Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi

Muntuwandi

• Muntuwandi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Harveyshultz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Headlessrider (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mwanakongo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter:F

• Supporting Evidence: See just below. Three freshly created accounts have arrived at
  Origin of religion to repeat Muntuwandi's edits once again: [1], [2] and [3]. Can his IP be blocked (?), and will someone please follow this up with some extra sanctions on the puppet master. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • All these are  Confirmed, obviously. It isn't easy to block the IPs -- they are generally either dynamic or public terminals. For more discussion about Muntuwandi, I suggest you start a conversation at
    WP:ANI on the matter. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• • Also add Muntoowandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bucky Burnside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Muntoowandi & Bucky Burnside blocked indef. Tiptoety ^talk 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One more sock Chikwangwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), please block.PelleSmith (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blocked this one earlier in the day but omitted to tag it.  Confirmed, obviously, and a couple of socks blocked too.Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Another sock Gandinga mondongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block as usual.PelleSmith (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked by me based on contribs. I'm not a checkuser although it's too obvious to bother with I think.
    talk) 10:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    •  Confirmed, obviously. It is useful to list these, because there are regularly a couple of other accounts visible from each check. Here, for instance, we have Hungry stomach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Freddie bernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We also have Raufual (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from another IP address he's used in the past. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all already blocked. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• New sock: Tigertron (
  Origin of religion being left in the Muntuwandi/sock version for the entire weekend. Someone needs to fully protect the page.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  •  Confirmed, plus a few more (see my block log). Suggest you go to
    WP:RFPP to sort out the page protection. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Question - is there any chance we could get the checkuser to give the IP and/or IP range of this user given the use of sleeper socks, or will I need to file a separate request? The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The modus operandi doesn't really allow for that to be effective, I'm afraid. I think page protection is probably the route to go -- but I don't deal much with that, so I'd prefer to let someone with more familiarity with the procedures deal with that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Korn (talk • contribs)
• Latest sock: Extuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Block please.PelleSmith (talk) 04:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is already blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One more: Fussin and fightin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same as before, please.PelleSmith (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed - both of them. No other socks that I can see - Alison ^❤ 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety ^talk 06:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then there was another -- Michael g funky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Block thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed, blocked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if "Michael g funky" is actually blocked, is he? —Cesar Tort 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, he is - Alison ^❤ 15:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• An please do the same with Amicus meus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Nobonobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). What a bore.PelleSmith (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed - both of them.

 Deferred another checkuser with more Muntuwandi experience, as I see potentially a lot more socks there - Alison ^❤ 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and  finished - following a second opinion from another checkuser - Alison ^❤ 22:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Both already blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 22:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And another Da mi basia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There are clearly an endless stream of these and he doesn't get tired of creating them. Perhaps its better to just forget about reporting them and just reverting them instead?PelleSmith (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one is blocked --
    origin of religion is now fully-protected for a week. Let's see if this solves things. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 00:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, protection will not solve this problem. It is like sweeping the dirt under the carpet. This dispute has been going on for one year, who is to say it won't continue after one week. Unless long term solutions are sought, to which I am amenable to, the dispute will continue. If the admins would prefer to continue protecting or blocking instead of finding a permanent solution, then so be it. I have often requested admin intervention and dispute resolution several times, however these requests have not been taken seriously, hence we are in this position. I believe that MW has been treated unfairly by PelleSmith and Dbachmann. Independent observers on the Anthropology project page, have already commented on how these to editors have done their best to frustrate MW here. Unfortunately, the admins are too robotic. All they are concerned about is following routine procedures like counting the number of reverts, and checking IP addresses. However they have failed to see the bigger picture. This issue remains unresolved. Peace and happy blocking. Moon to wandhee (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As with the above sock, can you also block Speedy la cucaracha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also another sock Cold ground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He was tag teaming with this one and the above.PelleSmith (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done -- also blocked an IP used to create accounts. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi

• Muntuwandi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Manikongo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter:F

• Supporting Evidence:
  Origin of religion, something he was already previously blocked for doing (that time for two weeks)--see his block log. The very day after he decides to leave the project as a result of his block, User:Manikongo arrives to make the exact same changes Muntuwandi has been blocked for stubbornly edit warring into this entry. The content issue revolves around Muntuwandi not being capable of accepting that his pet version of this entry, which has been AfDed a number of times, is against consensus. As you can see from his contributions User:Manikongo was created a year ago but made no edits anywhere outside his own user page until July 6th when he assumed editing where Muntuwandi left off. It is clear that this account was a dormant second account of Muntuwandi's and that he is using it to evade his block. Please do something about this.PelleSmith (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  •  Confirmed and blocked indef as a block-evading sockpuppet. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muntuwandi

• Muntuwandi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Godongwana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter:E

User:Godongwana is a new user with a similar edit history, similar positions and an African name, like User:Muntuwandi. It appeared in the middle of an edit war in White people

• rv to include this pic: [4]

1st: 21:53, 11 August 2007

2nd: 23:17, 11 August 2007

3rd: 00:52, 12 August 2007

• rv to Godongwana: [5]

4th: 01:59, 12 August 2007

KarenAER 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Unnecessary. The other account is being disruptive in its own right, so simply blocking that will suffice. That, plus the fact it's likely a sockpuppet anyway, make this check somewhat redundant. --Deskana (banana) 23:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Unrelated. --Deskana (banana) 09:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]