Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lightbringer (usurped - blocked)

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/Lightbringer (usurped - blocked)}}
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.

Lightbringer (33rd request)[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Code letter: B, F

  • WP:LB for information regarding long-term vandal.

Supporting evidence: This user's first edit was to the sandbox (to see if he could edit). his second was to request that FreemasonryWatch be taken off the blacklist. That's a pretty specific request for a second edit. He then got into an edit war trying to add more poorly sourced material like this, to Freemasonry, which basically makes his point by stopping at a certain point and ignoring what happened since. This is basically what Lightbringer does. I think this is a pretty blatant case, but I'd like the underlying IP blocked as well. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: The MSJaapan account I added above was blocked as an impersonator of me. The last time I was impersonated, it was an LB sock as well {Msjapan1 or something like that). MSJapan (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davinciscode is  Likely, MSJaapan is Red X Unrelated. Thatcher 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Davinciscode tagged and blocked accordingly. Rudget (review) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (32nd request)[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lestervee (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Code letter: B and F

See Lightbringer's LTA page for info regarding block status.

I am generally suspicious when new users edit Freemasonry, but I usually let it go, because they either go away or settle down. Lestervee showed up a little over a week or so ago, and made some LB-esque statements like "capricious Masonic fantasy, and now we have this diff where he pulls a ref out of the "Holocaust" section [1] and finally, we get to the dealmaker, which claims Masonic totalitarian governments oppress and murder Christian clergy. [2]. Lester seems to have learned from thew past, as he has learned how to spell and how not to get busted for 3RR since he was last blocked, but I am sure the underlying actions are still Lightbringer. His talk page says right at the top that no "Masonic editors" are to post no his talk page. That pretty much confirms it. MSJapan 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely. Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lightbringer (31st request)[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lcg.wda (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Codeletters: B and C

Attemps to remove the same information as a myriad Lightbringer socks has tried to remove from Anti-Masonry ([3][4]) and Freemasonry ([5][6][7]), spesificly the number of Masons killed by the Nazis and the 'forgetmenot-pin'. Calls for discussion gone unanswered - insted he just repeated his edits. 158.112.84.2 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already blocked this account indefinitely, as the editing pattern and content seems to leave little doubt that it is a sockpuppet of Lightbringer. Cheers TigerShark 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no Unnecessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


January 2007[edit]

Lightbringer (thirtieth request)[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch

Code letter: B, C

I don't even know if I have to do this anymore if the community ban is in effect, but we got another IP, which should be in the known range per WP:LB. MSJapan 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temp blocked, needs to be made permanent. MSJapan 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added a third account, created just minutes after Jake1982 was blocked. WegianWarrior 08:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed for Altimaro and Jeff Herman; no obvious relationship for the others. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding FreemasonryWatch to externals is a dead giveaway. Check the contribs on the other two users, and see what the main point of supposed "contention" was. Furthermore, said users only edited the Freemasonry article. Moreover, WP:LB should put that IP right next to one of the other known IPs. I think it's more obvious than it seems. Can this be rechecked, please? MSJapan 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've made the mechanical check; I'm not going to interpret the contents of the edits -- that's not checkuser's job. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This round of LB attacks is still not over... please check User:Brian0814 - single post account that immediately took up where Jeff Herman picked up. Blueboar 21:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Jeff Herman has not been blocked. MSJapan 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Lightbringer (twenty-ninth request)[edit]

See Lightbringer's LTA page for background, suspected socks edits to see how it conforms. Also note that this user 'popped up' right after User:24.68.229.125 was blocked for identical edits. WegianWarrior 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second this request, both edits and edit summaries show all the hallmarks of Lightbringery and nothing contradictory. 68.39.174.238 13:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more users that fit the pattern. MSJapan 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

information Note:. I blocked some open proxies. If you think it's him on the behavior then that's good enough for me. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (twenty-eighth request)[edit]

view edit history watch
Filed: 04:47, December 25 2006 (UTC)

Code: C

It seems that Lightbringer has found a new IP address (which may be an open proxy). This account has only been used to edit Freemasonry, and the edit summaries employ the same rhetoric that is Lightbringer's MO. MSJapan 04:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I don't see any accounts using the IP; if it is exhibiting Lighbringer behavior, take it to ANI and someone should block it. Essjay (Talk) 04:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (twenty-seventh request)[edit]

  • Code letter: C

(As a note, it may be necessary to refer to Lightbringer's LTA page for addresses, and should also suffice for links to ArbCom and other evidence sources).

