Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Rgulerdem

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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/Rgulerdem}}
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.

Rgulerdem[edit]

Suspected sockpuppet of indef banned user User:Rgulerdem. Same fixation on Fethullah Gülen as in the other 8 million examples on this page. Nandesuka 21:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indef-blocked by Freakofnurture. Checkuser confirmation would be nice but this is pretty obvious; never let it be said that Resid is subtle in his bias... Guy 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note:Please provide some diffs. Voice-of-All 19:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed And the code letter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined The account is already uncontroversially blocked, and Rgulerdem's last edit is too old to get an IP from in any case. Not necessary. Dmcdevit·t 21:49, 7 October 2006 (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.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Rgulerdem[edit]

Littleraindrop is suspect of being another sockpuppet of indef banned user User:Rgulerdem Basically the same arguments as in the old case apply: Same spelling mistakes and style of English, same defensive fixation on Fethullah Gülen (but this time in a different article, Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy, where he messes with a minor Gülen entry), single purpose account, went into edit war mode immediately after establishing account, conceals major reverts as "minor edits". Edit summaries are usually longish, and often berate other editors (Littleraindrop:[1], Rgulerdem(as Mokotok)[2]). Azate 06:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2006 (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.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Rgulerdem[edit]

 Confirmed. They're all the same person. Commentary noted, and moved to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Rgulerdem. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:45, 24 May 2006 (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.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Rgulerdem[edit]

I would like to know if ThoMas edited from any of the IPs (known socks of Rgulerdem) or whether the two users shared any other IPs. This edit strongly argues the two usernames are the same, but I would like solid evidence (because Rgulerdem is objecting that they are only a "friend of mine"). Superm401 - Talk 05:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info: IPs and ThoMas were blocked on grounds of block evasion (and gaming 3RR, which was what Rgulerdem was originally blocked on). Also WP:POINT by using socks to disrupt Wikipedia. To a far lesser extent, civility as well, but this is not very evident in the socks' behaviour. NSLE (T+C) at 07:55 UTC (2006-03-20)
  • Confirmed. ThoMas is a confirmed sockpuppet of Rgulerdem. As for the IPs, I'm not comfortable revealing who is editing with what IPs unless there is serious vandalism, but it would not be inappropriate to assume that edits from IPs that match Rgulerdem's editing style are in fact coming from him. It is important to remember that checkuser is secondary evidence; the primary evidence is the similar editing pattern. Essjay Talk • Contact 08:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I went through the contribs first, and that satisifed me. I only came here when Resid protested so strenouusly... Superm401 - Talk 09:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. He is a different user. As I explained before on my talk page, he is a friend of mine and new to Wiki. He was trying to help me to fix the destruction and vandalism caused by Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I helped him in doing so. All my edits shows that, I used IPs but I used them explicitely. I singned all my talks even when I was using anonim IPs. There is no single incident you can show that I edited but did not sign. I do not use suckpuppets, I do not need it, I do not like that idea. Your conclusions miss all those and apperantly not true. Resid Gulerdem 22:56, 20 March 2006 (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 below, in a new section.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Rgulerdem[edit]

I suspect User:Rgulerdem to be the puppeteer of User:Mokotok and/or User:Light&Truth because:

  • The two suspected Sockpuppets both edit almost exclusively on the Fethullah Gülen article. User:Rgulerdem is a long-time editor of this article, that has a bad history[3] of insults and edit warring.
  • The first edit of both suspected sockpuppets [4] [5] was removing a {{NOPV}} tag from that article. Both did that repeatedly, one was blocked for doing so for 24h. User:Rgulerdem pioneered this approach [6] [7] but subsequently laid low, adding only relatively well-behaved commentary,
  • The 2 suspected sockpuppets then embarked on a spree of insult"I have no time to play with kids. Be mature (...) Or go and play with the people of your IQ level :) The work is in progress and no tag is needed"[8] or "The NPOV tag is not needed because you ruined the whole article as you wished still crying. You are vandalizing the article still crying. You are hiding the facts and truth and pretending like you are trying to put it into NPOV form. It is so bad man, it is so bad."[9] [10] and a smear campaign of sorts [11] [12] [13] These are just examples. Basically 90% of their contributions have had at least borderline insulting character.
  • A user more familiar with User:Rgulerdem than I am, says he recognized the above examples (by the suspected sockpuppets)as "typical" for User:Rgulerdem.
  • The 3 users don't 'overlap', that is, one makes a row of edits and disappears. Then another does some and disappears. This seems to be the case for both the Fethullah Gülen article and its talkpage.
  • The 3 share the same spelling errors (Can't write Gülen with an Umlaut, have problems with using the past tense of 'being biased', and spell intelligent with one "L" only[14] - (use the browser search function))
  • The accounts for the 2 puppets were established within days of one another, and have edited the same article (with some pro-forma spelling corrections on random articles). Both accounts were opened at a time when Rgulerdem had reason to believe that he was facing opposition at the English Gülen article (because editing there picked up after some period of relative inactivity), and his being blocked from the Turkish WP for meddling with their Gülen article.
  • the initial user pages of User:Rgulerdem[15] and User:Mokotok[16] look very much alike. ("hi")
  • User:Rgulerdem has strong motivations to not edit under his own user name (and war with it) due to the fact that he is currently under mentorship by User:Johntex after having had an indefinite block lifted from him. That was basically for OWNing and harassment (on an "Ethics" policy proposal, if memory serves) same as in this case. Significantly, User:Johntex went on a wikibreak on May 11[17], and the next day the madness decribed above began.

