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/Stefanomencarelli)) 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).
|
A banned editor may be operating again with sockpuppets. These are the ones I think that are involved:
- All of these accounts appeared shortly after the denial of a reversal request made in May 2008, some editing took place even before the request for reconsideration was made. The IPs all edit on the same articles as the aforementioned user and make the same errors in writing and spelling.
Bzuk (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Additional information: The ArbCom decision is here, banning Stefanomencarelli for one year from 18 November 2007. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these appear Unrelated to Stefanomencarelli. The 79... addresses are Italian, the 201... addresses are Panamanian and the 74... address is Quebecois, so it was always unlikely that any of them were. None appears to be an open proxy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stefanomencarelli is an Italian-speaker who was active on it.wiki before coming here, and primarily edits Italian military topics, so could the 79... addresses at least be him? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at this specific connection again on account of this request and I will re-label the 79... addresses as Possible. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is an unusual request. Stefanomencarelli has been banned on it.wp and is under investigation from the arbcom here on en.wp. I suspect that he is eluding the ban on it.wiki, and, if possible, I need to know if he used the IP 151.27.181.56 for some of his edit on en.wp, on November 5th 2007. Snowdog 23:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Declined. Firstly, this is Code G, not Code B, as there is no rememdy which has passed in an arbitration case pertaining to this user. Secondly, even considering this as Code G, I do not see the need to violate this user's privacy by publicly revealing this information. Please direct the Italian checkusers to the checkuser-l mailing list, where I would be happy to respond to their query privately. --Deskana (talk) 00:07, 7 November 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.