We again have opposition to a section of the Freemasonry article with no evidence to support it, but rather comments of "Masonic funding" for authors and "poison pen" paragraphs on the talk page here, and a few instances of removal of the entire "disputed" section of the article, most recently this diff, though it was also done by the same user at the beginning of the "discussion", which has solved nothing, as usual. MSJapan 18:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe code B also applies, since the suspected sockmaster is banned from Wikipedia, ref Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer. Code F (Evasion of community-based bans or blocks) might also apply, in light of his banned status. WegianWarrior 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem continues... he continues to delete the same section ... see this edit Blueboar 23:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the similarities between these comments by an anon user, previously proven to be a Lightbringer sock (note the ISP), and the recent postings by Literaryagent. Blueboar 13:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed Dmcdevit·t 18:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (twenty-sixth request)[edit]

  • Code letter:

Devilmaycares has flagged me as a suspected sockpuppet of Lightbringer. My modus operandi does not fit that of Lightbringer; I believe that Devilmaycares is just gaming the system by throwing stuff in the hopes that something will stick. But, in any event, I hereby request an investigation of me. —75.18.113.152 06:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed Please add a link to where Devilmaycares accuses you (and therefore any evidence they have provided), and add the code letter from the table at the top of this page. Daniel.Bryant 06:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:Such a self-check seems dubious at best. Most likely users have the means to circumvent checks when the ask, and then use the results to troll. Voice-of-All 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined For the reasons noted by VOA, we take a dim view of such requests. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This request was suggested by an administrator. Perhaps “taking a dim view” (a veiled personal attack ) is an inapprorpiate response, even if a decline is appropriate. Perhaps, in the face of this rejection, I can get decategorized ([8]). —75.18.113.152 03:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (twenty-fifth request)[edit]

Sprotect has been restored to Freemasonry, but there was still a reversion done after that point to the same edits that Lightbringer made, done by a user who has been registered for over two weeks and did not make any edits in that time until today. I cannot verify whether this account was blocked through the proxy blocking, or whether this will be a throwaway account or a persistent problem. MSJapan 14:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive I've blocked another proxy. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (twenty-fourth request)[edit]

Within a day of removing the sprotect, Lightbringer is back vandalizing Freemasonry with the same things, and his new MO seems to be open proxies. The address he used was already tagged as a possible Bonaparte sock. MSJapan 12:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If these are suspected open proxies in general they can be listed at WP:OP. Mackensen (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these do not appear to be proxies, so I have relisted the request. MSJapan 14:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

198.70.193.250 identified and blocked as an open proxy.Voice-of-All 22:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have also added 193.207.68.10 as another sock above. MSJapan 23:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
193.207.68.10 blocked as an open proxy. 221.164.56.28 was blocked by another admin for the same reason.Voice-of-All 01:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (twenty-third request)[edit]

Suspected sock of Lightbringer based on his linking to Freemasonrywatch.org, his tearing up of the Anti-Masonry article and his editsummaries. WegianWarrior 23:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not hardly. Prior to making any edits on this subject I did an extensive review of the pages history and I determined that this users edit record is extremely biased, in fact his edits have been one of the principal reasons the page is in the poor state it is in now. I am not any other editor, I make my own editorial decisions based on my own knowledge and research. I do not appreciate these kinds of false accusations, it goes against Wikipedia policy.Kjlee 06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, Lightbringer, if you don't want us to spot you in 2 seconds flat, change your modus operandi a bit.--SarekOfVulcan 06:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Those are some nice open proxies you're editing from there. Please don't do that. Mackensen (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Since Mackensen has blocked the open proxies, I think we can consider this completed until next time. Well, that lasted a whole 10 hours and 22 minutes. :) Thatcher131 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Closing the open proxies didn't stop him I'm afraid. Ref Special:Contributions/Kjlee. Would be nice to get it verified if this is a sock of Lightbringer or not (allthought I would be very surprised if it wasn't) so we can get him blocked. WegianWarrior 06:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

