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/Ron Duvall))
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.

Absidy

[edit]

There appears to be block evasion,[1] as originally reported by User:Yellowbeard. [2] It seems reasonable given the contribution patterns involving Template:Experimental [3][4] and Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Delegable proxy [5] [6]. Jehochman Talk 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting notes:
Yellowbeard (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Absidy has created a new account: User:ReplyToSM (diff). It seems that he is unable to learn. Yellowbeard (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked that one too. It would be nice to block the underlying IPs to save admin time. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I advised Absidy not to evade the block. If he has, he's totally on his own on that. He does know the rules. I'd suggest, though, looking at Special:Contributions/Yellowbeard and his block log. This is a political attack SPA, in spades. Initial work, confined to AfDs of articles related to opposition to his political agenda. (Hence the James Salsman suspicion; in the canvassing re my RfA that got him blocked, he first solicited FairVote editors, Salsman has worked (off-wiki) with FairVote and several known socks of Salsman were editing with that POV). Since Yellowbeard became ineffective, because I and other users started watching him, he has only returned to attempt to disrupt my work here. Because he is merely laughable, I haven't pursued any action. It's not worth it. --Abd (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at User:ReplyToSM. While this is a technical block evasion, it's pure Absidy. On the face of it, Absidy only used that account to edit the Absidy Talk page, which the block does not prohibit him from doing. From this, it would appear that there is no need for an IP block, because there has been no intent to evade the block; the most likely explanation is that, as before, he munged the password for Absidy, intending to prevent himself from using the account again. Yellowbeard is a master of WP:ABF. I would put a warning on User talk:ReplyToSM, which from the name, is a pure SPA, openly acknowledged as Absidy, not to use that account for any other edits than to Absidy Talk, unblock, and block on sight of any other edits prohibited in the warning. --Abd (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the underlying dispute. However, if Absidy has ruined their access, then they should email the unblock list to request creation of a new account. Jehochman Talk 19:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Absidy admitted that he is identical to the listed anonymous users and to User:129.174.91.117 (diff). Yellowbeard (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's continuing to troll via various IP addresses. [7] Jehochman Talk 21:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has never violated a promise, as far as I've seen. Look at the diff Jehochman provided. It's an apology to the community, and closes with a note clearly intended for administrator attention: Note: Any further remarks from me will take place on my talk page. --Abd (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: The IP belongs to a University, possibly a library. I would prefer not to block it at this time. Thatcher 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Could we improve the IP check instructions. I am not at all clear on when to file there instead of the main area. Sorry for this misplacement. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: Please add this to RFCU/Case/Ron Duvall (or maybe the talk page) and archive pending any new request that requires a CU. Thatcher 04:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Above moved from here --Michael Billington (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Duvall

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[11] [12] [13]

This crew of accounts, most of them single purpose, have banded together to create Delegable proxy and Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delegable proxy, this appears to be a non-notable neologism, somebody's pet idea or startup company that is attempting to be promoted through Wikipedia, perhaps. The proposal Wikipedia:Delegable proxy enjoys no community support whatsoever and appears to violate our fundamental values of WP:CONSENSUS and transparency. I believe this proposal is not made in good faith -- it appears to be an attempt at disruption.

Absidy (talk · contribs · count) has been indefinitely blocked for trolling and canvassing. Ron Duvall is an admitted predecessor account which remains unblocked at this time. Sasparilla also appears to be an admitted alternate account. Abd, I am not sure about, but the username (Abd <-> Absidy) is suggestive, as is the user page. The readiness of this user (Absidy) to flip me off after a mere warning suggests that they may have other accounts ready, and don't mind being blocked. Jehochman Talk 16:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Abd is the same, there is block evasion [14], and there is a strong appearance of financial conflict of interest fueling this group of editors. I sense mischief. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse a check here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: - the evidence seems pretty strong here and the status of the alternative accounts needs to be resolved
 Confirmed - the alternative accounts:
  1. Ron Duvall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Sarsaparilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Absidy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Red X Unrelated - Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Alison ❤ 17:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question: Do these accounts tie in to any other blocked or problematic accounts? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, none. I can say that I have one sock account, openly declared from the day of establishment, User:The Community. Other than the miniscule edits from that account, I have never edited Wikipedia under any other account than Abd. As to Sarsaparilla et al, I've seen thousands of edits by this user, and nothing blockable. Occasionally something worthy of a warning. If he has ever been blocked, it would be a surprise to me. He could have other accounts though, but with no overlaps visible to me. (That is, he could be editing in unrelated areas where I wouldn't notice him.) He has a characteristic style, which he makes no effort to conceal. There are other accounts from the past, one of which I know, an account which was abandoned in good standing; looking at the first edits of that account, I'd say that he had accounts before that, he was already an experienced user; he's told me, as I recall, that he began editing Wikipedia in 2004, which is before the first edits of the other account. (Please do not reveal that account identity. It is not rocket science to figure it out, but he, apparently, has outside reasons to separate the accounts, and there was no overlap and, as far as I know, quite a length of absence before Sarsaparilla started up, and thus no relationship. But I'm sure you can figure out what account it is, the admin starting the SSP report did so.)
I think the blocks for Trolling and Canvassing are inappropriate, though I can understand the appearance; his behavior, however, does not match the definitions of those offenses, so please lift those blocks. Blocking the user on the basis that he "flipped me off" is a violation of administrator privileges. Please desist (I'll repeat this warning on user talk pages when I have time.) Please lift the blocks and allow the user to use the account of his choice. However, note that as of now I have not reviewed his edits, so I could easily be mistaken, he may have done something blockable, I'm only responding based on what I am currently aware of ... and I do have, believe it or not, off-wiki responsibilities.
As to COI, I have openly disclosed a COI (that is not financial in nature) preventing me from editing Delegable proxy -- I have not edited that article since I created it in 2005, when I had no clue about COI policy, and it also prevents me from voting in the AfD over it. I am aware of no such conflict of interest on the part of editor Sarsaparilla etc. This is beginning to sound like massive AGF failure.--Abd (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the guy who filed the since deleted SSP report, I'd suggest those concerned see that deleted report, there are more diffs there than here, that indicate issues with the Absidy series of accounts. I say accounts and not socks as this appears to be the implementation of a loophole in the WP:SOCK policy, namely the WP:SOCK#LEGIT and "Clean start under a new name" sections (improper to restart many times, but not explicitly prohibited) seem at odds with the idea of one user, one contribution history. And the purpose of WP:SOCK being "A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively." seems at odds with this idea that a questionable (not policy breaking, just looking odd) Alternate Account should not be publicaly identified at WP:SSP. I will say that in light of this RFCU, I'm nearly certain that Abd is not related to the Absidy series. The edit time differences are in some cases 1 to 2 minutes, which would require some sort of open proxy to implement, and of course that would've been picked up by Alison. MBisanz talk 03:02, 25 February 2008 (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.


More