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/Lions3639))
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.

Lions3639[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll at Talk:Dokdo#Requested Move May 2007 (RM), just closed.

Lions3639 apparently is the identical User ID of the reporter who used The Chosun Ilbo (one of the largest newspapers in Korea) to solicit votes in this poll. Here is the actual newspaper article (in Korean).

Aside from engaging in canvassing by using massive meatpuppets, this user seems to have used multiple accounts himself to vote. There's a pattern in the manner in which these votes came in, mostly before the newspaper article was published.Endroit 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Lions3639 = Davidpdx = Cydevil38.Voice-of-All 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, does this mean the other users listed above are exonerated? --Reuben 06:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a very controversial poll. I'm sure people want to know if there are other socks on either side of the voting. Is there any way a comprehensive checkuser can be done on all voters?--Endroit 06:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fish CheckUser is not for fishing Voice-of-All 02:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm fine with the current results. Can you have somebody block the socks (except the main user)? Thank you.--Endroit 02:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not related to any of those accounts. I would like to request a recheck. Cydevil38 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser does not lie, though. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was considerable confusion in at least one other case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Digwuren. Perhaps there are similar issues here? It would be very surprising for Davidpdx and Cydevil38, whose interests and history don't overlap that well, and both of whom have been around for some time, to be socks. --Reuben 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of an appealing proccess for this? I'm sure the other two users are just as baffled. I'm by no means an American or a native English speaker, or a reporter at Chosun Ilbo. It's also disheartening to see that I ended up in the same list as those people in a checkuser. It's probably because I supported a certain POV at the Dokdo article, and nothing more than that. Endroit often makes random pokes like this, accusing users that disagree with him for sockpuppetry. Again, I am not related to any of those accounts. Cydevil38 22:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they want to clear you. They have accomplished exactly what they want, which is to falsly accuse you of being my sockpuppet. Both Komadori and Parceboy are complicit in this to discredit us because we disagree with their stance on the Dokdo issue. They've gotten exactly what they wanted. Davidpdx 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for the life of me don't understand why I have been identified as a sockpuppet. I have a VERY long user history and have stated who I am on my profile. This is a clear mistake as my vote was deleted from the poll. I've had it with the shit in terms of the sockpuppet accusations and am filing a complaint against several people to clear my name. Davidpdx 23:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear Komadori has continued to harrass me dispite my repeated assurances I am not a socpuppet. Davidpdx 02:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a puppetmaster tag on your page to help admins figure out what is going on is not harassment. Removing it is, however, vandalism. --Cheers, Komdori 02:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language being used here is understandable, but not constructive. I think it would be valuable to have a second opinion, although the checkusers are very busy (this is not a task that ordinary admins like me can perform)... The outcome of the checkuser is, at first appearance, astonishing. On the other hand, we have known for quite some time that we have at least one very skilled puppeteer among us, a puppeteer with a pathological fixation on a handful of Korean nationalist issues who is skilled at fashioning believable alternate identities. So while I would really prefer that this CU turn out to have been a false positive, it wouldn't really be terribly surprising if it was true. Things like this make me wish we could just run a blanket CU over every contributor to Talk:Dokdo (that is, of course, barred by privacy concerns). -- Visviva 03:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely. Sigh....nevermind, another case of crappy WHOIS records. The WHOIS script I was using was not checking the "desc" fields. I manually checked all the records, noticing that this field included a link to further information at http://whois.nic.or.kr. It better differentiates IP records from the particular geographic area these users are in (and also proclaim to be). Although they are close, the records do indicate distinct locations. Since I trust the records there, all of these users appear distinct with this more specific information, so any accusions can likely be put to rest. I'd remove all sockpuppet tags from user pages.

I've done many cases before and never had issues like this before, and two misleading cases at the same time is making this one crappy day :(. Voice-of-All 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VOA I appreciate your follow up and as I said in the emal to you I'm sorry about the message on your page. I am frustrated by several users attacking me, it's clear for no reason. It's likely any of them will do the right thing and apologize for the false allegations. I've been accused of being uncivil and that's probably true, but I still claim I was attacked first via my talk page starting with the nasty message from Parseboy. Why it continued from there I don't know.
I want to point out even AFTER VOA put a message up that the check was not finished (which was unclear this morning to me) one of the four users was calling for utilateral bans of people which is bad faith in itself. It makes me seriously question the half cocked manner in which a few people made accusations against me. Davidpdx 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VoA, we all learn from our mistakes. Thank you for clearing our names, your effort to go through this again is much appreciated. Cydevil38 04:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endroit, I doubt that the writer of the Chosun article came here and made the exact same name to vote here. I'm leaning on that this was set up and a sockpuppet was made just to make the Korean side look bad. Considering how many KPOV and JPOV newspaper articles are out there, I doubt that this writer came and screwed everything up. I believe that this article should be moved back. 69.216.97.220 21:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name is unique enough not to be coincidental, and since it showed up here before the article was printed, it shows that it is most likely the same person. In any case, this really has nothing to do with this checkuser. If you believe there will be consensus to move the article again, by all means discuss it and go through the procedure at the talk page. --Cheers, Komdori 21:40, 30 May 2007 (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