Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Triberocker

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/Triberocker}}
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.

Triberocker

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Triberocker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
152.228.131.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
152.228.129.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
152.228.130.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Code letter: E & G.
Supporting evidence: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

These are not good-faith edits. Note, for example, that one anonymous edit summary falsely claims to have moved the material elsewhere. The IPs of the anonymous edits amongst those above are all associated with Valparaiso University; Triberocker's page presently and at its outset identifies him as student at Valparaiso University. Triberocker was sufficiently emotionally engaged to demand that I explain why I would care enough to protect the section from deletion.

NB: Triberocker denies that he is making the anonymous edits.

(FYI: earlier mediation about section, not involving Triberocker.)

Please let me know if I need to add to this request or to otherwise adjust this request. SlamDiego_←T 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am telling the truth when I say that those anonymous edits were not me. Every edit I made to Phi Kappa Psi was with myself logged in. I'm not going to lie, I still believe that that section is completely irrelevant and doesn't belong in the article. But I am not someone who engages in sockpuppets, and I have stopped trying to edit this article anyway. Take a look at my contribs and see all the constructive editing and building I've done on Wikipedia. If those anonymous IPs are really from Valparaiso University like you say, the only thing I can think is that some of my fraternity brothers who I told about this unnecessary section in the article logged on with the university computers and tried to remove it too. But I really and truly am always logged in when I edit. ~ Triberocker (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I draw your attention to WP:MEATPUPPET. I tried to get this vandalism halted without a checkuser, but you weren't receptive. —SlamDiego_←T 14:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not in control of what my friends do. I did not ask them edit this page, merely told them why I was so irked about the controversy's inclusion in the article. Second, I wasn't "receptive" because I still feel that this section does not belong in the article. I do admit that I wasn't being constructive by just editing it (under my username of course), but now that I know more about Wikipedia processes, I plan on reopening discussion about this on the talk page and possibly getting this situation remediated. But I reiterate, I'm not lying when I say that I had nothing to do with those several IPs. ~ Triberocker (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically claiming to have acted as would one seeking meatpuppets, but without the intention of doing so. Again, I draw your attention to WP:MEATPUPPET, and especially (though not exclusively) to the policy labelled “3” there. —SlamDiego_←T 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly hope that this does not merit a ban from Wikipedia, as I had no intention of creating this much controversy nor was I aware that talking to my friends about what annoys me about a certain article could be misconstrued as a "meatpuppet". I am on here because I love Wikipedia and love learning from/increasing the knowledge of humankind. I am done arguing my point, and I hope that whoever passes judgement on me understands why I believe I should receive a "warning" at most after reading my points above, checking out SlamDiego's history of being excessively vindictive (especially on the talk page of Phi Kappa Psi), and reviewing my past history of constructive contributions and commitment. If it helps, I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused, and I will do my best to avoid situations like this one in the future. ~ Triberocker (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that you are correct in asserting that I have a “history of being excessively vindictive”. How does that personal attack bear on what the response here should be to your either making inappropriate use of sockpuppets, or unleashing a pack of meatpuppets on the article? (Were I indeed excessively vindictive then, amongst other things, I would have filed the request for checkuser without first asking you to stop.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likely - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 14 February 2008 (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.