Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x

message: Regarding this, I strongly object to allowing a banned user to user checkuser as a soapbox.  
WP:BAN states: Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing.
Dereks1x was banned by community discussion at the community noticeboard.  The content of the edits to this checkuser request had essentially no bearing on the RFCU, as the checkuser apparently (and rightfully) ignored the content of the request and merely checked the user against Dereks1x.  Again, I strongly object to Dereks1x being allowed to use checkuser as a soapbox, and not only as a soapbox, but a soapbox to disparage a user in good standing (i.e. Bobblehead). · jersyko talk 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Asked for more input at WT:RFCU#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FDereks1x. -- lucasbfr talk 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

message: VK35, if you're going to complain about Jersyko having a secret checkuser run on you, why not allow this public one to run its course?  This constant removal of your username and forum shopping for help is actually working against you and is more likely to get you blocked than it is to prevent you from being blocked.--Bobblehead (rants) 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding/removal of VK35

message: ::Just so I am understanding correctly -- VK35 contributed from the exact, identical IP address as Feddhicks within literally minutes of one another? Italiavivi 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, one time 16 minutes, another time 40 minutes, in a 2-day period on the same IP. And, just another data point -- VK35 has been in on about 80 different IPs in that range, and there are no other editors on any of those IPs at any time within Checkuser's range. Just Feddhicks. I suspect VK35 has an explanation for this, considering his unblocking history. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo's explanation for the unblock was that part of the reason for Dereks1x's community ban was that he falsely claimed to be a medical doctor and used that claim in a content dispute and that VK35 had provided evidence to Jimbo's satisfaction that he actually was a medical doctor. That, along with VK35's clean edit history at the time, convinced Jimbo to assume good faith and say that VK35 and Dereks1x using the same IP range was coincidental. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: jpgordon warned against edit warring here.  These are semi-public computers with multiple users. VK35 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this conversation is to continue, it should probably go to the community noticeboard, not here.  In any event, I suspect that this might be the optimal solution, and I don't expect to comment further on this issue regardless of whether other users decide to take it forward or not. · jersyko talk 15:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And edit warrior Tvoz of the Tvoz/Jersyko/Bobblehead group is expected to continue edit warring to show "concensus" here because they are somehow mad about a sanitized view of Barack Obama and want to destroy anyone that they don't like and anyone that even is remotely linked.  Who is this Obama, anyway, just some politician in the news..The next U.S. President is a forgone conclusion...President Hillary Rodham Clinton. VK35 15:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before this escalates more, the Jersyko/Tvoz group should explain why they are had a WP:SSP report of them deleted as well as a WP:RFCU (I saw that!) and why they meat or sock puppet each other.  See how productive this edit warring is?  Not productive at all.  See how my productive edits have ground to a halt?  And where does Bobblehead fit in?  I will be restrained and not comment for now.  VK35 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first when jpgordon reverted the long explanations and warned against edit warring, I thought "but I need to say 'this' ".  After a moment, I thought that it was ok.  Jpgordon, do you want to do it again, revert the stuff after you edit and put in the edit summary that there is to be no edit warring? VK35 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the "8th or so" check