information Note: Yes, he moved on to another open proxy (which I've blocked). This is quite useful actually. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATION THAT I AM ANOTHER USER!!! I am not using any proxies, just my regular internet connection, why do you keep trying to block me???? You have absolutely no proof of your lunatic accusation. I simply made some edits that Mason editors disliked. Is everyone who makes such edits accused of being some banned user? Start following Wikipedia guidelines or prepare to receive a complaint against you for this abuse! Maybe you are a Mason yourself!!!Kjlee 06:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Compare the text above to the rant from Thunderbird below. Seems like conclusive proof to m

e...--SarekOfVulcan 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Keep 'em coming folks...Mackensen (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lightbringer (twenty-second request)[edit]

Suspected sock of Lightbringer based on edits: Repeted linking to Freemasonrywatch.com, and a 'conflicting view' on Taxil hoax near identical to material inserted in that article by Lightbringer earlier. Also, I notice, other long term editors suspect him to be a sock.WegianWarrior 07:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Depthoflocation (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), based on FreemasonryWatch linking on William Morgan (anti-Mason) MSJapan 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Mackensen (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (twenty-first request)[edit]

This new editor headed straight for the masonic articles and added links to FreemasonryWatch and Morgan's "Illustrations of Masonry". If it's not Lightbringer, I'll be quite shocked.... --SarekOfVulcan 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (twentieth request)[edit]

Lightbringer is a banned editor by Arbcom and has over 30 socks currently. This latestest editor showed up recently and has almostly exclusively editted the Freemasonry article. He has filled the article with extremely offensive links about Freemasonry and has made inflammatory remarks to other editors. Furthermore, his edits about Freemasonry and the Nazi almost fits User:Lightbringer's edits to a T. All these fit User:Lightbringer's MO perfectly. Chtirrell 13:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete and total abuse! I have made no inflamatory remarks about other editors, this is another lie by these gentlemen! I accused these Mason members of making false and misleading edit summaries, which they certainly did! They accused me of posting links by new age gurus and accusations the masons controlled the weather, when I did nothing of the sort, I posted links to christian websites that contain articles critical of their fraternity. Now I am being accused of being some banned user? What is going on here? Are the inmates running the asylum now. No wonder the freemasonry articles are so biased!Thunderbird15 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the past user:lightbringer and his socks have used the term "gentlemen", when refering to members of the masonic fraternity in a mocking manor, just as user:thunderbird15 did above here. Here is an example[User_talk:Basil_Rathbone/Archive|Basil_Rathbone] - "Now for your above point, yes it does seem I made my re-insertion of the deleted links on the "incorrect" version of the page, the one ALR or Blue Square made. I was interested in re-inserting the Wiki links and External Links, I could have cared less about a series of meaningless spelling and para re-alignments which these two gentlemen had made only to mask their deletion of my Secret society and Mormonism additions. Hope this helps to clear up your confusion on this matter." user:thunderbird15 uses similar language as user:lightbringer and his socks. Also, how does a member who has only been editting for 2 weeks know that the editors he is refering to are a) male and b) freemasons? It appears he has been going through months of threads or he is a sock.
My take, I say permo-block him - even if he is not Lightbringer - just on what is under his name. Imacomp 20:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (nineteenth request)[edit]

Superpower2 has made two attempts (thus far) to add a FreemasonryWatch link to the William Morgan (anti-Mason) article. MSJapan 17:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Lightbringer typically operates from either open proxies or from IPs owned by Shaw Communications in the Canadian province of British Columbia. 04:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (eighteenth request)[edit]

Once again, vandalism on Freemasonry-related pages (and some new, tangentially related ones like Eye of Providence and unrelated ones like the band called Freemasons) with addition of the FreemasonryWatch link. If the IP is in fact the same IP as Kissinger (talk · contribs) above, I would guess this is an open proxy. As LB has been quiet of late, I will also venture to say that there are other accounts originating from the same IP waiting in the wings. MSJapan 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Checkuser links added. Also Tom harrison has indef-blocked SarahBoston (talk · contribs) (reason: not a good faith account) & TimChandler (talk · contribs) (reason: not established in good faith = lightbringer sock). --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es).. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (seventeenth request)[edit]

