Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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/Kirbytime}}
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.

Kirbytime[edit]

Note: I'm withdrawing this request for now until I get stronger evidence. Although I'm convinced a checkuser should be done, its also possible the user is as he claims. If I see further disruptive editing or Kirbytime behavior, I'll reopen this case or file another one. All the points below are still suspicious including awarding of the barnstar to a new editor for no apparent reason, different stories concerning abandoning the old account and topic similarities etc. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Code letter: B (Indefinite blocked: Block log)

Important points:

  • R.G.P.A (talk · contribs) created his account 2 days after the Checkuser for Kirbytime's last sock Atari400 was filed. In his first edit he says "I created a new account as I couldnt find the password to my old one", but when I asked him, he tells a different story, saying "I would rather just start this new one as I managed to get my signature as my real name, and would rather remain at least partially anonymous".
  • WHEN I WAS A YOUNG BOY (talk · contribs) on his 2nd edit (5 minutes after creating his account) gives R.G.P.A (talk · contribs) a barnstar and gets thanked for it. Also follows me his page and asks me to AGF. I suspect this is Kirbytime using one sock to give his other main sock a barnstar to give a good impression to other users e.g. to prevent suspicions of being a sock. He also gives an excuse for starting a new username, this one due to harassment.
  • Former username (Anti BS Squad) is similar to one of Kirbytime's old sock 0rrAvenger (talk · contribs).

Topic similarities between R.G.P.A and Kirbytime:

IP's may match between these two new socks and his most recent blocked sock Atari400 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). thanks, --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the report is being discussed on the talk page:Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kirbytime#Comments on request made on Jan 3.Bless sins (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime[edit]

Diffs added now
Article/Topic/Behaviors Kirbytime/former sock Atari400
Edit warring with Yahel Guhan (formerly Sefringle) [1],[2],[3] [4],[5],[6], [7], [8], [9]
Islamophobia [10],[11] [12], [13], [14]
Faith Freedom International [15],[16],[17],[18], [19] [20],[21],[22]
Islam and animals [23],[24] [25]
Islam Controversy Task force [26] [27]
Deceptive/strange user page edits Posts whole ANI on user page, later blanks, Claims to be a jewish girl, [28] Retirement notice on 2nd edit, later blanks
Ethnicity related templates [29] [30]
Stalking Allegations [31] [32], [33], [34]

Misc:

  • Sarcastic admittal of sock puppeting [35]: "You got me. I am actually a sockpuppet of editor Sefringle."
  • Says he's a 'long time wikipedian' when his account was only 3 months old.
  • First edit was a long copyright warning to another user.
  • Admin Daniel also suspects this is Kirbytime [36]

There are many other edits but hopefully these should suffice for CU. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I take it when it comes back that I am not "Kirbytime", you will discontinue with the accusations? Atari400

This user has begun editing in a highly partisan manner on Islam-related articles. His first userpage and talk page diffs seem to be purposefully misleading. It is possibly a sign of his history with me that he has started reverting my edits with no edit summaries or talk-page posts. Arrow740 (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the above is a baseless accusation. Checkuser is not simply for phishing, (esp. users you don't seem to get along with).Bless sins (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kirbytime is Iranian, and anti-Semitic. Atari400 seems to be declaring the first and may be showing signs of the second with his recent move of the Jews and slave trade article against concensus. Further, his tone and failed attempts at sarcastic humor are very similar to those of Kirbytime. Arrow740 (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow740, what you have been doing to me is a clear cut example of stalking, making threats and harassment. Oh, and I am American, and hardly "antisemitic", any more than you are "anti-Arab" or "Islamophobic". Oh, wait... Atari400 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above allegations seem to be coming out of thin air. Arrow740 doesn't seem to have any evidence to substantiate those claims.Bless sins (talk) 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course he doesn't. This is just an attempt at gaming the system. He dislikes my input into the encyclopedia, therefore he will doing anything he can to have me removed. This is typical behavior, but it won't work. It also should not be surprising that Jayjg was brought in on this. Ironically, even he can't prove anything(For lack of trying, I am sure.) Atari400 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be familiar with checkuser requests. Arrow740 (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Please do not use the RFCU page to argue over the validity of the request. Checkusers will determine whether this is a reasonable CU request. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined - not enough information provided to warrant opening a case. Besides, fish CheckUser is not for fishing Also, main account is  Stale - Alison ❤ 18:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Deferred another checkuser for further investigation. See my talk page. I'm putting this case to active again - sorry, clerks! - Alison ❤ 20:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it possible for you to bring in several more Admin opinions with checkuser access on this matter? I am not "Kirbytime", and the way I see, the more opinions on this matter, the better. Atari400 03:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Possible Inconclusive - sorry, you'll have to use something besides CheckUser to decide. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be both possible and inconclusive? Either there is evidence, or there is not. It appears to me that there is no evidence. Atari400 03:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I am not a checkuser and have no access to the evidence, I am probably freer to comment - checkuser is not a magic wand. In certain circumstances it can conclude that two people are the same editor. In others it can rate a possibility based on less than certain evidence. I am reading the above response as "a bit over 50/50 but not much". If it was unlikely, or likely, they would have said so. It's an inexact science - just because checkuser confirms does not mean they are necessarily sockpuppets (although often does), but just because checkuser says they're probably not doesn't mean they're not either (although often does). Checkuser is one of several tools in the armoury and should always be regarded as such, rather than a guilty if positive, innocent if negative. Orderinchaos 10:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good explanation, thanks. I can't get into more detail without revealing personal information, but I'm certainly willing to discuss my findings and reasoning with another checkuser. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kirbytime[edit]

