Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grburster

• Grburster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - master account

• GammaRayBurst (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 144.162.104.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: G

• Supporting evidence:

• IP related through vandalism edits diff picking up where User:GammaRayBurst left off with same theme.

• User:Grburster states on their talkpage that they are an alternate account, and the editing overlap with the article an Gamma ray burst with the vandal account User:GammaRayBurst suggests strongly that this is an alternate account used to avoid scrutiny. I have blocked GammaRayBurst already, but I'd like a checkuser to see if Grburster is related. As a note, given these accounts' short editing history, these may both be sockpuppets of another account. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't vandalized any articles. The only similarity is the username, and if I wanted to return anonymously, I wouldn't have been stupid enough to use a similar name. --Grburster (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked through Special:Contributions/Grburster and Special:Contributions/GammaRayBurst, and I can't see any connection between the two accounts other than the name. The contributions by Grburster look fine to me (adding references and making helpful changes and raising an issue on a talk page, though I haven't checked the added references in any great detail). What I see here is a vandalism account (GammaRayBurst) and an unrelated account that looks fine to me (Grburster). The GammaRayBurst account was created on 16 September and edited for four days (16-19 September), was warned and then made two edits after that, both changed with edit summaries that indicate those undoing the edits did not consider the edits to be vandalism, see here and here. The GammaRayBurst account has no deleted contributions. Quite why, on the basis of this, Tim Vickers blocked the account, I don't know. If the GammaRayBurst account filed for an unblock, it might be difficult to justify why the block was placed in the first place - the account had already been warned for vandalism and hadn't vandalised since the warning, and hadn't edited in over a month. The indications are, in fact, that the account was learning the ropes and turning away from vandalism, before losing interest for a while (which is usual when people start editing Wikipedia). The Grburster account was created on 18 August, and has edited both before (August) and after (October) the edits by the GammaRayBurst account (28-26 August and 29 October), with no deleted contributions (to date). Tim, have a look at the edits made by the Grburster account. Can you find any problems with them? I think any check of the Grburster account would be fishing. The GammaRayBurst account and the IP may be related, but that hardly needs a checkuser to confirm. Finally, the edits to GRB are not that surprising given the name similarity, and name similarity alone should not ever be enough for a checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And just to make it crystal clear compare the following:

• Grburster (28 August 2008)
• GammaRayBurst (16 September 2008)

• As a side-note, I have been following up the GRB reference added by Grburster, and while there are problems with getting the early dates and names of GRBs correct, and making clearer that the discovery of the 1967 event didn't happen until the data was examined in 1969, this is still a valid and useful addition to the article. Quite why this edit is being compared to the later one in September (comparing gamma ray bursters to human ejaculation) I don't know. Tim, can you clarify what your thoughts were here? Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And in case it isn't clear, the blocking of GammaRayBurst, and this checkuser request, came after the following contributions by Tim to this ANI thread started by Grburster: [1] and [2]. I've posted at the ANI thread to ask people there to say whether they think this checkuser request was justified or not. Carcharoth (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppose it turns out that Grburster and GammaRayBurst are unrelated, but that Grburster is one of 4 sockpuppets of a banned user. Still fishing? Thatcher 11:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  uh..yes. Since if they aren't related, it means you were wrong and you're just hoping it might turn up a positive hit somewhere else.--Crossmr (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope those objecting to this RfCU take some time to research the utter and complete disruption that the account User:Iantresman has visited upon this encyclopedia in the name of his particular agenda. Wikipedia has a really terrible track record of defending the indefensible. This appears to be yet another example. Thatcher, again, has saved the day. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you, Thatcher. I'll unblock GammaRayBurst and apologise for my mistake in linking them to a banned user. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]