Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I declare that Panarjedde and Kwame Nkrumah are two accounts used by the same person. I also declare that the accounts currently listed in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah (FoxyProxy, Tarentum, and Huatai) are also used by the same person.

I would also beg your pardon for the problems I caused, with all of the accounts created. I admit that this behaviour is wrong, and accept whatever punishment it will be considered fitting for this case.

--Panarjedde 09:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (for Panairjdde, whose account has a random password unknown to the user)[reply]
--Huatai 12:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC) (for Kwame Nkrumah, which is still blocked)[reply]




Also, if you don't mind comparing them to the user from this page [1] such as 151.47.126.70, 151.47.99.146, 151.47.117.140, etc., per reasons stated below. --Palffy 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The user Kwame Nkrumah has had several issues including 3 confirmed 3RR breaks, and 1 sock puppet, [2]. There is an outstanding 3RR request involving FoxyProxy who has also broken the 3RR. The two users seem to make posts at the same time the other one stops. Tarentum also appears to be a sock-puppet initially created to run a checkuser on Kwame Nkrumah, to prove his innocence to others (see user contributions). Kwame has also admitted several times to having multiple sock-puppets as well. --Palffy 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall saying I have "multiple sock-puppets".--Kwame Nkrumah 23:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that and that will refresh your memory. I'm also adding User: Huatai to the sock-puppet list, on the basis of my reasoning stated earlier (makes posts at the same time the other one stops) and user started his wikipedia posting by posting on User talk pages, especially on seemingly unrelated matter. --Palffy 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see where I say I have several sockpuppets. Kwame Nkrumah is a sockpuppet (it is clarly said in KN page), for (mainly) sport-related edits. And any smart editor could understand that, since none of the users accused to be sp have 10000 edits as written in KN page, none of the above is the "sockpuppetteer".--Kwame Nkrumah 00:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to second the request for a checkuser on this user. He has previously used abusive sockpuppets [3], for which the sockpuppet was blocked, and it appears that the user may be using multiple sockpuppets to evade policy violations. Cowman109Talk 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this user also explicitly claims that he is himself a sockpuppet of someone else who has a large amount of edits, perhaps the sockpuppeteer can be found. Ryūlóng 04:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, so I've spent a good deal of time researching the previous users, and I'm pretty confident about those being sock-puppets, but Ryulong brings up an even more interesting point that if what K-N is saying is true, and this sock-puppeteer has the same attitude at K-N, then he must've gotten into similar issues beforehand. I ended up spending the past couple of hours browsing through numerous posts trying to find some sort of a link to anyone with a similar type of behavior until I discovered an interesting user, User:Panairjdde. After more careful examination, I can say with almost 99.99% certainty that this IS the same user (its almost impossible for this to be a coincidence by luck). I'm not exactly sure if checksum will be able to verify this since this has taken place last month (but since ips are available from the previous user, they should be quick to compare). Here's my evidence:

  • Both users share the same summary style (compare [4] or even [5] with [6] or [7]).
  • Both users post on the same topics (Italian football [8] and [9], lots of edits on US national football team, Korea national football team, and a particular interest in Classics or Roman mythology, [10] and [11]). Feel free to glance over the the user contributions on both carefully..
  • Both users make similar corrections (In the Roman mythology edits, both users stress getting rid of such petty things such as AD, (see [12] and [13], and both users have at least a dozen articles on their pseudonym where they do that, so its not just a few cases), both sign a good deal of their reverts "rv/v", a lot of lowercasing on section titles ([14] and [15]).
  • Both users correspond with fellow WPers the same way (this is from the suspected sock puppet page [16], Never said that. I just said I closed the account and moved on, but if you block me indefinitely, how could I move on at all? As regards other admins, you blocked me indefinitely and I should ask to someone else? You should provide me with good reasons for this indefinite block.--151.47.76.121 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
or from the users own talk page,[17], Now, how do you dare removing my ADs from Honorius (emperor)? In which your edit is different from Codex Sinaiticus' ones in Montanism? Why the same rule is applied liberally to CS, and restrictively to me?)


