Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime

message: Moved from the main page: --ST47Talk 18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone told me there was a big commotion on the news regarding Paris Hilton going to jail. I went to the Wikipedia Paris Hilton article to see what the noise is about. I made a comment on the talk page, which was soon followed by Matt editing it (he never edited the article before or any other article in that subject range) giving a general proclamation that I am a sock. This is stalking and harassment. Please do not humor incivility. Additionally, I confessed to nothing. I made a general comment to throw him off. I am not particularly interested in discussing with him on my talk page. A look at his contribs shows he has annoyed other editors before.  Xiao t 18:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are a sock puppet of Kirbytime (which I suspect you are), none of what you say can be trusted as truthful, in the light of the fact that you spent 90 minutes on the sandbox with your last sock puppet to give off the impression to other users that you were a beginner here. Plus, your admission of being a sock puppet is not going to help you out. The Checkuser will tell. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes he has. A banned troll is a banned troll. Case closed. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't suppose you could be more specific.  — The Storm Surfer 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a username is banned, they're obviously not allowed to come back. Otherwise I could abuse all I like, get a new nick and put on my best suit - is that acceptable? Thats like a serial killer escaping from jail, getting a new ID card and then according to you, should he be scott free as long as he behaves nicely? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If he hadn't returned to cause the same disruption, he'd not have been caught.Proabivouac 03:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

message: Also,   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  No.  Not that I am aware of (and I assume the  template would have been put on the account's user page).  --Iamunknown 20:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the ANI thread to which I referred. 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Kirbytime (2)

message: I do not believe that commenting on the Checkuser policy as one's first edits is sufficient proof that a user is a sockpuppet of another user.  Please bring more proof to the table. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think you know Kirbytime enough. A new username registers and goes straight to complain against CheckUser. How obvious can it get? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To someone new to the situation, it's not very obvious at all. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats my point. Check the contribs of the other socks in this request to get an idea of the kind of user you're dealing with. I've moved these comments to this talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still see no correlation.  KensingtonBlonde's edits here have so far not appeared to be in the spirit of disrupting the wiki.  Even the Sonic3 edits that you pointed out certainly look like good-faith edits calling for proper citations and adding one piece of potentially useful information.  ANYONE could have made those edits - you need to prove that KirbyTime's thing on YouTube and K.Blonde's edits are more than mere coincidence. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the first section of this page. Another user tried to defend one of Kirby's sock saying they didnt see anything suspicious. Why dont you investigate everything before asking me questions like this? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  He simply he has to show that it walks, talks, and acts enough like a sock of KB himself to pass the duck test. It is quite blindingly obvious here. This isn't CSI:Miami. - Merzbow 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, you guys take care of it.  I'm out of my league on this matter, so I've disengaged. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: He sounds so reasonable. Arrow740 05:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from KieferSkunk about KensingtonBlonde checkuser