Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rex071404

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/Rex071404}}
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.

216.153.214.89[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


  • Supporting evidence:

There has been a recent increase in apparent WP:SPA activity on Talk:Barack Obama, in particular weighing in on consensus votes. The lead IP address (216.153.214.89) is similar to known IP addresses of User:Rex071404, who was subjected to ArbCom sanctions and ultimately blocked for violation of same, including sockpuppetry as part of the evasion attempt. User has declined to respond to questions as to whether he is, in fact, an IP-sock of User:Rex071404.

User:Rex071404 and User:Merecat are banned users and are listed here for completeness and to assist in cross-referencing possible connections.

Remaining IPs and usernames have little or no activity outside Talk:Barack Obama (and, in some cases, Barack Obama), and have voted consecutively and in tandem on consensus discussions. All are also actively attempting to derail any attempt to notate that they are possible WP:SPAs as well as any discussion of possible sockpuppetry.

--Clubjuggle T/C 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined As I recall, Rex lived in Texas. This IP is in Massachusetts. People move, maybe, but clearly there is not going to be any technical evidence here one way or the other. Thatcher 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this decline. As pointed out before, this IP address repeatedly skirted the question as to whether or not he was Rex, and is now waving your decline around as an exoneration. Given it's a probable case of a serious problem user evading an Arbcom-related indef ban, it should've been thoroughly investigated.
Rex's old IP address (which I wish Clubjuggle had included in this CheckUser request), 216.153.214.94 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (confirmed sock), also leads back to Massachusetts now. Rex always had trouble due to the static nature of his IP, and there're plenty of reasons why his ISP could appear to come from a different location now. This decline dismissed a mountain of evidence (CheckUsers've been run for far less in the past), and was extremely unhelpful. I urge reconsideration on your part, or review from another CheckUser. Shem(talk) 18:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rex071404[edit]

  • Also Rex states here: [3] "Now as to how you can believe that I will not be a source of trouble, I'll just tell you that over the last 20 months I have run a parallel user account (my last undiscovered sock) who edited 0 political articles and was actually promoted to Admin. Regarding this admin, I quit using that account about 6 months after getting promoted. Eventually, you'll find some idle admin accounts and you'll probably guess which one was mine." -- Please find this Admin. ( It might be Oven Fresh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) see this incident page:[4] to see User:NoSeptember's reasoning as to why.--added as afterthought-- Mr. Tibbs 08:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

User:Rex071404 recently admitted on his talkpage that he has used the accounts above as sockpuppets. There also is an incident report about this.[5] As well as the continueing request for clarification.[6] -- Mr. Tibbs 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please include Prometheuspan on the following comment.[7]. Indeed this user appeared out of nowhere, made unusual edits to talkpages and could very well be a strawman used by Merecat/whole bunch of socks/Rex in his disruptive attempts to delete sourced information he considers detrimental to the rightwing reader (or is it himself?). Coincidentally, this user has dyslexia (see userpage) which Rex claims to be suffering from too, see his "confession." By the same token Tbeatty was a very obsessive defender of permabanned abusive editor Rex. The similarity in reasoning, topics of interest and the odd ignoring of previous CU results that prove Merecat is a sock is at best quaint.221.159.131.100 08:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Prometheuspan is most likely not a sock of User:Rex071404, but he is most likely a sock of User:Kevin Baas. Don't ask me how I know this as I don't want to get my user name involved. This Merecat/Rex sock hunt infects with additional accusations everyone who complains about it including User:Tbeatty and User:Zer0faults and I want to stay back because I am not complaining about it and I do agree that sockpuppets should be banned. I've followed this Merecat dispute for some time and I say good riddence to him, but I am absolutely convinced that User:Prometheuspan is a sockpuppet troll.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.61.27 (talk • contribs)
      • The fact people need to comment as anon says enough. Although Prometheus initial request was denied there is suffient cause (as suggested earlier) to suggest his adversary was his alter ego: Merecat/Rex, and NOT Kevin Baas, making this an entirely different RFCU. Also, that request was a wild goose chase started by Rex himself when it became evident he was found out.211.242.159.207 00:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: 20:42, May 12, 2006 Naconkantari blocked "ソックスのパペット (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (english name, please) Thatcher131 07:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: The request to check Prometheuspan has already been rejected below. If you can provide specific evidence of policy violations (for example, Prometheuspan and Kevin Baas editing articles in tandem to avoid 3RR blocks, or referring to a previous version by the other as "mine"), you can add the diffs to the request below and it may be reconsidered. (As always, the decision of whether to grant a checkuer request is solely at the discretion of the checkuser admins.) Thatcher131 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Admitted sockpuppets may be blocked outright. There is no evidence warranting an invasion of Oven Fresh's privacy at this time. There were no undiscovered socks when the Rex/Merecat check was run, and there aren't going to be any now, two days later. People need to find something to do besides coming up with lists of possible Rex sockpuppets. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:30, 7 June 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 below, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

User:Rex071404/User:Merecat[edit]