compared to ([18], Before your decision, I put a 3RR warning in his talk page, which Palffy removed. When you wrote me that it is forbidden to remove warnings, I readded it, with your text as an explanation: he removed it again. My question is if the keep-the-warning rule applies to each contributor, or only to selected ones.--Kwame Nkrumah 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and ([19], As a genaral tought, it seems quite unfair, at least from my POV, that you keep pushing me around telling me to read this and that, and yet failing to even cite a single sentence. If you want to be heard, you should show you have some sort of interest in the matter, not putting the burden of finding "proofs" of your statements on others. --Kwame Nkrumah 15:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC) and "I'm not the one misbehaving here, you are": you still need to prove this statement.[reply]
and [20], In the end he get the page protected on his version and the tag removed: Tell me the truth, is Palffy the son of someone important here on Wikipedia, that the rules do not apply to him?--Kwame Nkrumah 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)---also note the use of italics in the response on the last page and compare them with the italics [21] here.)
  • I could go on about a whole lot more similarities, but I think I've listed more than enough proof here. However, I'd like to post my last significant piece of evidence, which is what led me to find the link between the 2 accounts. One edit stood out more than the rest in Kwame's history, and that was on the Newport Tower, a historic location in an obscure state in America (I know because I've lived there). The problem was that it was completely out of place with the rest of Kwame's posts. If you look closely at the history, you will find the two editors (making multiple changes). If you look at another favorite edit of Kwame's, Constantius Chlorus...you will find the two editors =).

With that in mind, I would like to add the previous ip's of Panairjdde to the checksum take from the suspected sock puppets page. I hope you all enjoy reading this though... =/ --Palffy 07:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a second recurrence just upto the creation of Kwame, listed here and an admin tried to deal with the issue here as well. --Palffy 07:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Kwame Nkrumah being Panairjdde[edit]

First, let me say that I exchanged email with Panairjdde last week, & he convinced me to unblock his accounts. He promised not to cause any more disruptions & claimed that, if anything, he would avoid further controversy. Although I haven't seen any activity under the two accounts I unblocked, he can return to Wikipedia any time he wants -- & I made it clear that he is welcome contact me if he has any problems. (This was discussed quite visibly at WP:AN/I, with no objections.) BTW, the account whence he sent email to me had his full name, so I believe that this was not a joe job.

That said, I don't see what motivation Panairjdde would have to return as a sockpuppet. My impression was that he wanted to return to his original account because he wanted to keep the edit history attached to it; he has no interest in using further sockpuppets. And when he used them, it was quite clear that he was behind them.

Further, while I do not claim to be an expert with the checkuser tool, I do know that Panairjdde uses an ISP in the Rome, Italy area with a large dynamic DHCP pool; during the periods when he editted as an anon, he appeared as an IP address in the 151.44.x.x & 151.47.x.x range. Let's assume that the two are the same person. Unless Panairjdde has opened an account at another ISP, a checkuser on Kwame Nkrumah would point to an IP from this pool -- which has about 65,000 possible users. This result could hardly be considered conclusive enough to merit a "conclusive" finding.

In short, while Panairjdde did cause problems while banned, & while it is fair to assume when one problem user leaves Wikipedia & another problem user appears not soon after that they may be the same person, I think in this case there is no connection between the two. I admit that I want to believe that Panairjdde does want to be a useful contributor, & that he didn't mislead me in his emails -- but to promise in an earnest tone to behave one way to me & to behave in another way strikes me as a symptom of a sick mind that should have demonstrated itself in other ways long before this. (And if we look at the records of other major troublemakers who have appeared in this project, we will see examples of that.)