Only one edit at this point, but target article (related to Freemasonry) and content (the same stuff Lightbringer and his sock army has regurgitated ad nasaum - that Freemasonry is supposedly satanism) makes me suspisious of another sockpuppet. Recent verified socks to check against includes User:Canonlaw, User:Newmason, User:Naturalism IS satanism and many more. Also see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. Unless he's moved (to Australia, from Canada). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely it's the same guy then. Thanks for looking into this. WegianWarrior 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (sixteenth request)[edit]

User:Jake the wiki follows the edit pattern of Long Term Abuser: Lightbringer who was banned from editing any article relating to Freemasonry. A supposedly new user, who immediately heads to Freemasonry related articles and shows extensive knowledge of the edit history and controvercies of the articles in question. He has specific areas that he attacks: statements that Freemasonry is not a secret society, any mention of Freemasons being killed in the Holocaust, any refutation of religious criticisms. He hides his attacks behind misleading edit summaries (in this case, picking up on legitimate concerns by other editors that the article is too long and that certain sections should be summarized). See: this edit, and those immediately prior to it. When asked to discuss his edits on the talk page, he did post a topic header on the subject, (see: Introduction section of talk page) but his responce to criticism was to claim that his changes are blocked by a "cabal" of Masonic editors (the fact that he ascerts this when, as a new user, he has not experienced such blocking is yet another example of typical Lightbringer behavior). he ends his reply with the Religious POV statement: "Masonry was defeated at Calvary", which also fits the Lightbringer mode. Finally, several Lightbringer socks have used IP addresses from Shaw Communications in BC, Canada. Examples include:

User:Jake the wiki used the IP address User:24.64.223.203 for one of his edits here. I ran a check, and that is also a Shaw Communications address. Blueboar 17:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Merging this in from above -- Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer is banned by ArbCom from editing articles relating to Freemasonry, and so far this new editor has done only that. See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Lightbringer Ardenn 02:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Up to his usual POV agenda bashing. He also seems to be using the IP: User:24.64.223.203. Note the use of the term "Masonic Editors" in his complaints (especially in the edit summaries). This is typical. There is another Check user request on him below. Blueboar 23:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed; Jake the wiki is Lightbringer. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (fifteenth request)[edit]

I tend to get suspicious when users come out of the blue on Freemasonry and start removing protect tags and complaining about "pro-Masonic bias", because it's usually Lightbringer. The LTA section on him should be enough to merit the check. MSJapan 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive for the moment. Bring it back later if it continues, if it's Lightbringer, he'll slip up. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (fourteenth request)[edit]

We think he's a sock of banned user Lightbringer (talk · contribs) who most recently was known as VQHernandez (talk · contribs) or Jake_the_wiki (talk · contribs) Ardenn 04:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concour; Sandman has the 'look and feel' of a Lightbringer sock, particulary in his choice of words ('hack masonic propagandist', 'masonic editors', "Brothers" (note his quotation marks)) and his urgent desire to link to Secret society ([9]) and Freemasonry Watch([10]) - a hate/conspiracy site which is as far from encyclopedic material as can be imagined. All are hallmarks of Lightbringer. WegianWarrior 06:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Sandmans is Lightbringer. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (thirteenth request)[edit]

Newmason has two posts to Talk:Freemasonry, one of which reiterates "Freemasonry is Satanism" here, and the other asking for examples of how FreemasonryWatch is wrong here. I would also request that Newmason's IP be checked against the other (inconclusive) RFCU I requested recently. MSJapan 05:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed definately Lightbringer, and not related to the other. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 09:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (twelfth request)[edit]

Suspect this is out old 'friend' User:Lightbringer again - MO and POV fits to a tee as described on Long term abuse/Lightbringer. Recently identified (and banned) socks include (among others) user:Newmason. WegianWarrior 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Also RBMacmillan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (eleventh request)[edit]

