User talk:VK35: Difference between revisions

Thanks! Please visit Cut Bank Police Department article. I plan to create all the Montana Law Enforcement Agencies. The ones I did not create are the Billilgs PD and Montana State Patrol. I would also like you to revisit my fist article the Pigeon Forge PD article again, and suggest any other content I should add. [[1]] Hi, Harebag!

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

I haven't run Lupin's tool in a while. I forgot how bad things got here...--SarekOfVulcan 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All is explained. We have a really crafty vandal here, who was editing both as Sogood 123 and as Sogood 1234. Both are now indefblocked.--Anthony.bradbury 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notice at he top of this page, this user has previously establish his identity with the Foundation sufficiently for Jimbo to unblock previously as a mistaken identity.

My intention is to unblock, I request that diffs be shown here where this user has violated any policies and the associated warnings prior to the block. Given the user has now been blocked for 72 hours I'll reblock allowing for this time if the information is provided. Gnangarra 01:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is obviously Dereks1x. Jimbo's unblock was before the most recent RFCU. Reinstate the block and let it stand, instead of starting a wheel war over a very intricately deceptive sockpuppeteer. Italiavivi 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been talking to all that have been involved with this event and the previous including Jimbo. Its an extremely complicated set of circumstances you need to realise is that VK35 establish his ID to the Foundation sufficiently for Jimbo to unblock as a mistaken identity. I havent taken this action lightly and I stand by my actions without evidence to the contrary. Gnangarra 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's "mistaken identity" unblock was two months ago, prior to VK35's most recent activities and subsequent CheckUser investigation. The evidence to the contrary is crystal clear at the most recent RFCU. I am also interested in exactly what "questions" VK35 answered of Jimbo to "prove" he is a medical doctor. Given Jimbo's past track record with verifying users' credentials, one can only ask. Italiavivi 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the doctor issue is almost irrelevant at this point. Whether or not Dereks1x should or should not be banned based on the doctor claim (though, as far as I'm aware, the ban has not been explicitly overturned), the evidence of oodles of violations of WP:SOCK is strong enough for a block apart from the ban, provided that the confirmed and alleged socks have been adequately connected, as I believe they have. · jersyko talk 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I previously presented evidence of sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive88#Jimbo's unblock of VK35. In summary, behavioral evidence, stylistic evidence, and account creation timing are supplemented by checkuser evidence demonstrating puppetry.

Recent behavior, however, strengthens this even further. Just as many other Dereks1x socks, including the most recently employed Feddhicks [2] and the original master[3], VK35 has accused Bobblehead, Tvoz, and me of being sockpuppets of one another.1 [4]

Additionally, stylistic quirks are apparent when comparing VK35's contributions with those of Dereks1x and socks. For example, like Dereks1x socks[5] [6], VK35[7] [8] tends to add extraneous parentheses when employing a link to a Wikipedia article via its URL (a somewhat abnormal thing for an experienced editor to do even aside from the extraneous parens).

The timing of VK35's periods of editing inactivity combined with Feddhicks' editing activity coincide perfectly. For that, see their respective contributions during Feddhicks' burst of editing activity starting July 3 and ending around July 11.VK35; Feddhicks (see also User:HappyFarmerofAsparagus contribs, a short-lived Dereks1x sock whose contributions also coincide perfectly with Feddhicks' and VK35's in that there is no overlap and their contributions fill editing gaps on the part of the other editors)

Finally, checkuser confirmed that VK35 is not only editing from the same range as Dereks1x and his socks (a range which contains a large number of IPs), but that VK35 edited, within minutes, from the exact same IP as a confirmed Dereks1x sock, Feddhicks. Perhaps most strongly of all, almost immediately after Feddhicks was blocked, VK35 offered to "mediate" a dispute between me and the sock of the banned user that I had just indefinitely blocked.[9]

Do with this what you will. But frankly, aside from an outright admission, I cannot fathom a stronger case for puppetry. · jersyko talk 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is another confirmed Dereks1x sock, User:HappyFarmerofAsparagus whose edits on July 11 mesh as well:

VK35 edited on July 11 up to 12:53 and resumed at 19:38

during that gap, User:Feddhicks edited from 13:50 to 15:54

HappyFarmerofAsparagus edited from 16:55 to 17:55,

and VK resumed editing at 19:38.

There was no overlap. We do not know all of the other socks that are still hidden, so we cant fill in the rest of the gaps. Timing, behavior, edit style when talking about this case, are virtually identical for VK35 and the other Dereks1x socks. One might ask oneself why we thought VK35 to be part of this, since none of us had access to his IP address - it was behavioral. Tvoz |talk 03:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In light of all that has been presented here the block has been reinstated clearly there is enough evidence presented here to indicate that VK35 is operating sock accounts for the purpose of pushing a particular POV. Gnangarra 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears VK35 is a sock of a banned user, I will now go reverting his edits per WP:BAN. FunPika 01:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please be aware that a request for arbitration naming you has been placed on WP:RFA on behalf of Harry59b (talk · contribs) who had originally posted it on AN/I. You can email the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org) or arbitration clerks to make a statement, or post a statement on this talk page for a clerk to copy.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee 14:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

VK35 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Ask Coren to point out where the arbitration request is located

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Ask Coren to point out where the arbitration request is located |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Ask Coren to point out where the arbitration request is located |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Ask Coren to point out where the arbitration request is located |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}