But I'll talk to him about this, if only to get his side of the story. -- llywrch 17:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, I have a problem with a response like that. You are judging both of these people (I will refer to them as separate beings until the checkuser is run) based on your emotions about them and what the former person has promised you. However, you have dealt with this person earlier and you have read some of the stuff he has said such as I won't revert the articles edited by Guinnog, but keep on adding ADs wherever I feel like. --Panairjdde 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC) here. This new user has made similar posts vowing to keeping doing stuff that he was doing earlier in a similar fashion. What makes you think that you have changed the mindset of this person if 6+ (and this is only from the limited number of edits i've seen of Panairjdde+socks, so I'm sure there are way more) admins have tried to mediate with this person with no success??
This brings me to my second issue with all of this. I'm very disappointed at how admins have handled this. I'm aware that most of you were elected to be an admin because of your superb mediation skills, which as Cowman, Doc Glasgow, Stifle and PGK have shown through their dealings with Kwame, which I undoubtedly applaud. But I must also stress that you are not just mediators here on WP, you are moderators as well. I have seen administrators who have acted as moderators, but have not acted enough because they have not decided to take an active role in the process (I'm specifically refering to Lar, Alphachimp and Voice of All). There comes a point where the mediation is going no where, and please ask yourself (for those that have known Kwame and Panairjdde) has mediation TRULY ever worked? Have things ever been completely resolved to the point that the user had become a USEFUL and not a DISRUPTIVE user on WP?
My second to last comment will bring be closer to what I've stated earlier in this post. Admins dealing with this have to stop dealing with this issue with their emotions and need to start dealing with reason. I have unfortunately come about on Kwame only about week since his creation and have been dealing with him+his socks since. I have read close to 90% of the user's contributions and I have given significant thought as to who this person is/what his intentions are/what he is capable of. I have also had the task of providing evidence for a majority of disruptions/arguments this user has caused and the admins who have dealt with this issue must admit that every time I have brought a claim up against this user and his socks, I have been right every time. I don't rely on emotions when I make posts, I have gladly accepted the 2 to 3 reasonably useful posts that he has made, but I have been forced to spend my time finding proof after proof as to why his edits are false and inappropriate for WP and why his edits should be changed otherwise (for the record, I'm most certainly not the only person who has done that either). Cowman can attest and should attest this for everyone (I feel that he is the most involved admin out of the group, since he has followed both of our actions since the day after I've stumbled upon Kwame). I have yet to be proven wrong on any of the statements I've made against Kwame and I would like this confirmed for everyone in the future (I have certainly broken my share of WP:Civil out of frustration with this user, but that has happened once I realized that I did not run into someone who had made a simple mistake, but someone who has been terrorizing WP for a great period of time).
Lastly, before any of you make anymore posts putting your faith behind these two users, PLEASE take the time to read through Kwame's edits if you are unfamiliar with them (and I'm not refering to glancing over them for 10 minutes--I'm saying if you really want to be involved and helpful in this process, take an hour or more and read through his responses), read through my responses, and compare them to edits of Panairjdde. It would be a crime for any of you discard all of this evidence if the checkuser links the new Kwame+socks accounts to that IP range. Consider the odds that someone from a specific neighborhood of Milan or Rome, or wherever this user is from, would shadow the other user SO CLOSELY in his behavior/responses/and actions. In my opinion, you probably would have a better chance of winning the lottery today.. --Palffy 21:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to start in response to all of this.
1. Panairjdde told me that he had acted wrongly. When I asked him to elaborate, he explained quite clearly what he believed he had done wrongly. I don't know what caused this change in him, & I didn't think to ask, but I suspect he saw that it was counterproductive. Because one of the principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith, & he had said nothing & had done nothing to make me suspect him, I'm taking him at his word. And I assume you would like the same courtesy.
And besides, if he is acting in bad faith, what's the harm in allowing him back on Wikipedia? Any Admin can block his account if he doesn't behave, & we're no worse off.
2. What I don't understand that if Panairjdde is asking for my help to return to Wikipedia under his own username, then why would he be making trouble under a sockpuppet at the same time? At most, all he would be doing is distracting one Admin (me), while several others would be dealing with the sockpuppet. It just doesn't make sense to me.
3. Just because a troublemaker claims to be a sockpuppet, & appears to act like another known troublemaker, he is that troublemaker. Panairjdde has shown he lives in Italy, has an interest in Roman history & soccer, & gets angry; hardly unusual qualities for an Italian. You argue that because Kwame Nkrumah shares 3 of these 4 items (AFAICT, we don't know where Kwame Nkrumah lives), we should launch a checkuser to see if they are the same person. I don't find this argument at all convincing.
And even if a checkuser revealed that Kwame Nkrumah has used some of the IP addresses that Panairjdde has used, it doesn't prove they are the same person. Panairjdde's ISP assigns IPs from a pool of numbers, & does not assign static ones; they can be two different people, not know one another, & it's possible that they use the same IP address on the same day. (This is what I was trying to say, & I admit that Ryulong caught me in an error.)
4. I remember a case where a long-time Admin believed that a controversial editor (User:-Ril-) was the reincarnation of a specific troublemaker (User:Lir). Checkuser was run & the accusation was shown to be wrong, & the Admin lost respect. However, it later was discovered that -Ril- was the reincarnation of anothertroublemaker -- User:CheeseDreams. I wonder if one Admin hadn't gotten so hung up on the possibility that -Ril- was Lir we might have figured out who -Ril- truly was sooner.
5. I am responding to the evidence you presented above, & only the evidence above. Don't tell us "read through Kwame's edits if you are unfamiliar with them ... and I'm not refering to glancing over them for 10 minutes--I'm saying if you really want to be involved and helpful in this process". It is your responsibility to present your best evidence in the most persuasive manner to obtain a checkuser. I have no interest in Kwame Nkrumah; he may be the troublemaker you say he is. My interest is in merely showing that he is not Panairjdde, & only because I believe that would be a waste of people's time.
BTW, I took a look thru the WP:AN/I archives. Kwame Nkrumah's name only appears there once -- when he complained about you in an edit war. If he has been "terrorizing WP for a great period of time", then why doesn't his name appear more often?
6. I believe that there is an unspoken principle that all Admins follow, which is "Use your Admin powers as little as possible." Jimbo himself once spoke about being deliberately lazy when it came to resolving conflicts. We Admins are not here to be moderators; as long as people don't violate the rules of Wikipedia, there is no need for an Admin to get involved. And besides, Admins aren't moderators or mediators; we're janitors. We clean up messes. Wikipedia is not a debating society -- it is a project to create an encyclopedia. And if a dispute gets messy, we clean it up the best we are able to.
If you feel you need a mediator, anyone can do it for you. But the parties involved must be willing to want to find common ground to agree on, & trust the person selected.
7. Why are you accusing me (it appears you are directing this at me) of using "emotion" in this matter? I stated my opinion, based on what I know. Your statement is either a non sequitor or an ad hominem attack. In either case, it makes your request for a checkuser less convincing.

