Simonapro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
F0xfree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.116.201.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
88.101.172.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Backlit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Cannotflowerseedlingswith1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Chondrite 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked user Simonapro has expressed great concern that the article at Greg Green would be deleted. User F0xfree's first edits were at Talk:Greg Green, and F0xfree has gone on to edit other articles and talk pages frequented by Simonapro, including Bench press, Sola scriptura, Sola fide, and Cannabis (drug), as well as participating in the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Green.
Simonapro: "Here is a good example of the removal of the source again at a different article [1]" (from this edit ). F0xfree: "restored citation" [2]
IP User 69.116.201.26 has only made a single edit, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Green. [3] F0xfree made a very similar edit. [4]
User simonapro is known to have edited using 88.101.172.224 [5], [6]. User F0xfree edited using the same IP address
It seems clear that Simonapro is using the F0xfree account to evade the indefinite block and has used the IP address 69.116.201.26 for the same reason.
User Backlit has only edited in regard to Greg Green. First checkuser result was reported by Essjay [[9]] at 02:57 on 1 December 2006 (UTC). The conclusion section of this page was updated at 06:30 (UTC). F0xfree's last edit[10] was to challenge the checkuser results at 06:42 (UTC). Backlit's account was created at 07:12 (UTC)[11], and Backlit's first edit[12] was at 07:14 (UTC), and the effect was to pick up where Simonapro (via confirmed sockpuppets) left off, by challenging the checkuser result. Backlit's entire contribution history (to date) has consisted of attempts to defend the Greg Green article from deletion, using arguments and tactics that have been very similar to those of Simonapro and known sockpuppets. -- Chondrite 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser for Backlit was inconclusive [13] -- Chondrite 22:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User Cannotflowerseedlingswith1212 account created 13:26, 2 December 2006. First action was to open a suspected sockpuppet case [14] accusing me of being a sockpuppet of another editor with whom he or she apparently had some difficulties, very similar to the suspected sockpuppetry case opened by Simonapro [15]. User name explanation [16] seems related to his Articles for Creation Request for Greg Green: "He is also responsible for discovering that force-flowering concepts are scientifically and practically flawed" [17]. Chondrite 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should be taken to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Were F0xfree and 69.116.201.26 turn out to be the same person it would signify cheating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Green, SqueakBox 18:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Simonapro -- Chondrite 18:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is pretty much Bad faith. I am not in New York and that is not my IP. Yes I said New York. Does that ring a bell? If it doesn't then I wonder why you are contributing to Cannabis at all. Low and behold the IP is in New York from the staff member claiming to be from "High Times" magazine. Now ain't that a fat one to smoke. (F0xfree 21:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
New York has 10 million people. How can making sock puppet allegations with substantial evidence be considered bad faith? SqueakBox 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser [18] established that F0xfree, 69.116.201.26, and 88.101.172.224 are sockpuppets of Simonapro. Chondrite 22:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]