Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime

Clerk note: Moved from the main page: --ST47Talk 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone told me there was a big commotion on the news regarding Paris Hilton going to jail. I went to the Wikipedia Paris Hilton article to see what the noise is about. I made a comment on the talk page, which was soon followed by Matt editing it (he never edited the article before or any other article in that subject range) giving a general proclamation that I am a sock. This is stalking and harassment. Please do not humor incivility.[1] Additionally, I confessed to nothing. I made a general comment to throw him off. I am not particularly interested in discussing with him on my talk page. A look at his contribs shows he has annoyed other editors before. Xiao t 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC) - sock puppet of another banned user, his excellency (H.I.). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a sock puppet of Kirbytime (which I suspect you are), none of what you say can be trusted as truthful, in the light of the fact that you spent 90 minutes on the sandbox with your last sock puppet to give off the impression to other users that you were a beginner here. Plus, your admission of being a sock puppet is not going to help you out. The Checkuser will tell. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has flamegirlant actually been disruptive? Her last few edits seem constructive, and even the evidence diffs here aren't outrageous (the last two are a little strange, I'll admit, but the rest seem reasonable). — The Storm Surfer 20:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he has. A banned troll is a banned troll. Case closed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose you could be more specific. — The Storm Surfer 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a username is banned, they're obviously not allowed to come back. Otherwise I could abuse all I like, get a new nick and put on my best suit - is that acceptable? Thats like a serial killer escaping from jail, getting a new ID card and then according to you, should he be scott free as long as he behaves nicely? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he hadn't returned to cause the same disruption, he'd not have been caught.Proabivouac 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime (2)

Also, Confirmed Xveolgvzr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is kirbytime. Perhaps a community ban is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerpeegordon (talk • contribs) 09:48, July 15, 2007

He's already community-banned. - Merzbow 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that he was indefinitely blocked with the option to return at some unspecified point (e.g. a few months) if and when he regained some perspective. Was he since banned?Proabivouac 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not that I am aware of (and I assume the {{banned}} template would have been put on the account's user page). --Iamunknown 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the ANI thread to which I referred.[2] I've not reviewed the contributions of User:Fâtimâh bint Fulâni, but the behavior of User:Flamgirlant was completely unacceptable - for example, coordinating with socks of User:His excellency to falsely frame Matt57 for meatpuppetry in an MfD, as well as the usual pedophilia-related drama.Proabivouac 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we file a case for a community ban then? The link Proav gave does have many admins endorsing the indef block and saying that Kirbytime did exhaust the patience of the community, so that means its a ban? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk assistance requested: someone should take a look at the history here; it's amusing. Jerpeegordon is Fatima, Flamgirlant, et al. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KieferSkunk about KensingtonBlonde checkuser

I do not believe that commenting on the Checkuser policy as one's first edits is sufficient proof that a user is a sockpuppet of another user. Please bring more proof to the table. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you know Kirbytime enough. A new username registers and goes straight to complain against CheckUser. How obvious can it get? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To someone new to the situation, it's not very obvious at all. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my point. Check the contribs of the other socks in this request to get an idea of the kind of user you're dealing with. I've moved these comments to this talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no correlation. KensingtonBlonde's edits here have so far not appeared to be in the spirit of disrupting the wiki. Even the Sonic3 edits that you pointed out certainly look like good-faith edits calling for proper citations and adding one piece of potentially useful information. ANYONE could have made those edits - you need to prove that KirbyTime's thing on YouTube and K.Blonde's edits are more than mere coincidence. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first section of this page. Another user tried to defend one of Kirby's sock saying they didnt see anything suspicious. Why dont you investigate everything before asking me questions like this? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He simply he has to show that it walks, talks, and acts enough like a sock of KB himself to pass the duck test. It is quite blindingly obvious here. This isn't CSI:Miami. - Merzbow 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, you guys take care of it. I'm out of my league on this matter, so I've disengaged. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you guys think matt57 is taking this too far when he screens my youtube videos for evidence of sockpuppetry? I have never used vandalproof. It's called TWINKLE. This is fun to see matt57 continue on his wild goose chase to catch my "socks" (it's better than his tendentious editing in the mainspace). What matt57 does is he accuses anyone who is a new user and disagrees with him to be my sock. Yes, I am sockpuppeting, in fact one is right under his nose =). Come on matt, you say you are good at catching my socks, so why don't you catch my latest one? It's been several weeks now. You better just google "kirbytime" and review every single forum that I have visited for any shred of possible association with a new user. You never know, I could be anyone. Someone just reverted you with no explanation, was it me? Muhahaha, you're quite the dolt.Ciao. I win, you lose. I have a life outside of Wikipedia, you don't. Game over.Kirbytime.05:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He sounds so reasonable. Arrow740 05:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on request made on Jan 3

