Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser | Case

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HoboJones (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 11 December 2008 (→Cumulus Clouds: additional evidence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cumulus Clouds

Suspected Puppet

I was opposed to this initial checkuser, because at the time the user did nothing wrong and I felt he simply wanted a chance to make a new account and leave his old one behind, which all users should have the chance to do. However, as it seems the new account had only a single purpose, to mask the degree of his involvement in an ANI, and was indefinitely blocked, Cumulus Clouds is now evading his indefinite block by continuing to edit. Cumulus Clouds first stopped editting on 8 November 2008, after a short block, and TGH1970 began editting on 20 November 2008. After he did not receive the answer he wanted at ANI and was blocked on 6 December 2008, he went and editted more with Cumulus Clouds beginning 10 December 2008. Based on the time differences it is very plausible, however more evidence must be given. Judging purely by the users interactions with others I'd have to say the two accounts act the same, and others agree. More specific evidence, the ANI that TGH1970 brought up had entirely to do with an external website called the Something Aweful forums, which Cumulus Clouds is familiar with. Secondly, as TGH1970 he posted a !vote (the only vote he posted) on RMHED's arbcom election here, which makes reference to their previous interaction on Cumulus Clouds here, here, and here. Along with more evidence shown in the declined request (which I will repeat here for conciseness), such as a tendency to delete warning messages from his talk page (Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here), and talk down directly to users within his edit summaries (Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here). Finally, looking at his comments below I feel TGH1970 was more badgering users here at the checkuser to prevent his puppet from being discovered rather than out of a feeling of upholding the sanctity of privacy. Overall I feel TGH1970's behavior is exactly like Cumulus Clouds' behavior. Thanks if you can look into this, I really don't want anyone to get around a block without going through the proper procedures. Banime (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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/Cumulus Clouds}}
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.

Cumulus Clouds

Suspected Puppet

The possible connection between new account TGH1970 and CC was brought to my attention on my talk page (User_talk:Protonk#TGH1970) by User:RMHED noticed a behavioral similarity between the two accounts. The initial suspicion for filing this is listed the the previous (declined) RFCU for TGH: Wikipedia:RFCU#A_plague_of_rainbows. I'm opening this up and will ask RMHED and Banime to provide specific diffs and evidence as they are more familiar with possible relationships. Please do not archive this until they have commented, a reasonable period of time has passed, or you feel that it is very unlikely that a request would be granted at all. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

User:Cumulus Clouds is a user in good standing who has not edited since November 7.

This account was registered on November 20, fully 13 days later. There is no overlap. Cumulus Clouds has not edited since November 7 and since that time has not been suspected in any violations of policy or sockpuppetry. Nor am I. This is a fishing expedition at it's finest and it should be rejected. TGH1970 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed This looks like it should be taken to WP:SSP, but as CC is not blocked now, it is not a B or F, and this appears too much like fishing to be a straight G. Is there any more evidence? -- Avi (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we need more evidence here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some things: I'd have to preface these diffs with a statement. The other checkuser I brought up because I thought it was a strong possibility he was a blocked user getting around his block. Cumulus Clouds is not blocked, despite having a rowdy and confrontational past, and I already know that any Checkusers here will utilize extreme discretion before agreeing to a checkuser but I'd like to urge you to continue to use extreme discretion anyway. If there is no reason at all to checkuser these accounts then please do not. At the same time if someone feels that one should be followed through I will provide these diffs of possible links for anyone who wishes to pursue that, but I stand by my statement that it, most likely, should not be done so far in this situation. Now on to the diffs if someone feels the need to pursue this link. Both users have histories of removing negative messages or warning from their talk pages. Cumulus Clouds here, here, and here and TGH1970 here. Both users have shown tendencies to talk directly to the user whose edits they are deleting with harsh or negative edit summaries Cumulus Clouds here and TGH1970 here --Banime (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::*Here in wikipedia, there are plenty of editors who remove negative comments from their talkpages, and unfortunately, many of them do so in an abrasive fashion. I am sorry, but I do not think that is a sufficient correlation to run a checkuser test, and I will have to mark this current request no Declined. -- Avi (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed There has been a request to hold off archiving this page as more evidence may be forthcoming. -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you can probably archive it. RMHED got the message about this at the same time as Banime. I assume that he doesn't have too much in the form of hard evidence to add that Banime hasn't already and I assume (based on his multiple edits after my edit to his talk page) that he has seen my message. Thanks for being patient. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I submitted the last checkuser about CC and I see nothing in this that makes even the most remote of a case for checkuser. Lots of people remove warnings from their talk pages. I've interacted with CC on many occasions. I've disagreed with him at extreme length and I see nothing similar with this account.
    That said, I can certainly see how User:TGH1970 fits the profile of a sockpuppet. Reviewing the past of this account, you will note the use of edit summaries from the get-go. You will note that the talk page and user page were filled in and then blanked (almost immediately at account creation) in a clear attempt to remove red links in signature links/edit summaries. This person is clearly a veteran of Wikipedia and is likely a sock, IMHO.
    ...but this person isn't CC (and you won't find me defending CC much). — BQZip01 — talk 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined — Rlevse • Talk • 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cumulus Clouds