Not completely sure about this one, but there seems to be some similar editing patterns. Yahel Guhan 17:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostargue is a new editor that has thrown himself into some contentious topics (like editing the manual of style) much like an old pro. There is no doubt this is a sock of a recently indef blocked user. I believe it is Kirbytime. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Inconclusive --Deskana (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inclnclusive? What does that tell us? Where do we go from here to make a decision? Yahel Guhan 03:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I did the checkuser, it was inconclusive. Checkuser case closed. --Deskana (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kirbytime[edit]

I just received an e-mail from Cheszmastre confirming that he is (at least presently) Kirbytime. However, contribs suggest His excellency (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I am curious to learn if this was always Kirbytime, impersonating His excellency's editing patterns and coordinating with him,[37] or if this is a shared account, with His excellency handing Kirbytime his password in mid-stream (why not, it's blocked?)Proabivouac 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Unnecessary. Both accounts are blocked. Drawing conclusions from checkuser evidence wouldn't do much. --Deskana (banana) 12:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime[edit]

This user started editing like an old timer, this time with meticulous edit summaries. I was going to pass before I noticed that he criticized the CheckUser policy on the Meta saying asking (Could the "Checkuser" function be problematic?), so this is obviously a sock puppet. This is Kirbytime because he was accepted for the VandalProof in one of his last socks as he claimed in this text ("I even became accepted on the user list for Vandal Proof, where I reverted countless incidences of vandalism."). This is what he asked:

Is it fair to block a username based on checkuser findings when there is absolutely no evidence this specific username has done anything wrong?

See, he's saying basically "I was banned previously, but I have a new username and have done nothing wrong with it"). Also he left a warning on my user page which is what Kirbytime has done to me before with his older socks as well. I think the most suspicious points are that he started editing suddenly and then went to the Meta to complain that the CheckUser thing is not right, without saying why he had been blocked before or what his username was before. Also interesting is another user at the Meta who attempted to change the CheckUser policy ([38],[39],[40],[41]) and supported KensingtonBlonde and told him he should be an admin. This user is not present on Wikipedia and thankfully his attempts to change the CheckUser policy were not successful. Also Kirbytime has a page on Youtube where he has a video on Sonic the HedgeHog 3 and this new sock KensingtonBlonde has edited Wikipedia on the same topic too ([42],[43],[44]). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive. Mackensen (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: added FOA, since it wasn't checked the last time. Archived old case. Miranda 01:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. Miranda 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated Doesn't seem related either. Voice-of-All 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Kirbytime[edit]

This is most definitely Kirbytime again. Interest in Islam related articles ([45],[46]), edit-warring in Israel related articles ([47],[48],[49]) and other familiar actions like removal of my comments without responding to my question where I asked him the username he claimed he had on the spanish Wikipedia. Last time he was "Sheri, a Jewish American girl". This time he's a Muslim girl from Spain. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There can be little doubt: [50]. Arrow740 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerpeegordon (talk • contribs) 08:31, July 15, 2007

71.141.123.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) should be blocked too. Based on the contributions it is plain obvious that he is also using that IP. -- Karl Meier 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed 71.141.123.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is Kirbytime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Also,  Confirmed Xveolgvzr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is kirbytime. Perhaps a community ban is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerpeegordon (talk • contribs) 09:48, July 15, 2007

He's already community-banned. - Merzbow 09:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that he was indefinitely blocked with the option to return at some unspecified point (e.g. a few months) if and when he regained some perspective. Was he since banned?Proabivouac 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not that I am aware of (and I assume the {{banned}} template would have been put on the account's user page). --Iamunknown 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the ANI thread to which I referred.[51] I've not reviewed the contributions of User:Fâtimâh bint Fulâni, but the behavior of User:Flamgirlant was completely unacceptable - for example, coordinating with socks of User:His excellency to falsely frame Matt57 for meatpuppetry in an MfD, as well as the usual pedophilia-related drama.Proabivouac 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we file a case for a community ban then? The link Proav gave does have many admins endorsing the indef block and saying that Kirbytime did exhaust the patience of the community, so that means its a ban? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk assistance requested: someone should take a look at the history here; it's amusing. Jerpeegordon is Fatima, Flamgirlant, et al. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damn... He sure got us there! :-) -- Karl Meier 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He tried to sabotage this Checkuser so the next one might be harder to process. Fortunately I can detect him easily. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the IP and User:Xveolgvzr? The IP still isn't blocked, yet Kirbytime said it was his sock. What is the result of the IP and User:Xveolgvzr?--SefringleTalk 03:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? They both look blocked to me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But are they socks?--SefringleTalk 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are sockpuppets of Kirbytime.Proabivouac 05:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted Added User:FollowerofAllah. not completely sure about this one, but I suspect he/she might be.--SefringleTalk 03:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Pilotjokes, an obvious sock of someone. Arrow740 06:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's Kirbytime, he's doing a convincing impression of User:His excellency.Proabivouac 07:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pilotjokes is His excellency--SefringleTalk 01:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, already blocked. FOA is likely KT, though. Arrow740 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime[edit]