There's also User:Mostargue, I'm sure there is a comprehensive list. Arrow740 (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostargue was last active on October 20, more than two months ago so its not important. I dont think a link will be found between Mostargue and other socks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above "Topic similarities" is nonsense. It must be noted that all of those topics were not only edited by Kirbytime, and the given users but many others as well. Infact, I have made edits to Islamofascism, Sharia, Islamophobia. Actually, it appears that Arrow740 has made edits to such articles as well: Islamofascism, Islamophobia, sources of Sharia. The same goes for Matt57: Islmofascism, Islamophobia, Sharia. All of us have been making edits to religions related articles. Does this mean we (Matt57, Arrow740 and I) are all sockpuppets of Kirbytime?Bless sins (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, not everyone editing a certain page is a sock puppet. Did you look at the other points I raised in the report? Please respond to those points. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the other points were even more ridiculous:

"created his account 2 days after the Checkuser for Kirbytime's last sock Atari400 was filed." So any account created around that time is a sockpuppet?
"In his first edit he says "I created a new account as I couldnt find the password to my old one", but when I asked him, he tells a different story, saying "I would rather just start this new one as I managed to get my signature as my real name, and would rather remain at least partially anonymous"." What does that prove? That the newbie doesn't want to reveal his/her past? How is that tantamount to being a sock puppet?Bless sins (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before defending your friend here, please look at the report and all the past socks I have detected and got blocked. I dont know why you're having a problem with this report when it has nothing to do with you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling the user my friend, and answer my legitimate questions.Bless sins (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its sufficient to quote yourself here that you dont understand the CU process. I advise you to then read all the pages on sock puppets on this site and go through this report and all the contribs of Kirbytime and his socks, then you'll understand more about this report. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking my quote out of context will prove nothing. I said that I was unfamiliar tithe the process in the past. Bless sins (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So please answer the question I have been asking you for a while now: Have'nt my past suspicions of Kirby's sockpuppets been correct? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you around, and thus am unfamiliar with what you have been upto on this page. But I did watch the Atari case, and apparently the result was "Possible"/"Inconclusive".21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you didnt agree with the result of that report, why didnt you voice your concern to the multiple number of administrators who said that indeed, they were very certain this is Kirbytime? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the admins saying "Possible"/"Inconclusive".21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, can you please stop running away from the topic. Your report seems to be very shaky. Much of it is based upon coincidence as I have shown. Apparently the only evidence you have against the user is that he/she is new. That's not good enough.Bless sins (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlessSins, no, thats not the only evidence. Wikipedia has many new users every minute. Please see the report for the rest of the evidence. Do you think that Atarti400 was blocked wrongly? You've said yourself you are unfamiliar with this report page, I think that says it all. I have no idea why you have a problem with this report, unless you know the puppet master off-wiki or want to signal them that you want them back. I have caught Kirby's socks in the past - look at the report. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys - I'm so glad this is not on the main page. I think you both can understand why at this stage. This has become too personalised and I suggest you both step back for a minute - Alison ^❤ 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will step away. I can not, for any reason understand why someone would protest on a certain report when it has nothing to do with them. I will exit from this page now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a confusion here. If a report hasn't been filed against me, I can't comment on it? Is that an unwritten rule somewhere?Bless sins (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not comment as Allison asked us to step away from here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]