Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg

Profg

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Profg (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Goo2you (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (already confirmed by Raul654)
Fairchoice (
talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki
)

Supporting evidence: October ban discussion, January 12 discussion, current discussion

Last October, the community considered banning Profg (talk · contribs) [1]. Finding no support for a ban among uninvolved users, I asked Profg to agree to terms of probation that included civility parole and 1RR limitations. He agreed and I removed his block.

Profg was blocked for one month on January 12 for off-site solicitation of meatpuppets. Goo2you (talk · contribs), who was confirmed by Raul to be a sock, edited during the time that Profg was blocked and edited in violation of Profg's probation restrictions. Because of this, I reversed my previous action and reinstituted Profg's indefinite block.

talk · contribs

) registered on January 13 and one of his first edits was to Profg's talk page.

Please check:

Is Fairchoice a sockpuppet of Profg?
Are there any other sock puppets being used by Profg to evade the January 12 block or the newly imposed community ban?

Thank you. --B (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence: Profg and Fairchoice both have a significant interest in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. See Fairchoice's contributions [2][3][4] and this intriguing background on Profg. Jehochman ^Talk 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely that

talk · contribs) is related here. Also, Profg (talk · contribs) has not been socking lately, not since the block - Alison ^❤ 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. --B (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an insult to be compared to Profg! I am not a religious zealot. I am support the film industry. That's why I support a neutral, factual, unbiased description of the plot as a separate section. After that you can make commentary on the film, either positive or negative. Profg probably is opposed to me because of my support of the film industry and freedom of filmmakers for artistic expression.

talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Whatever. If you aren't him and aren't here as a result of his call for meatpuppets, you were just unfortunate enough to show up at a bad time. Please note that personal attacks will not be tolerated, even when made against a banned user. --B (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]