Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joehazelton

Add links
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/Joehazelton}}
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.


Joehazelton[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

From a comment the subject of this article deleted from that talk history;

Pointoflight is a suspected sock puppet of blocked User:Joehazelton. Further, Pointoflight is a single purpose account. The user is deleting any critical information from the article, despite there being multiple reliable sources cited. Propol (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Philip&diff=prev&oldid=187275858 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Philip&diff=187703832&oldid=187628866 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Roskam&diff=prev&oldid=225412022

All seem very similar to the sort of GOP POV-pushing the JoeHazelton socks have exhibited. But what set me off was that he removed other's comments. --BenBurch (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is rich coming from a DU boy with strong DEM POV-PUSHING you self... POT calling the KETTLE BLACK... some of ben's pov

Do a google search on DU for BenBurch, you will see... Also a case can be made that Ben is a violation of WP:COI and should be removed from editing on all Republican office holders BIOS less he endangers wiki's 501 (c)(3) status.Pointoflight (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Adding Wikidemo; He showed up at Talk:Peter Roskam immediately after pointoflight was banned. He also started a WP:Legal Threats article immediately after Pointoflight was accused of legal threats. Plus, his editing profile appears very, very similar to Pointoflight/hazelton. --BenBurch (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nutty paranoid or retaliatory accusation in response to my trying to help make peace and explain WP:RS and WP:BLP to a group of tendentious editors. I'm in process of filing an AN/I report over the editors on the article but there's no point in my defending myself against such a silly waste of time. Advise BenBurch that if he thinks Pointoflight is in fact a sock of Joehazleton he should provide some useful differences that show the point and not just fling uncivil accusations. WP:DUCK doesn't cut it, obviously. Wikidemo (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Waaayy to old for comparison, although Pointoflight has been blocked and his IPs rangeblocked for harassment. Thatcher 03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Joehazelton[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F

JoeBonham (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) may be a sock of banned sockpuppetteer Joehazelton (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). JoeBonham's method of account creation (creating page with a period, replacing with a single declarative sentence)[1], ranting against Wikipedia[2], awarding of a barnstar to Bellowed in response to his Soros page activity [3] shortly before Joehazelton's creation of his now-banned Willie Peter (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) sock [4], which he later used to evade a block on the Soros page[5], as well as several contentious edits by JoeBonham limited to Illinois figures all seem to point to a Joehazelton sock.

Please see this page: [6] for other suspected Hazelton socks. If JoeBonham (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) falls within these ranges, that may be quite telling. --Eleemosynary 05:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. JoeBonham = Willie Peter. Joehazelton's edits are stale.Voice-of-All 07:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F

Disruptive editing of Peter Roskam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Tbeatty 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:  Additional information needed, please provide a code letter from the table listed inside the green box at the top of RFCU. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 05:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[7][8][reply]

Diffs:

The tag on the User:Chicagostyledog lists this as a User:BryanFromPalatine which has triggered a battle on ANI. please confirm whether this is BFP or Joehazelton to stop the battle. --Tbeatty 05:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Deferred Mackensen, again. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Notified Mackensen. Daniel.Bryant 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive. Joehazelton is far too old to check against at this point. Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joehazelton[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: F

Indef blocked back in September, the User:Joehazelton page was just edited by the IP 207.67.151.184 which proceeded to make threats on User talk:Gamaliel against User:BenBurch and Rob regarding edit warring on the Peter Roskam article, which Joehazelton had previously been engaged in disruptive editing on. This is probably spillover from the Free Republic chain of events. Georgewilliamherbert 01:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Deferred Mackensen, who might have info from the first case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Notified Mackensen. Luna Santin 23:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Mackensen (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joehazelton[edit]

I am concerned that these two accounts may be sockpuppets of Joehazelton, currently blocked for personal attacks and long term disruption of Peter Roskam. Gamaliel 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Mackensen (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Joehazelton&oldid=1138657243"