Azate 07:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Light&Truth and Mokotok[edit]

  • I am a student and friend of Mr. Gulerdem. The evidences provided above is meaningless. I am not suckpuppet of anyone else. Light&Truth 08:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is ridiculous. Resid is one of the greatest scientist I have ever met and a true genius. We have been long friends. He introduced me to this project. That is the only connection between us. The evidences you provided worthless to mention. (We are all living in US and do not worry about writing Gulen in its original form. Do you have a 'u character with two dots' on your keyboard?) Well, you may expect some other people also joining to the discussion. You will not be able to hide the facts anymore. Bad for you... Mokotok 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

Indeed Resid Gulerdem has a history of sockpuppetry as the following from this page illustrates:

(ThoMas is a confirmed sockpuppet of Rgulerdem) --Superm401 - Talk 11:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)) (User:ThoMas was editing from UoI as well.)[reply]

Resid Gulerdem has edited with IP addresses starting with 216. on the Fethullah Gülen article as well. Netscott 10:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This talk mentions Resid's use of a 216. ip address as well as his use of University of Iowa IP addresses. Netscott 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resid is currently under mentorship/probation by User:Johntex, so I recommend alerting him to the result, if a positive match is found. NSLE (T+C) at 11:13 UTC (2006-05-23)

Due to the edit warring that these suspected sockpuppets (particularly User:Mokotok) have engaged in and demonstrations of ownership on the Fethullah Gülen article whose patterns are identical to the Exhausted community's patience disruptive editing that Resid Gulerdem engaged in on the Wikipedia:Wikiethics project for which he was permanently blocked, after these further demonstrations of bad faith disruptions it would be highly advisable to reinstate the original permanent block if sockpuppetry is indeed verified. Netscott 11:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that sockpuppetry isn't verified, the definition of a meatpuppet would also describe what has occurred here perfectly. Netscott 13:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Use of this term is generally not advised, since it can be perceived as highly uncivil" Raphael1 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True... which is why I didn't use it but merely referred to its definition. Netscott 16:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this is might be a violation of WP:POINT: The definition of (Personal attack removed) would perfectly describe your character. Raphael1 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three blocked indefinitely. --Cyde↔Weys 18:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please carry on with proper procedure and the RFCU? Otherwise people will pop up on all corners about the block, drown everbody in petitions, and eventually sombody will unblock rgulerdem again. Azate 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No they won't. Rgulerdem was already indef-blocked before and just barely escaped. He's not going to get a reprieve this time. --Cyde↔Weys 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason for your blocks: Regulerdem has been very friendly in his comments [18][19] and there has been no checkuser test confirming his alleged "Sock-puppets" User:Mokotok and Light&Truth. Raphael1 20:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mokotok and Light&Truth have confessed above that they are Rgulerdem's 'meatpuppets'. So the blocks are totally uncontroversial on that grounds alone. Carrying on with the RFCU would just be an extra. Call it pure curiosity on my part. As evidence, the RFCU is obviously superfluous. Azate 22:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about?!? Do you want to insinuate, that it is prohibited to invite friends to Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia some secret project, where you ought to write alone? Raphael1 23:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP help to checkuser guy: 

His IPs around WP
128.255.45.117 (talk · contribs) (Check the talk page!) (Seems static, like office IP)
128.255.103.119

Dynamic IPs (Most probally home)
216.248.124.199
216.248.124.93
216.248.124.154
216.248.124.42
216.248.122.111
216.248.123.43
You can find more IPs on the history page

Response[edit]

I hope this action of admin User:Cyde makes it clear that how an admin can misuse his privileges irresponsibly. He did that before and even without waiting the result he blocked my account indefinitely again now. Thanks for the NSLE that he unblocked my account and I am able to write this response. I leave the decision about admin User:Cyde's action and his ideological and personal motivations to the community. He is looking for an opportunity to unblock me indefinitely again. I will try to explain what is happening, I hope I can make the facts clear:

  • I already quitted from the discussion of the article Fethullah Gulen because I was really tired of unfruitful discussions. And I did that long before these messages are posted. I do not need suckpopets support in an discussion that I am absent.
  • The editor User:Azate is continuously
  • I do not like to get into these kind of childish games as he is doing, but I think I need to do this: User: Azate is most likely User:Baroqqque [22], who were using IP address User:70.22.220.53 and derivative of it before. He was causing the same kind of problems and edit wars before as well. It is important to realize that because he has self-contradicting remarks. He both claims that 'he's on home turf at the article', and also he is new to the discussion. His references to the past diffs shows that he has well aware of the history of this article. He had to leave because of his violations and irresponsible actions.
  • I would like to ask the CheckUser please check if these two guys has something to do with User:Netscott simply because
  • Now User:Azate's claims are not serious and I cannot find an argument to answer. One of them answered by User:Mokotok. He is tragicomically using the word 'hi' as an evidence. It is very common expression. I do not know how many else had the same. In fact, if you check his page, he starts with the same greetings too. He changed it today. I hope I do not need to prove him that, I actually am different from him. We (User:Azate and me) are both Turkish as well as User:Light&Truth and User:Mokotok. So it should be understandable that we may have common mistakes and common way of using English.

I inform the people around me about the project and encourage them to contribute. Two of these guys, who are actually a couple living at the next door, joined to the discussion of the article. (I leave it to User:Azate or User:Netscott to figure out who is the boss at home). They contributed independent from this article as well and are planning to continue to contribute in their area of specializations (history and biochemistry). I hope that is fine to encourage people to contribute to Wikipedia. I will, however, won't be able to edit for a long time, because I lost so much time here and I am tired of unfruitful discussions, I need some rest. The users User:Light&Truth and User:Mokotok (except once) did not violate Wikipedia rules, and in that sense too, this complaint is not meaningful. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 02:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

 Confirmed. They're all the same person. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 21:46, 24 May 2006 (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 below, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rgulerdem&oldid=1146608185"