• CDSCSO3 (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)
• CDSCSO2 (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)
• JoanOfArc2 (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)
• code F: Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
• previously banned user, edited in the past and checkuser confirmed asUser:WikiWoo,User:Brampton 2006‎,User:WhoseUdady‎,User:NotYouToo‎,User:Cranch2‎,User:Soliman2‎,User:Plato2100‎,User:Gay2day‎,User:WikiDoo,User:WikiRoo,User:GST2006, and likely others I've forgotten over the past year (User:WikiRoo andUser:WikiDoo indicates the user was blocked per ruling of administrators, Jimbo Wales and/or the Arbitration Committee)
• current edits ofUser:JoanOfArc2 atConseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest are the same as this previously banned user, there is a very short list of user contribs at the moment -- seems to be a new account:[1]
• --Stéphane Charette (talk)09:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears as though CDSCS02 and CDSCS03 are sockpuppets of JoanofArc2 and also of Wikiwoo... simply trying to advance the same conspiracy theories.--Renrenren (talk)20:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: You've not specified who the alleged sockmaster is, here. WikiWoo? It seems you modified the line that said "Do not modify this line". Please specify. --Deskana(talk)16:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I had problems creating this page. The sockmaster is WikiWoo/WikiDoo/GST2006. All of those names have already been confirmed with checkuser to be the same user, so I'm not certain how Wikipedia determines which is the master and which is the puppet. This checkuser request is to confirm that JoanOfArc2, CDSCS02 and CDSCS03 are all puppets of the same WikiWoo/WiwiDoo/GST2006 user. If that is the case, then JoanOfArc2, etc..., are simply puppet accounts used to evade a community-based ban. --Stéphane Charettetalk)17:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Users are undoubtedly WikiWoo, as an IP associated with that user, (216.154.134.91, check the talk page), also edited the article in question afterwards. That IP has now been blocked for six months (it has been blocked for long periods of time before, and seems to be unique to WikiWoo).Lexicon(talk)01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The two names above are incorrect and don't appear in the user list. Amending CSDSCS02/3 to CSDSCSO2/3 ("oh", not "zero") perthis -Alison^❤05:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - CDSCSO2 == CDSCSO3 == JoanOfArc2 - Data for Wikiwoo account is now stale -Alison^❤05:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiWoo (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)
• Brampton 2006 (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)

• Code Letter: F (see[2] and[3])

It's appropriate that Halloween is tomorrow, because, likeMichael Myers in theHalloween films, WikiWoo seems to keep coming back. Previously banned for exhausting the patience of the community asWikiWoo (talk ·contribs),WikiDoo (talk ·contribs), andWikiRoo (talk ·contribs), he subsequently returned asGST2006 (talk ·contribs). Now, Brampton 2006, who (as shown in the following diffs) has a very similar editing style and pattern of behavior, is disruptingBrampton, Ontario andBrampton municipal election, 2006. The following list of diffs show similarities in language usage and worldview between two editors who have an unusually keen interest in local Brampton politics. My apologies for their number; this is my first time filing aWP:RFCU and I wanted to be thorough. The list could have been a lot longer.JChap200705:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, his comments,[4] and[5], atWikipedia:Requests for adminship/Osgoodelawyer should be considered.JChap200706:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Update:Brampton 2006 (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI) indef blocked byJzG.JChap200718:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, as well asGay2day (talk ·contribs),Plato2100 (talk ·contribs),Soliman2 (talk ·contribs),Cranch2 (talk ·contribs),NotYouToo (talk ·contribs),WhoseUdady (talk ·contribs), andE64.15.147.171 (talk ·contribs).Dmcdevit·t01:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Evidence moved to talk page.Thatcher13101:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiWoo (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)
• GST2006 (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)

Continuous problems coming to a head atTalk:Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, with an editing style and to articles belonging to a geographic area consistent with banned userWikiWoo (talk ·contribs),WikiDoo (talk ·contribs), andWikiRoo (talk ·contribs). --Stéphane Charette20:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some diffs?Voice-of-All22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No diffs and no link to arbcom case.The Uninvited Co.,Inc.23:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new to the checkuser process. Is it diffs of GST2006's disruptive comments and style to compare against which are needed? ([6],[7],[8],[9],[10])

Or do you need examples of edit warring which has been ongoing for the past few weeks? ([11],[12],[13]...) Actually, looking through the article history, I don't even know where to start. Almost every single edit to the article by GST2006 is controversial and has resulted in revert wars between him/her and maybe 5 other editors. Excluding myself, as I've so far participated only in the talk page discussions, not wanting to get re-involved in the article until the mess gets sorted out. (I say re-involved since I have in the past edited this article, though not since GST2006 has appeared on the scene.) --Stéphane Charette23:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiWoo was indef-blocked after many of us spent a very long time trying really hard to get him to stop adding original research and gross bias. The edit history of GST2006 is indeed problematic in the same way, albeit on different articles; the hallmark of WikiWoo is the attribution of actions of municipal authorities to corruption, often by named individuals, unsubstantiated by external reports.Guy09:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is why we think it is the same person. AtCSDCSO, his contributions are varied (though mostly controversial), and one of his key points is how a set of elected officials ("Alice Ducharme" and others apparently of the Ducharme family) are corrupted. When pressed to cite, he simply external links to a Google search for "Ducharme + CSDCSO", which offers zero credibility to his claims and POV. Do I need to re-submit my request since it was denied yesterday, or is this enough information? --Stéphane Charette21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• To help out a bit, here's a couple of diffs that might provide a stronger link:

19:56 14 September 2006 - GST2006 places a paragraph on controversy that was apparently the centre of quite a bit of discussion. This paragraph gets beaten on and violated for some time, and then removed by another anon.

11:57 15 September 2006 - the paragraph is replaced by216.154.134.91, which by a look at the contributions[14] pretty well confirms that the IP is WikiWoo. It seems beyond the range of coincidence for this IP to pop up in the midst of that discussion, which does show quite a bit of WikiWoo's trademark discussion, without there being something going on.Tony Fox(arf!)05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to thecommunity ban discussion for reference.Tony Fox(arf!)05:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edits[15] show avery familiar pattern of first trying/pretending to be reasonable, then thoroughly ignoring whatever is spoken to him and going to do his own. --Qviri(talk)19:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can we confirm or deny the link between GST2006 and banned user WikiWoo? This user (GST2006) is now vandalizing user pages of people involved in editing articles ([16],[17]), and still talks -- though stops short of outright accusations -- about corrupted public servants or corrupt school officials on talk pages[18]. --Stéphane Charette08:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd need to resubmit, given the above decline, but as far as I can tell the circumstantial evidence is pretty compelling (I know WikiWoo's style pretty well by now, as you know). CheckUser confirmation would be valuable as the user vehemently denies being WikiWoo. WikiWoo has openly admitted previous socks (but was not at that time commuity banned).Guy08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this *was* a resubmission, as it's in the 'outstanding' section.Tony Fox(arf!)08:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: To the best of my knoledge, there appears to be no arbitration committee case for eitherWikiWoo orGST2006, but there does appear to be a community ban as linked above.Kevin_b_er17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likely.Mackensen(talk)14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the checkuser. I've now started the process atWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets (here). --Stéphane Charette18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]