This user has all the signature edits despite attempts to mask his identity ("Sheri, Jewish American girl"). What starts off as an innocent but furious editor on June 20 eventually shows up his real face. He suddenly comes out of nowwhere (I have had no previous contact with this username) and highlights ([52], [53]) a stalking allegation made on me. He accused me of stalking twice before being banned for trolling, personal attacks, disruption etc. Along with this come many edits on Islam related articles ([54],[55],[56]), deletion of my comments from his talk page ([57]) (the meat puppeting allegation on me turned out to some other guy's sock puppets), showing unusual hostility towards me and filing a complaint on ANI ([58]) to leave him alone and ofcourse Kirbytime's favourite topic, Pedophilia ([59],[60],[61],[62]) and then he praised another sock puppet's contributions to top it off. Also, he tried to silence attention on sock puppets by removing an sock-alert section on a project's homepage. There are some more behaviours but hopefully this should suffice. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Also MagicalPhats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was the fastet CU I've ever seen. I was wondering what was up with this username, suddenly so active and so opinionated. Thanks, Jayjg.Proabivouac 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We got another one folks: Mike D78 (talk · contribs), who is picking up on AN/I just where flame girl whatever left off. - Merzbow 07:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated. Voice-of-All 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime[edit]

Evidence
  • Annon konws how to edit wikipedia dispite it being the first edit
  • Requests for images [63]
  • Dislike of Ali Sina, claiming he is not notable [64][65]--SefringleTalk 22:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Please provide a code letter. Miranda 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated. Voice-of-All 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime[edit]

User Kirbytime was blocked indef on 15th May for trolling. Xiao t came in 1 day after his first sock puppet 0rrAvenger was banned below and started editing furiously. Similarities include

Diffs
Article/Topic Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) Xiao t (talk · contribs · block log)
Islamophobia [66],[67],[68] [69],[70]
Allegations of stalking [71] [72],Also, admission of sock puppeting

The biggest evidence is that he admitted to sock puppeting, the only task is now to find out whose sock it is. Again, its probably not the last time he's going to make a sock and it'll get harder each time as he learns how to avoid detection, which though I think will be hard for him. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Inappropriate discussion moved to the talk page. --ST47Talk 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirbytime[edit]

User Kirbytime was blocked indef on 15th May for trolling. 3 days later, user 0rrAvenger started editing the same articles that Kirbytime used to edit and showing the same editing behaviors. 0rrAvenger's first day starts with making a essay page which also interestingly mentions trolling. The profuse editing behavior right on the first day shows that this is probably not a new account. Here's a table that provides the diffs, showing the similarities for the editor's affinity for the various topics, the most notable ones being the first three (Wikipedia:Reference desk, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mathematics)

Diffs
Article/Topic Kirbytime (talk · contribs · block log) 0rrAvenger (talk · contribs · block log)
Wikipedia:Reference desk [73],[74],[75],[76] [77],[78],[79],[80],[81]
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [82],[83],[84],[85],[86] [87],[88],[89],[90]
Mathematics [91],[92],[93],[94] [95],[96],[97],[98]
Image Requests (request for a picture of rape,request for picture on child sexuality request for picture of Pringles, [99]
Pedophilia [100],[101],[102],[103] [104]
Atheism [105],[106],[107] [108]
Talking to user Herostratus [109],[110] [111] (interestingly, this diff is for a picture related to child porn)
Talking to user ProtectWomen [112] [113],[114]

So I'm pretty sure that this is Kirbytime. I don't beleive this will be the last time Kirbytime will create a sock. He's also tried hard to give off the impression that he's a new user saying that he doesnt know how to move a page and messing with the sandbox etc. Next time he'll try harder in trying to mask all the similarities I highlighed above.

A new user Anonyymi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) may also be Kirbytime, but this one has been blocked already today indef for trolling (for which Kirbytime was blocked too). Similarities between Anonyymi and Kirbytime are:

Diffs for user Kirbytime for the first two similarities have been given in the table above, if needed. Thanks, --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has got to be the most organized checkuser request I've seen! Anyway, I've added anonyymi above, and we'll see what the checkusers think. --ST47Talk 01:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I knew with all the diffs and topics, the table was the way to go. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an IP for User:Anonyymi, User:83.245.135.80. --tjstrf talk 01:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed 0rrAvenger is Kirbytime. Anonyymi is Red X Unrelated (though still probably a troll). Dmcdevit·t 02:28, 7 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.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kirbytime

Leave a Reply