Modus operandi fits Lightbringer (choice of username, wording of editsummary, reverting to a non-masonic editor, article edited) as per his report on WP:LTA. Recent socks to check include Naturalism IS satanism, Newmason and RBMacmillan. WegianWarrior 08:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. And cookies for using the new templates! Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (post-addendum request)[edit]

My checkuser investigations have revealed the above Lightbringer (talk · contribs) socks. Essjay (Talk) 12:54, April 5, 2006 (UTC)

March 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (tenth request)[edit]

Fyodor Dos has been trying to force unsourced information into Freemasonry and occult, has been blocked for 3RR twice already, and claims the rvs are unsourced when the supporting facts are clearly marked on the talk pages. He has also made his bias towards Freemasonry very clear, and obviously does not wish to engage in any discussion because he cannot support his position. His behavior pattern shows a very strong possibility that he is a sock, as he has also never edited on any other articles save the ones he is vandalizing. MSJapan 06:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2nd 3rr was in error, two of the edits were errors caused by page loading problems, which I noted, and were corrected. They were not reverts and should not have been counted towards total. There are a group of Editors who indicate on their user page they belong to the same organization and are combining their edits to circumvent 3rr.Fyodor Dos 07:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I deny completely the allegations of being a sock of a banned user. I note this user made a request for a check user two days ago on me that was denied. In my response to it I pointed out this users unreferenced, undiscussed, and unsummarized deletion of a sentence on occult page - which stated that the word esoteric was the Greek word for occult.(The esoteric page contains more information on these words meaning and links.) As with my response on the check user yesterday - that disappeared, I ask that this users abuse of the Wikipedia be noted, especially his frequent habit of accusing others of being 'socks' as well as his continual check user requests and filing of unreferenced complaints of other editors he has an editorial disagreement with. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to function. This user has also made some statements that border on uncivil or even abusive conduct towards me such as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Go somewhere else.", "End of story." " especially when you don't have anything to back it up." "an attempt to mold the article to preexisting ideas", "I don't believe in coincidences" etc.
This user has a current 3rr complaint against him here and has made four false complaints against me in the last two days here, and he has just made an abusively worded arbitration complaint against me here, and he has now made another check user request against me here.Fyodor Dos 07:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 3RR complain Fyodor Dos placed against MSJapan (and Blueboar) works only if you believe that they are sockpuppets of each other, or that there is a cabal that works to silence Foydor Dos. On the other hand, Foydor Dos has allready been blocked twice for 3RR violations, in addition to failing WP:AGF and WP:CIV. He does show several of the traits displayed by Lightbringer, as reported on WP:LTA. A CheckUser would be usefull to verify that he is a sock, or lay the suspicions to rest. WegianWarrior 07:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WegianWarrior is a frequent editor on Freemasonry pages and he indicates on his user page he is a Freemason, as do here MSJapan and Blueboar who I have made a complaint about, so yes cabal is very much applicable. Where is WegianWarrior reference that I violated WP:CIV, WP:AGF, or WP:LTA? I gave a half dozen examples of WP:CIV violations by User:MSJapan against me. This is standard fair meeted out to editors who make edits that these and other Freemason editors dislike. I am the victime here. Both 3rr rulings made against me were just plain wrong. The first one counted edits I did to different sections on the page, and the second one counted 2 errors of half loaded pages, which I indicated when I fixed them.Fyodor Dos 04:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (ninth request)[edit]

Ok, from the highly-POV edit summaries, this one I do think is a Lightbringer (talk · contribs) sock. --SarekOfVulcan 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close as stale. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (eighth request)[edit]

Could we have a checkuser on this fresh user? From his editpattern (going straight to Freemasonry related pages), POV (attacking masonic editors), opinions (asking / demanding that only non-masons can edit said articles), and apperant knowledge of previous incidents, I think it is likely that he is a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer (since it is a long time since Lightbringer was here, a check can be done against other known socks, such as User:Basil Rathbone). WegianWarrior 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the same as Keystrokes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Healthy eating (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both of whom are blocked as Lightbringer socks. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (seventh request)[edit]

