Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cumulus Clouds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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/Cumulus Clouds}}
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.

[edit] Cumulus Clouds

main edit links history watch talk
Filed: 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, this is either an attempt to evade a WP:3RR block via this ruling or is continued harassment by user:TomPhan (previously blocked in another rfcu). Which one? I am not sure. I am highly suspect in these two three IP contributions. All have no other substantial contributions other than to pages on which I have worked, and two edit summaries use the same sentence structure. While the throwaway account fits TomPhan's modus operandi, the citation of a non-existent consensus through discussion on the talk page or demand for nonexistent policy as the reasons for this actions fit the actions of Cumulus Clouds. I would like some sort of confirmation as to which path should be taken: WP:ANI, WP:3RR, or WP:SSP; the outcome of this rfcu determines which action to take so I don't make a spurious allegation. — BQZip01 — talk 04:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Checkusers responding to this request should be aware that it occurs in the context of an ongoing RfC initiated by BQZip against Cumulus Cloud - the RfC was begun after an MfD on an evidence page in BQZip's userspace was closed directing BQ to file or delete it. Its been a contentious RfC, with numerous related AN threads and its even been deleted and restored once via CSD. Avruch T 05:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Avruch's assessment, in general, but would like to point out that the the aforementioned page that was attempted to be MfD'd was always intended as a prep for a WP:ANI, RfC, or RfA. — BQZip01 — talk 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
WHOis shows two IPs are from Washington, Maryland and another from Deleware (awfully close together...). — BQZip01 — talk 06:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Added another IP who made a bad faith edit to this page...surprise, surprise it is the user's only edit... — BQZip01 — talk 02:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
201.210.90.212 is a TOR node. I've reported it for blocking. Franamax (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The one from Italy fits the same profile. — BQZip01 — talk 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reported. TOR nodes may be of limited use for checkuser, I've modified the header above so the CU is aware of the IP node status. Franamax (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, the user in good standing Cumulus Clouds was not notified of this RFCU. I have done so. Lawrence § t/e 19:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the directions for WP:RFCU; there is no requirement to do so. Furthermore: [1] [2] — BQZip01 — talk 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not seeking a block of either of these users due to these actions unless they are confirmed. In such a case, I will request such a block in another appropriate venue. — BQZip01 — talk 21:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - All of TomPhan's socks were blocked as part of this previous RFCU request, which makes this one kind of redundant. I also noticed the edit to BQ, but I assure you I have lost all interest in continuing that debate. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, in re: the request for "confirmation as to which path to take:" checkuser is not for fishing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't take this one so personally. For the most part, I believe you, BUT there is that nagging doubt in the back of my mind. TomPhan's socks were indeed blocked on his last request. If this isn't you, then he has gone to IP editing...which is also sockpuppetry. I am not fishing for who it is. I am pretty sure it is you or him ( I feel that LawrenceCohen might be obnoxious, but this doesn't fit his style and therefore this isn't him. Considering I have no beef with anyone else and/or these patterns don't fit anyone else, I'm forced to think it is CC or TP). If it isn't you, then you have nothing to fear. This is why I tried this before dragging your name to WP:ANI, but Lawarence Cohen just had to cause more controversy and stir up trouble... — BQZip01 — talk 03:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Retract these personal attacks. I also took nothing to ANI, I left a note on CC's page that you RFCU'd him. Consider yourself warned under WP:NPA. Lawrence § t/e 06:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "LawrenceCohen might be obnoxious" & "Lawarence Cohen just had to cause more controversy and stir up trouble..." OK, I AGF. Lawrence § t/e 06:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why I said "might". Things were fine here and were simply awaiting a checkuser until you decided to inflame the situation and figuratively say, "Hey! let's make this a debate page!" CC didn't need to know or weigh in on this. You have an agenda against me and have stated so. Your wikistalking is disruptive and only incites more problems. Furthermore, your honesty is questionable when you state, "I also took nothing to ANI"...
As it stands now, nothing has been solved here. Someone is clearly trying to cause problems for me. It's probably TP, but I now have no way of knowing. Your kind of "help" only causes the kinds of problems you want to cause by your agenda to bully me. — BQZip01 — talk 06:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know how else I could have taken it, you filed this RFCU in my name instead of TomPhan's and made similar remarks over on SSP. Considering our history and the seemingly endless clashes we've had I don't know why you would exacerbate it by filing this. You're right that I have nothing to fear, but in the meanwhile I don't know when you're going to give up this crusade you're on and finally let this thing rest. For my own peace of mind, I certainly hope it's soon. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The purpose of this page is not to continue your dispute. Allow this page to serve its purpose, and await the input of a checkuser/clerk. You've got an active RfC you can argue at, right? Avruch T 04:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, there isn't a case here and checkuser isn't for fishing. I think I should be free to express my disappointment in the abuse of process. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • You are welcome to disapprove of the process, but this isn't the venue in which to do it, IMHO. No one is trying to censor you. — BQZip01 — talk 05:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Declined - insufficient evidence here, {{fishing}} expedition, and these users obviously have a history here. Adding TOR addresses here, BTW, is largely pointless - Alison ❤ 06:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
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.