user would show if the suspicions were warranted. Freepsbane (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Wikzilla is, of course, already indef blocked, the others are not. The two 70.18.X.X ips are part of a large /13 range in New York City. The other ip is also New York City. -JodyB _talk 12:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed the IPs are Downtrip (used for tag-team edit warring). Likely, based on IP range, that Downtrip = Wikzilla, but it's impossible to confirm based on IP evidence alone because of the age of the Wikzilla account. Dmcdevit·t 05:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Freepsbane's message on my talk page so I came here. Both he and another editor have been accusing me of being a Sockpuppet virtually from the start. Freepsbane has a problem with Fourth generation jet fighter where it seems that there was consensus to remove a section. He did not agree with it. The entry was blocked and that was the last I heard from him until this evening. If you check that entry as well as the Eurofighter entry there seems to be one or two people who do not want to go along with the consensus.

I am new here but when almost from the day I started I start getting a couple of people vandalising my talk page and making false accusations I get to know the rules and a bit about my alleged master Wickzilla. Rest assured I am not that person. I honestly cannot think how anyone would come to that conclusion based on our IP addresses coming from the same very large ISP.

As for the other IP addresses listed above, yes I may have inadvertently edited not logged in when I thought that I was. It happens when you have multiple screens up. I caught myself once or twice doing it and promptly reverted, logged in and then added the comment again. I must stress those are accidents and I do apologize and now that I am more familiar as to how things work here I have been careful to ensure that I am logged in when editing. If there is a way to attribute my user id to those comments and someone shows me how to do it I would be more than willing to do so. Lastly, I would point out to you that I am not the only user that disagrees with Freepsbane in regard to the the 4th gen entry and there really is no need to resort to subterfuge. The consensus exists and he does not like it.Downtrip (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After further research I doubt that I was 141.157.252.153. I do not recall editing Bell 212, JT-8D, or Dornier.Downtrip (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if one were to assume all your above claims are accurate(a unlikely case) then there is still the fact you used the Anon addresses to violate 3RR [[19]] and provide the illusion of consensus, it is clear that it was not accidental but instead used to circumvent policy. furthermore there was never consensus a quick check of the page history of the 4th generation fighter shows only his puppets were in favor of blanking the section. [20].

Additionally you have provided no evidence to explain why all your contribs were in the same style and articles as Wikizilla or given any evidence to discredit the checkuser results on you, and I find it relevant to point out that users ruled shown as probable socks of a blocked master are tipicaly blocked. [21] and Wikizilla was well known for his use of puppets [22].Freepsbane (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong I never tried to provide the illusion of consensus. Just look at the discussion pages there are plenty of non anon users that disagree with you and there are plenty of IPs not in the VERIZON (note very large nationwide ISP) that do not agree with you either. The facts do not bear out your theory and it really is pretty sleazy for you to make that suggestion if all you are trying to do is get your point across. I am not going to try and discredit any checkuser results because you cannot disprove something that is not true. Unfortunately sleazy people like you resort to this sort of tactic whenever the facts are not in their favor. I am growing tired of this witch hunt. Admins if you have incontrovertible evidence that I have done anything in a deliberate fashion to mislead anyone please bring it out now. This charade has gone on long enough. If you do not I would hope that you would instruct people liek freepsbane to keep their accusations to themselves.Downtrip (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it should be pretty obvious to anyone that Wickzilla is/was more than one person.Downtrip (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)