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/Taharqa))
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.


Taharqa

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch

The same user used an IP to edit an article that he was blocked from then made these attacks [1]: "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up" and other racial slurs.I think it's the same person as User:Enriquecardova (see the old case) who just restarted editing on Wikipedia after Taharqa said he won't be editing anymore. Egyegy 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Not serious enough. Voice-of-All 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Taharqa

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the main user account, presently on a 5-day block (block log), may have evaded his ban and made this edit today [2]. User already admits to being at least User:71.198.168.41, which has a history of vandalism. In fact, one of the articles vandalized is, as of this writing, still in its vandalized version [3]! The other IPs according to his block log were used before to evade a previous block, so I included them. User:Chapsut was a single-purpose account that made a few edits in March which are now the subject of a dispute invloving User:Taharqa on several somewhat related articles. User:Chapsut, however, suddenly reappeared after the dispute started, and I think further edit-warring may be ahead. On a side-note, I also suspect that User:Taharqa is the same person as all of these [4], but against my better judgment I never went ahead with an RFCU at the time due to time constrains (and the vandalism on the pages had stopped). — Zerida 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:Incorrect use of code. This is not a "F". Therefore, the request is non-compliant. If the requestor wishes to change the code to "E", 4 diffs must be provided. If the requestor wishes to change the code to "G", an explanation is required, though the requestor may consider the provided explanation as sufficient and not provide further explanation.VK35 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation [5]. I changed the code to G as I believe an RFCU is still warranted given the possible evasion of administrator blocks, contribution history, and possible connection with incidents I outlined above. — Zerida 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive. As he says, he is a sock of 71.198.168.41.Voice-of-All 23:07, 1 June 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