Update on list: Last IP-editor started disruptively trolling and has been blocked following the heated debate between Mr Zero and others.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a brief analysis of these users' edits at User:Phr's request,[8] it appears to me that User:Neutral arbiter and User:Wombdpsw are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat who were both permanently banned for evading prior arbcomm resolutions. A previous noticeboard post by User:Nescio resulted in the suggestion of running a RFCU[9] and User:Phr also made a noticeboard post[10] regarding this. It needs to be known if these new users are sockpuppets of Rex/Merecat so the remedies (particularly remedy 2) from Rex's 4th and last arbitration case can be enforced.[11] There is also an RfAr[12][13] and a Request for clarification[14] up about this user. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: I've archived the whole discussion to the history (see here), and would like a clerk summary. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: More discussion archived here. Summary (by Pureblade) is:

The request is on
both of whom have been permabanned, are accused of having the following socks:
Claims Rex is innocent
Also campaigns for Rex's unblock
Zer0faults vehemently argues that he is not a sockpuppet, and claims that his IP is 74.64.40.102, which is located in a different state than 69.46.20.59.
This was requested by Noosphere after the original request, due to: the user's first edit was just after Merecat's block, use of Wikipedia slang, and editing this article, supposedly one of Merecat's favorites.
Prodego talk 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed as follows:

  • Rex071404, Merecat, Neutral_arbiter, Cal_Burrattino, and Wombdpsw are the same editor.
  • Zer0faults appears to be a distinct individual, and has used 74.64.40.102, along with several others. There is not an obvious connection with Rex/Merecat.
  • 69.46.20.59 is HIVELOCITY VENTURES CORP, a hosting company in Florida. Very little legitimate traffic comes from hosting companies, and their addresses often operate like open proxies.
  • 216.22.26.46 is Choice One Communications Inc., a business internet and phone service provider/hosting company. The address 216.22.26.46 appears to be part of the webhosting services.

In short, either of the two IP addresses could be anyone, including Rex/Merecat. It is impossible to tell, since they may or may not be available for proxying activities, and are not likely to be scannable. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw have all been indef blocked. Prodego talk 22:23, 4 June 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 below, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

70.84.56.166, et al.[edit]

I don't know if this is a case of simple puppetry or something complex re-incarnation, but here's what happened - there's vote-stacking going on at the AfDs of Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. See 2nd nom and restarted AfD. The issue was subsequently blown up at the admin's noticeboard as well, under three subject headings.

Just hours ago, 70.84.56.166 has been mass-spamming user talkpages to try and swing the consensus on the restarted AfD and undermine the discussion. merecat is currently blocked for a similiar instance, and is under your ArbCom file. This RCU, if completed, may be useful as evidence in presentation for the case. While I'm going through the user talkpage of 70.84.56.166, I'm surprised to find that it is tagged with a allegations of more editors (two which previously underwent ArbCom), so I guess a checkuser on all of them aganist this IP is recommended to check for re-incarnations. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs) has been used in the past by a guy from Texas who prefers not to register, for lack of a better name we refer to him as the anon Texan (*see User:Stbalbach/anontexan). User:Anon Texan is just a redirect to Stbalbach's evidence page since he refuses to register. He is pro-Bush and ocassionally makes POV edits but is rarely this disruptive. Rex and BigDaddy haven't posted since November so a CU would be impossible. It is concievable that the anon Texan is a registered user such as Merecat or someone else but my hunch is that he is not. Thatcher131 11:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely than the Anon Texan and merecat are the same user. It's patently obvious that merecat is evading his block to spam talk pages (including mine, damn it all). Based on talk page evidence, I wouldn't disagree that they're tied to BigDaddy777, but we don't have records going back to October. [edit] Actually, I'm not sure about the BigDaddy connection. But he and the Anon Texan are definitely the same user. Mackensen (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further talk page spam coming from 67.15.76.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is Houston-based Everyone's Internet, the other ISP of the anon Texan. I suppose this is merecat too but can we nail it down once and for all? Sorry. Thatcher131 11:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're safe at this point assuming that spam from Everyone's Internet == merecat/Anon Texan/et al (and yes, this is he). Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 4 May 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 below, in a new section.




The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

User:Merecat as User:71.212.31.95[edit]

Could someone please do a checkuser on User:Merecat? This discussion gives me reason to believe that he is using User:71.212.31.95 as a sockpuppet. Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 20:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Declined. No evidence of policy violations and we don't reveal IP addresses except under special circumstances. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


66.98.130.204 (talk · contribs) and 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • 66.98.130.204 purposely and admittedly won't log in,[15] thus operating as a sock puppet. When confronted, he then tried to cover it up,[16] then outright lied about coming from the 192.168.204.130 IP address by doctoring the page [17] (The 198.168.x.x Class C range is non-routeable and reserved, no one could post from that IP it is physically impossible, it's used only on internal LANs). User:70.85.195.225 is the same person (proof on request). It has been on-going for many days. Thank you for any help identifying this self-admitted sock puppet. -- Stbalbach 07:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia allows users to not log in and to use more than one user account besides, so long as they do not do so for the purpose of disruption. I haven't seen any evidence of disruption, so I would not reveal any evidence CheckUser returned in this situation. However, there was none to return in any case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:59, 8 March 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/Rex071404&oldid=1146607577"