There is probably other things I should say in this matter, but I've probably said enough. Asking for a checkuser is not a right, it is only done when you have solid proof that two accounts are used by the same person, & then only to clinch the matter. My conversation with Panairjdde is evidence that the two are not the same person -- which weakens your case. You can either look for more evidence to prove that they are the same person (I admit, it's possible I'm wrong -- but I doubt it), or look to see if Kwame Nkrumah is a sock for another known troublemaker. (He may be one of those I mentioned above. Or not.) Good luck. -- llywrch 04:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you response, Llywrch, I feel that this was a much more constructive post on your part, and I thank you for taking the time to do that. I will try to respond to your points as well as I can, but before I do, I want to apologize for my attack--this is was completely unintentional, rather this was more of wake-up call for all of this to be taken more seriously..I have no interest in offending you.
1. I agree with you on the assumption of good faith. In fact a good deal of the posts Kwame was making was because he felt like he wanted to contribute to WP, and although they were made with the intentions of improving WP, they were filled with factually false information, heavily disputed decisions (with his side being the minority most of the time), and frequently skirting the laws of WP to get his edits across. I would understand it if this person had stopped and chose to listen, make friends here on WP, but he has been warned countless times and instead of agreeing even once with admin's who have warned him (or even posters who have reprimanded him), its always been tit-for-tat, or why is it that this person have more priveleges than I do. Essentially, every warning came with a counter-argument, ie. there wasn't a time when the user would agree that he did something wrong earlier. I hope you would agree with me that's a major problem and puts a dent in the good faith statement.
2. I don't understand it either. Maybe he felt that he will be constantly watched by you guys (because you have taken some serious measures against the user) and it would be in his interests to create several more socks so he could (hopefully) keep them apart and independent of each other..My answer is I don't know, but I do know that if Kwame asked me for the same, I would not believe a word of that. Maybe neither of us are familiar with Panairjdde well enough.
3. See, its not just that he potentially shares the same interests as other Italians, it's how closely the two shadow each other. For example, most of my posts are on Former Soviet Union football, with occasional posts in world politics and random trivia. Quite a few users exist who share my interest in FSU football, but they don't shadow my posts as much as this person has. I can show you examples of users who make edits to some of the pages that I have edited, but as long as the other user has made enough posts, you will see them branching off onto other matters/topics. What found me striking was that these two users share interest in so many of these seemingly unrelated topics (how do you explain the Newport Tower edit?..this is the equivalent of me editing a post on the national zoo in Fiji and then having one of the other FSU football editors do the same). Oh, and both of us would have to do make 3-4 changes to the article as well, on meaningful information. I feel that my other evidence, (the 'rm, rv/v, comments, choice of edits, AD, lower-casing on the 2nd word of a section title') cannot all be a coincidence. The only alternative I see for this is for someone to purposefully make an attempt at acting like this banned user (for whatever reason it may be). The problem is I find that highly unlikely, as Kwame does not strike me a smart enough user in the first place, and I'm sure that he would end this game within a few days, and not last almost 4 weeks.
I will however post you more evidence after this post, as it appears that the evidence I have provided still has not convinced you (or at least, you think its pretty weak).
4. I am willing to put my reputation on the line here. I feel strongly about this user (I have never had to deal with someone like Kwame) and I, as well as a great deal of other posters, believe that he should not be acting like this or contributing to WP, because of the disruptions he has caused. I could have made a mistake somewhere (that is why I say its is very likely that they are the same person), but I have put a great deal of time into this already and want this determined once and for all. It's funny because Kwame keeps saying stuff like He denounced my (allegedly) 3RR breaking. He denounced me for socketpuppetry. on his user page, even after I proved that he in fact did break the 3RR and was in fact right about him having a sock-puppet (User: Spunti). I am willing to spend my time doing the research to get this guy gone, and I don't want my evidence discounted just on the basis of what this person has said, because time after time, he has been proven to lie.
