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/EverybodyHatesChris))
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.

EverybodyHatesChris[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar disruptive editing patterns, in this case edit warring on Coral Smith where the other socks have edit warred in the past. Never uses the preview function as described by an editor in previous report and mainly edits on television related articles. For a new user he is oddly engaging in a lengthly dispute currently being discussed at The Mediation Cabal. Gwandoya Talk 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverybodyHatesChris[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 2:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More EverybodyHatesChris socks. Banned user EverybodyHatesChris has extreme anger issues regarding Ckatz (talk · contribs) who is running for adminship. This afternoon, Ckatz had a minor run-in with 143.235.208.120 which is an IP behaving much like EverybodyHatesChris. That's at 22:50 UTC. At 23:05 UTC, Rose nestles (talk · contribs) is created and becomes the first oppose at Ckatz's RFA (after 46 supports) just 14 minutes after creation. Not only is behavior similar but Whois shows 143.235.208.120, 69.129.178.62, and 148.8.126.41 all coming from the Milwaukee/Madison, Wisconsin area. Please at least confirm that we can strike the banned user oppose. Thank you. (GordonJosh listed as most recently blocked EverybodyHatesChris sock). —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that the administrators leave this one unblocked for a little while? I think Ckatz may need some target practice. ➪HiDrNick! 04:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the last two IPs I listed were earlier checkuser-confirmed to be EverybodyHatesChris. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: the master sock has been community banned, per Wikipedia:Banning policy, although no evidence of that is provided on the account's user page, with the exception of ((banned))—I recall reading the thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I'll pull the relevant links, if a Checkuser requires it. AGK (contact) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


EverybodyHatesChris[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Previously confirmed by checkuser and bitchin' trumpet player JPGordon:

EverybodyHatesChris has operated a veritable sock army ever since his block in June for "Trolling, plain and simple". Some of his recent sockly contributions include this. An administrator has decided to unblock EverybodyHatesChris for reasons unknown. I hope that by proving the obvious connection between these accounts we can get the editor blocked again quickly and avert the nonsense that is sure to ensue otherwise.

All of these accounts have extremely similar editing patterns. The block evasion is completely obvious. The editor is clearly unstable and abusive. Please clean out the sock drawer.

Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 05:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to reblock EverybodyHatesChris? Checkusers have no more authority to block users than other administrators, we just have extra data about certain users. If you're asking us to confirm he's socking, then provide evidence that the accounts are used by him. --Deskana (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not asking checkusers to block anyone. I was under the impression that they didn't usually do that. I'm seeing checkuser confirmation of the clear fact that these users are all the same editor. I can only assume that it wasn't clear to the unblocking admin, or he wouldn't have unblocked in the first place. After a checkuser chimes in, I'll take the evidence back to the unblocking administrator to see if he will reblock. If he is still unwilling to do so, I'll change the venue to ANI. Diffs are unneeded; a cursory glance at the contributions made by these accounts shows that it's the same editor editing all the same articles in the same manner. ➪HiDrNick! 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is obvious, then please write a quick summary with diffs linking the accounts together. If you wish to know why I require quick summaries with diffs for all the cases, look at how many checkusers are handling this page. It's almost all me. I simply don't have the time to investigate every single case. People providing diffs with their cases are what gave me the time to handle your case today, rather than, say, in two days time :-) --Deskana (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the contributions lists? I really don't understand what you're needing me to do. He edits articles about television shows. He never previews. If you look at the histories of the articles he edits, it's just one EverybodyHatesChris sock after another, which another editor occasionally trying to clean it up, and then giving up in frustration. They're usually the same four or five articles for each user. I mean, I can provide a lot of diffs of abusive, trolling behavior, but I was going to save that for ANI, rather than checkuser. I'm not trying to be dense or difficult, I just don't understand what more is needed here? ➪HiDrNick! 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See http://tools.wikimedia.org/~eagle/socks/EverybodyHatesChris.1.html Note there are no results. Taking EverybodyHatesChris and comparing them against the 4 or so unblocked accounts yields no results. Take that to mean what you want, it does mean that if these are socks, they have not edited the same articles. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That script must be broken. Nearly all of these accounts have edited the Judge Judy article, for example, and assorted articles about the show Everybody Hates Chris. Does it only return results if every one of the socks has edited a particular artile, or is it supposed to return any overlap at all? ➪HiDrNick! 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I checked were the following, if there is a flaw let me know.:

—— Eagle101Need help? 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, you stated that the 'main' account is EverybodyHatesChris, so the script checks that account against the following 'socks'. If you suspect another account to be the 'main' account please say so. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, EverybodyHatesChris is the puppetmaster, and every one of those accounts that you listed above has many, many overlapping contributions. The Judge Judy article is an example, but there are many others as well. What gives? ➪HiDrNick! 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has chris edited Judge Judy ever? Is there another account I should consider 'main'? Otherwise you are just asking the checkuser's to fish, which they won't do. As things stand now, there is 0 evidence that these are socks. Trolls? perhaps, but we don't checkuser every troll. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here is Chris editing the Judy article. Either the script is not working, or I don't understand what it's supposed to be doing. I am not asking for fishing. Have you looked at these user's contributions? Not all of them, just the first page of each. Just open each contribution list up in a new tab. There's no in-depth investigation required, it is immediately and startlingly obvious just from looking at only the first page of each user's contribs that these are all the same user. The only reason I am requesting checkuser at all is because it's extremely difficult to get most admins to block even a completely obvious sock without checkuser evidence, and neigh impossible to get them to overturn a sock unblock without checkuser. ➪HiDrNick! 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, found the problem, I goofed the input. See http://tools.wikimedia.org/~eagle/socks/EverybodyHatesChris.2.html I'll leave it to you to demonstrate to the checkusers that these should be checked. —— Eagle101Need help? 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better, thank you. ➪HiDrNick! 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined ... the basic check was already done, as pointed out above and whoever unblocked should explain their reasoning to you directly or at AN/I. (Isotope23 is a solid admin, and presumably had good reasons for the unblock, so ask him) We don't typically run checks again for no reason. If there are specific checks needed please be more specific. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, then please check MeowAccount (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) against EverybodyHatesChris (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) or any of the previously confirmed socks. ➪HiDrNick! 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK but socking is not itself banned, it's the use of the sock for ban evasion or for goodhand/badhand actions that is banned. So with no comment on the edits themselves and also with no tagging or banning by me, (I leave that to you) the following IDs are  Confirmed as the same user:

What you do with that info is up to you. As I said before I feel this was already answered. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 4 November 2007 (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.


More