Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul Barlow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Paul Barlow

main edit links history watch talk
Filed: 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This account (Schonken) engaged in reverts and vandalism within a pattern of personal attacks and bad faith in Frisians [2], History of the Netherlands, Beaker culture, Swifterbant culture [3] and Mother Hulda [4] , usually together with despective edit comments. He engage in forum shopping to launch personal attacks. Some other "impersonation" accounts might have been involved in the past. Though I voiced my suspections about the involvement of Paul Barlow at ANI [5] and mentioned Schonken here, those other accounts were just blocked, not investigated:

I suspect User:Schonken to be an attack account, created for the main purpose to launch personal attacks (on me) and voting. The few times this account was used it never engaged in encyclopedic contributions that exceeded some corrections. He is making unwarranted accusations similar to P. Barlow. Rokus01 (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined - No connection to PaulBarlow shown. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this answer very well. If you meant here to refer to proper precedure for having a case because you are still missing a circumscription of my suspections beforehand, then please note that I already mentioned most of this in the ANI diff. To decline this request, however, has another bearing than "unrelated", since "decline" does not imply the use of the checkuser tool at all. Do I have to file this request again? Or are there other ways to discover the user behind all of these accounts? Rokus01 (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you don't get to fish. I simply rejected this because Paul Barlow's name is at the top of it, with no justification whatsoever provided for violating his privacy. On the other hand, the various Rokus phonies (and I found another, Rokus69 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser))) are Confirmed as being Schonken. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Clerk note: Moving the resulting discussion on the talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)