5. His name doesn't appear more often for several reasons. First, he already has 4 to 5 admins watching over him, and secondly, I have been reluctant to post on the ANI board, because I feel that the admins are too slow to get around to that, and usually, a new admin would be handling the matter everytime. Instead, the issues are scattered all over WP's talk pages, such as here, here, here (these are just the pages involving arguments with me--there are many others involving other users as well), multiple admin talk pages, WP:3RR pages (all of the links to those are available on the current 3RR page--just search for Kwame--such as [24]), and user summaries.
6. So you would prefer a demotion to janitor instead?! Hey, I thought that being a moderator is a more respectful title =)) I agree though with everything you said in the paragraph, but you brought up an interesting point in But the parties involved must be willing to want to find common ground to agree on, & trust the person selected. This has been the issue with Kwame, there is really no common ground with this user--he wants it his way and thats final. It's always tit-for-tat with him--if I (supposedly) win somehow by protecting the Ukrainian national football team, then he will counter me by protecting the Chornomorets Odessa page. And this person will not listen to the evidence provided, the calls for democratic actions--the user is sure that his way is the way it should be even if the facts are presented and multiple users voice support against him.
I will post some more evidence for my case shortly. I know that checkuser is a tedious process that should be run in extreme circumstances, but I feel that the evidence presented more than merits it. Also, since the checkuser will be run on Kwame+suspected socks, all the checkuser admin has to do is compare it to the ip ranges provided, since they likely won't have logs available for Panairjdde's posts anymore. --Palffy 16:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Ok, more evidence. Reading this and this (as well as well as most of Panairjdde's arguments on talk pages a week before his ban, you would see that this supports my last comment about him never accepting others opinions or discussing changes before making controversial edits. Read over the 3 links I provided in my last post (namely this), and you will see posts like this, That is true. And for sure, it does not belong to people who "personally would support", but they don't since nobody else is supporting. Nobody owns WP, but, at the same time, WP is not a democracy: the end result is that a wrong interpretation is wrong even if supported by a majority.--Kwame Nkrumah 10:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC), which are mirror images of Panairjdde's responses. Read this exchange, [25]; this is an unmistakedly stubborn person. Kwame has the same exact traits--neither will ever make a concession and will continue making edits the way they feel like. More examples of this can be seen here and here.
  • Both users have been self-admitted contributors since 2002, [26] and [27].
  • Both users discount their blocks and warnings, [28] (in response to an admin, user says I agree with all you said. The problem is that it does not apply to this case. Thanks, however.--Panairjdde 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC).) compared to [29] and [30] (Thank you for your answer. However, I shall wait for Doc's one, before giving my opinion on the matter.--Kwame Nkrumah 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC) and I read the link and still don't see what's wrong with my edit. However...--Kwame Nkrumah 00:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)--read both pages, they're good reads for sure).[reply]
  • Both users make promises to ignore certain people by stating 'they shall do' so and so. [31] and [32] have the following, I shall ignore you. Any further edit to my talk page by you will be reverted.--Panairjdde 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC) vs. User:Palffy has been warned several times to stay away from me, so I shall not take his posts in consideration. Usually.[reply]
  • Both users stalk others. (see [33] and compare to [34] and the most recent stalking that has led to the most recent 3RR and a checkuser request from me, where I've been making Ukrainian soccer template adjustments, [35] and all of sudden, a user with no interest and understanding in Ukrainian soccer/copyright law, jumps in [36]. At first I thought he was legitimate, even posting [37] in response, but after looking at the contributions history and I had already known who was behind this).