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this is either an attempt to evade a WP:3RR block via this ruling or is continued harassment by user:TomPhan (previously blocked in another rfcu). Which one? I am not sure. I am highly suspect in these two three IP contributions. All have no other substantial contributions other than to pages on which I have worked, and two edit summaries use the same sentence structure. While the throwaway account fits TomPhan's modus operandi, the citation of a non-existent consensus through discussion on the talk page or demand for nonexistent policy as the reasons for this actions fit the actions of Cumulus Clouds. I would like some sort of confirmation as to which path should be taken: WP:ANI, WP:3RR, or WP:SSP; the outcome of this rfcu determines which action to take so I don't make a spurious allegation. — BQZip01 — talk 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkusers responding to this request should be aware that it occurs in the context of an ongoing RfC initiated by BQZip against Cumulus Cloud - the RfC was begun after an MfD on an evidence page in BQZip's userspace was closed directing BQ to file or delete it. Its been a contentious RfC, with numerous related AN threads and its even been deleted and restored once via CSD. Avruch T 05:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Avruch's assessment, in general, but would like to point out that the the aforementioned page that was attempted to be MfD'd was always intended as a prep for a WP:ANI, RfC, or RfA. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WHOis shows two IPs are from Washington, Maryland and another from Deleware (awfully close together...). — BQZip01 — talk 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added another IP who made a bad faith edit to this page...surprise, surprise it is the user's only edit... — BQZip01 — talk 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
201.210.90.212 is a TOR node. I've reported it for blocking. Franamax (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one from Italy fits the same profile. — BQZip01 — talk 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reported. TOR nodes may be of limited use for checkuser, I've modified the header above so the CU is aware of the IP node status. Franamax (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the user in good standing Cumulus Clouds was not notified of this RFCU. I have done so. Lawrence § t/e 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the directions for WP:RFCU; there is no requirement to do so. Furthermore: [4] [5] — BQZip01 — talk 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeking a block of either of these users due to these actions unless they are confirmed. In such a case, I will request such a block in another appropriate venue. — BQZip01 — talk 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't take this one so personally. For the most part, I believe you, BUT there is that nagging doubt in the back of my mind. TomPhan's socks were indeed blocked on his last request. If this isn't you, then he has gone to IP editing...which is also sockpuppetry. I am not fishing for who it is. I am pretty sure it is you or him ( I feel that LawrenceCohen might be obnoxious, but this doesn't fit his style and therefore this isn't him. Considering I have no beef with anyone else and/or these patterns don't fit anyone else, I'm forced to think it is CC or TP). If it isn't you, then you have nothing to fear. This is why I tried this before dragging your name to WP:ANI, but Lawarence Cohen just had to cause more controversy and stir up trouble... — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said "might". Things were fine here and were simply awaiting a checkuser until you decided to inflame the situation and figuratively say, "Hey! let's make this a debate page!" CC didn't need to know or weigh in on this. You have an agenda against me and have stated so. Your wikistalking is disruptive and only incites more problems. Furthermore, your honesty is questionable when you state, "I also took nothing to ANI"...
As it stands now, nothing has been solved here. Someone is clearly trying to cause problems for me. It's probably TP, but I now have no way of knowing. Your kind of "help" only causes the kinds of problems you want to cause by your agenda to bully me. — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how else I could have taken it, you filed this RFCU in my name instead of TomPhan's and made similar remarks over on SSP. Considering our history and the seemingly endless clashes we've had I don't know why you would exacerbate it by filing this. You're right that I have nothing to fear, but in the meanwhile I don't know when you're going to give up this crusade you're on and finally let this thing rest. For my own peace of mind, I certainly hope it's soon. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of this page is not to continue your dispute. Allow this page to serve its purpose, and await the input of a checkuser/clerk. You've got an active RfC you can argue at, right? Avruch T 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined - insufficient evidence here, {{fishing}} expedition, and these users obviously have a history here. Adding TOR addresses here, BTW, is largely pointless - Alison ❤ 06:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Cumulus_Clouds&oldid=257186765"