Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Licinius

• {{user|Licinius}}
• {{user|Mr nice guy}}

I suspect that Mr nice guy is a new sockpuppet of Licinius, who was blocked after being found to have made illegal and unethical use of other sockpuppets.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Archive/March_2006#Licinius_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_Da_Celtic_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_NSWelshman_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_The_man_from_OZ_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_J_is_me_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29.2C_Jimididit_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 (here)] User:Mr nice guy is now pushing the same, eccentric POV as Licinius in edits to Football and in comments at Talk:Football. They have both worked on other pages also. Grant65 | Talk 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:From the looks of it, seems to be Licinius. I've blocked both IPs for six months each, as they were hosting a massive sock farm, and will contact the University of Wollongong about use of thier IPs to vandalize. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Severe and longterm sockpuppetry at Talk:Football, now spilling over into trolling at Talk:Football (soccer), Talk:Rugby league, Talk:Rugby union, Talk:American football, Talk:Gaelic football and Talk:Canadian football.

User:Grant65 first raised these allegations ages ago, but didn't follow it through by posting a request on this page.

Evidence that the first four are the same person can be seen in their similar behaviour at Talk:Football, the similarity of user pages, and the fact that for a time they were all making the same mistake in the way they signed their posts. These socks have all voted in a poll at Talk:Football, and have been extremely abusive to Grant65, so this is a pretty serious matter.

Grant65 originally also accused J_is_me of being a sockpuppet of Licinius, I suspect incorrectly. Consequently, J_is_me vandalised Grant65's user pages numerous times, which eventually ended after many warnings with me blocking J_is_me indefinitely. J_is_me's last post was a threat to get me. User:Jimididit then magically appeared to troll across numerous related pages with the sole purpose of smearing me. I therefore claim that Jimididit is J_is_me's sock.

Snottygobble 07:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

: Thanks. I did raise the matter here on March 12 but it was deleted, apparently by accident, yesterday. I stand by my original complaint and agree with Snottygobble's comments above. Grant65 | Talk 12:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying you have been any less abusive Grant? What has happenned here?--Licinius 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

As to J Is Me vandalising Grant65's page, as far as I have seen, he did no more than make an equally bad faith accusation. He did not do it on numerous occasions as far as I can see but troublemakers following the football debate logged in anonymously and did it most properly. There is absolutely no evidence that J Is Me logged in anonymously and it was a bad decision to ban him under such circumstances. --The man from OZ 11:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

:There is quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on here. I'm a bit short on time tonight, but I'll come back tomorrow, make a final report and shoot the socks. Ambi 08:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As to Jimididit being J is Me 's sockpuppet for no other reason than questioning the decision of Snottygobble, Snottygobble thoroughly deserves it. He banned J Is Me without any evidence for bad faith accusation when Grant65 has made about a dozen bad faith accusations. --The man from OZ 11:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet and it was a bad faith accusation by Grant65. This is absurd. --The man from OZ 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Further more this whole process has not been outlined although it has been asked to be. I got into this project to help with local references in the Shire ad it seems there is now quite a disturbing bereaucracy that suffocates participation. --The man from OZ 11:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally moe than anything I hope this is investigated properly :), in my opinion Snottygobble's administrationship should be with held. Good Luck --The man from OZ 11:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would further like to add that Snottygobble has deleted the entirely reasonable questions that I have asked him. I reverted them as I feel that this is extremely unfair. I post these messages not to troll but to give at least some personal defence to the comments left above. Although I feel the process should be outlined to those accused, I found this and the accusations above purely by chance when I was posting the original message on Snottygobble's talk page.--The man from OZ 12:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• {{user|Licinius}}, {{user|The man from OZ}}, and {{user|J is me}} appear likely to be the same person.
• There is inconclusive evidence that {{user|Jimididit}} and {{user|NSWelshman}} may be related.
• There is no evidence to suggest that these two groups of users are the same person.

: The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just found this page by incident when I was leaving message on Snottygobble's page. This is absurd I am not the sockpuppet of anybody and nobody is my sockpuppet. Is there some chance for self defense here?

--Licinius 06:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've chosen to admit that Jimididit is my sockpuppet. But Jimididit didn't vote in a poll and thus has not violated anything. NSWelshman 14:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)