Very likely socks of Basil Rathbone (talk · contribs), who is in turn a sock of Lightbringer (talk · contribs). Lightbringer's information is no longer available because of time of last edit, but Basil's information is similar. Lightbringer has been banned from editing any Freemasonry related articles by ArbCom ruling, and the edit patterns of WMMrgn and Anderson12 are the same as Lightbringer/Basil's. I would love to put this on AIV, and get it sorted out right away, but there's no precedent to do so. MSJapan 21:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would reinforce the need for this, the contributions from Anderson12 are almost identical to BR and frankly now getting in the way of any sensible edit to the main article.ALR 14:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second that - in addition to ranting in the talkpages and attacking other editors, User:Anderson12 have deleted the sockpuppet warning on his userpage and copied the userpage of User:Giovanni33. He also insists in reinserting a link to a scratchpad created (partly at least) by User:Basil Rathbone (known sock of Lightbringer) and removing comments from other editors pointing to the likelyhood of him being a sock - see here bottom of his edit), here, here and here. A check-user will let people calm down, no matter if the result show him to be a likely sock or not.

He's just pretty much confirmed that he is Lightbringer/ Basil Rathbone et al with the latest entry to the talk page. [2 Mar 06] Can we have him blocked iaw Arbcom ruling. Thanks.ALR 13:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2006[edit]

Lightbringer (sixth request)[edit]

I think ALR is Lightbringer, hence trying to say I'm S'n'F sock to cover his tracks. Book Mouse 13:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gather from another sock accusation that it has been too long since User:Lightbringer last posted to do a proper check. I do not believe that User:ALR is a User:Lightbringer sock, but if it will help to clear this up, try User:Basil Rathbone, who was proven to be a User:Lightbringer sock. Blueboar 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've already been checked out, above, based on Imacomps accusation of yesterday [[11]] :) Good here innit. Fortunately I used to be a moderator in a fairly active Internet Forum so got used to these kind of things.ALR 19:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request rejected, check has already been ran against this user (see above). Hall Monitor 19:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (fifth request)[edit]

I suspect Anderson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ardenn 04:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer has been gone too long for a checkuser. Any other checkuser have saved results for Lightbringer to compare with? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can check it against Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as he's a known puppet of LB's. Ardenn 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A connection bewteen between Basil_Rathbone and Anderson12 appears likely. Raul654 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this basis (and because of disruption on Freemasonry, which pattern of behaviour strengthens the likelihood), I have blocked A12 for a month. I'm noting this here cos I'm not sure where else to William M. Connolley 21:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (fourth request)[edit]

Both display the backslash bug, which almost always mean they came from a misconfigured open PHP web proxy, which should be blocked before it causes damage. Both accounts are already indefinitely blocked. cesarb 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (third request)[edit]

He's a suspected sockpuppet of Lightbringer (talk · contribs) and Basil_Rathbone (talk · contribs) who are banned by ArbCom from editing Freemasonry. Ardenn 21:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sunday Service's accesses are entirely through his ISP's proxies. However, Sunday Service appears to be from the UK, while User:Basil Rathbone appears to be in Canada. User:Lightbringer has not edited Wikipedia within the period we retain IP history. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer (second request)[edit]

User:Humanun Genus is a suspected sock of User:Lightbringer MSJapan 04:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Closed as stale. Note added when archive to subpage. Thatcher131 03:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2006[edit]

Lightbringer[edit]

While I don't suspect KJVTRUTH of being a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, who is banned from editing Freemasonry articles, there are those who do, and I'd like to clear him if possible. Thanks. (P.S. -- he also seems to edit as 66.211.136.138 (talk · contribs)) --SarekOfVulcan 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he is determined to be a Lightbringer sock, edit history leads me to believe that he also uses User:JohN. If not, no JohN check needed. --SarekOfVulcan 22:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to Jayjg to check cold files on Lightbringer. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't *appear* to be Lightbringer - wrong country (unless he's moved) - David Gerard 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. How about the IP I requested down at the bottom of this?--SarekOfVulcan 17:13, 26 January 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/Lightbringer_(usurped_-_blocked)&oldid=1080968914"