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/Rex071404))
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.

216.153.214.89[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


There has been a recent increase in apparent WP:SPA activity on Talk:Barack Obama, in particular weighing in on consensus votes. The lead IP address (216.153.214.89) is similar to known IP addresses of User:Rex071404, who was subjected to ArbCom sanctions and ultimately blocked for violation of same, including sockpuppetry as part of the evasion attempt. User has declined to respond to questions as to whether he is, in fact, an IP-sock of User:Rex071404.

User:Rex071404 and User:Merecat are banned users and are listed here for completeness and to assist in cross-referencing possible connections.

Remaining IPs and usernames have little or no activity outside Talk:Barack Obama (and, in some cases, Barack Obama), and have voted consecutively and in tandem on consensus discussions. All are also actively attempting to derail any attempt to notate that they are possible WP:SPAs as well as any discussion of possible sockpuppetry.

--Clubjuggle T/C 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined As I recall, Rex lived in Texas. This IP is in Massachusetts. People move, maybe, but clearly there is not going to be any technical evidence here one way or the other. Thatcher 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this decline. As pointed out before, this IP address repeatedly skirted the question as to whether or not he was Rex, and is now waving your decline around as an exoneration. Given it's a probable case of a serious problem user evading an Arbcom-related indef ban, it should've been thoroughly investigated.
Rex's old IP address (which I wish Clubjuggle had included in this CheckUser request), 216.153.214.94 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (confirmed sock), also leads back to Massachusetts now. Rex always had trouble due to the static nature of his IP, and there're plenty of reasons why his ISP could appear to come from a different location now. This decline dismissed a mountain of evidence (CheckUsers've been run for far less in the past), and was extremely unhelpful. I urge reconsideration on your part, or review from another CheckUser. Shem(talk) 18:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rex071404[edit]

User:Rex071404 recently admitted on his talkpage that he has used the accounts above as sockpuppets. There also is an incident report about this.[5] As well as the continueing request for clarification.[6] -- Mr. Tibbs 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: 20:42, May 12, 2006 Naconkantari blocked "ソックスのパペット (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (english name, please) Thatcher131 07:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The request to check Prometheuspan has already been rejected below. If you can provide specific evidence of policy violations (for example, Prometheuspan and Kevin Baas editing articles in tandem to avoid 3RR blocks, or referring to a previous version by the other as "mine"), you can add the diffs to the request below and it may be reconsidered. (As always, the decision of whether to grant a checkuer request is solely at the discretion of the checkuser admins.) Thatcher131 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Admitted sockpuppets may be blocked outright. There is no evidence warranting an invasion of Oven Fresh's privacy at this time. There were no undiscovered socks when the Rex/Merecat check was run, and there aren't going to be any now, two days later. People need to find something to do besides coming up with lists of possible Rex sockpuppets. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:30, 7 June 2006 (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 below, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

User:Rex071404/User:Merecat[edit]

Update on list: Last IP-editor started disruptively trolling and has been blocked following the heated debate between Mr Zero and others.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a brief analysis of these users' edits at User:Phr's request,[8] it appears to me that User:Neutral arbiter and User:Wombdpsw are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat who were both permanently banned for evading prior arbcomm resolutions. A previous noticeboard post by User:Nescio resulted in the suggestion of running a RFCU[9] and User:Phr also made a noticeboard post[10] regarding this. It needs to be known if these new users are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat so the remedies (particularly remedy 2) from Rex's 4th and last arbitration case can be enforced.[11] There is also an RfAr[12][13] and a Request for clarification[14] up about this user. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: I've archived the whole discussion to the history (see here), and would like a clerk summary. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: More discussion archived here. Summary (by Pureblade) is:

The request is on
both of whom have been permabanned, are accused of having the following socks:
Claims Rex is innocent
Also campaigns for Rex's unblock
Zer0faults vehemently argues that he is not a sockpuppet, and claims that his IP is 74.64.40.102, which is located in a different state than 69.46.20.59.
This was requested by Noosphere after the original request, due to: the user's first edit was just after Merecat's block, use of Wikipedia slang, and editing this article, supposedly one of Merecat's favorites.
Prodego talk 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as follows:

In short, either of the two IP addresses could be anyone, including Rex/Merecat. It is impossible to tell, since they may or may not be available for proxying activities, and are not likely to be scannable. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw have all been indef blocked. Prodego talk 22:23, 4 June 2006 (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 below, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

70.84.56.166, et al.[edit]

I don't know if this is a case of simple puppetry or something complex re-incarnation, but here's what happened - there's vote-stacking going on at the AfDs of Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. See 2nd nom and restarted AfD. The issue was subsequently blown up at the admin's noticeboard as well, under three subject headings.

Just hours ago, 70.84.56.166 has been mass-spamming user talkpages to try and swing the consensus on the restarted AfD and undermine the discussion. merecat is currently blocked for a similiar instance, and is under your ArbCom file. This RCU, if completed, may be useful as evidence in presentation for the case. While I'm going through the user talkpage of 70.84.56.166, I'm surprised to find that it is tagged with a allegations of more editors (two which previously underwent ArbCom), so I guess a checkuser on all of them aganist this IP is recommended to check for re-incarnations. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further talk page spam coming from 67.15.76.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is Houston-based Everyone's Internet, the other ISP of the anon Texan. I suppose this is merecat too but can we nail it down once and for all? Sorry. Thatcher131 11:47, 4 May 2006 (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 below, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

User:Merecat as User:71.212.31.95[edit]

Could someone please do a checkuser on User:Merecat? This discussion gives me reason to believe that he is using User:71.212.31.95 as a sockpuppet. Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 20:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs) and 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Wikipedia allows users to not log in and to use more than one user account besides, so long as they do not do so for the purpose of disruption. I haven't seen any evidence of disruption, so I would not reveal any evidence CheckUser returned in this situation. However, there was none to return in any case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:59, 8 March 2006 (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