Is this enough or need I go more? The point that I'm making is neither of us can be 100% sure unless we have this checkuser check, but if it so happens that they have the same ip range, you have to admit that it is almost 99.99% likely that they're both the same person.. --Palffy 17:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic range?[edit]

I would like to point out that Panairjdde, when editting from the IPs, were not from a dynamic range. When 3RRs were violated through editting as anonymous users, he editted under one IP until it was blocked because it was definitely block evasion. He then probably rebooted his modem and signed on with another IP address until that one was blocked, and he continued. When the ranges were anon only blocked, he created more sockpuppets. Ryūlóng 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. But it still raises the question, why would he ask me to unblock his account if he is participating under another username? -- llywrch 04:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All blocked? Ryūlóng 04:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I just learned something about this case. Hold on until I learn more. -- llywrch 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anything about it yet? Ryūlóng 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have patience - there is a checkuser backlog and there are very few people with checkuser privileges :). As it states at the top of the checkuser page, checkuser is a time consuming and sensitive process. Cowman109Talk 15:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was asking what llywrch found out. Ryūlóng 02:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as I feel comfortable about sharing what I've learned -- & how much -- I'll share it here. In any case, checkuser will not be necessary. Sorry to be so cryptic. -- llywrch 18:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is all right. Ryūlóng 18:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are we going to be filled in on the status of this user? --Palffy 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He sorta fessed up to it already. Ryūlóng 18:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean, what is the decision of administrators on the matter? --Palffy 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being listed as one of his countless enemies on his userpage, I'm also very interested in Kwame Nkrumah's destiny.–Vitriden 23:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't read from the top.–Vitriden 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there's still no word from the admins on this...you guys are simply going to let him walk away after doing all of this without any kind of reprimand? --Palffy 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to personally testify that I agree with Palffy on this, I also make edits on generally the same things these accounts do (Italian football and Italian history, though not so much Roman history), and I would definitely believe these accounts do belong to the same person. I did notice the very strange rise in activity of a user I had never noticed before on these pages, being Kwame, at the same time that Panairjdde was blocked. I'm saying all of this though I have a positive bias towards the user, he even put a praising comment on my talk page for my edits and being an A.S. Roma fan like him. (They both have edited many articles pertaining to A.S. Roma, though this doesn't add much to the evidence, here's A.S. Roma's history with both users logged here) Kwame's first edit to AS Roma was on 9 August, where Panairjdde got his block on 24 July, I believe. -KingPenguin 15:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kwame_Nkrumah&oldid=1045373400"