Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alienus

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/Alienus}}
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.


Alienus

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Alienus; I see no reason why this request should be necessary, but several editors insist upon it. As it seems quite likely that data from the primary account is stale, some of the IP addresses found in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Alienus may be of value. User:Lancombz, User:FraisierB and User:FreddyTris are already confirmed socks of one another; see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lancombz,Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Buridan. I am convinced that these are all the same individual as Alienus/ThAtSo. The last username listed, User:Esmehwp, shows very different language usage, but this may be deliberately mangled (and there are flashes of total coherence;) the confluence of article interests from Ayn Rand to Christianity to Market failure, wherein he advocates the same POV, are striking.Proabivouac 01:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac is right - this is pointless as Alienus has not use his own account for over a year so there is no CU data to check. As to the "sockpuppet" IP's, they may be of some use but I would be surprised if it was definitive enough to be worth the work. Sophia 06:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your endorsement, Sophia, but our reasoning is somewhat different: I think it unnecessary because all (excepting perhaps Esmehwp) are so plainly one and the same individual that a CU is superfluous, not unjustified, or doomed to fail. Several editors including yourself have asserted that the assessments of Tom Harrison, Nandesuka, Raymond Arritt, Jossi, Tbeatty and myself are insufficient, and suggested that a checkuser be performed; see:[1][2] and of course [3]. Like Alienus, Lancombz is a known sockpuppeteer; the obvious similarity between the contributions of Lancombz & proven socks and ThAtSo justifies a checkuser on its own.
I've added the IP as an admitted address of Alienus.[4] Though given the last contrib date it is probably not current, perhaps its range will prove instructive (or not.)Proabivouac 07:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Esmehwp has been blocked indefinitely per WP:AN#User:Esmehwp.Proabivouac 22:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no Unnecessary. All the socks are indefblocked, and Alienus is permenantly banned. Any conclusion drawn from this will be moot, since it makes no difference to the block/bans anyway. --Deskana (banana) 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:ThAtSo is still active, and is being discussed here.Proabivouac 22:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please create Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ThAtSo, and place there your evidence that these indefblocked socks are connected to ThAtSo (talk · contribs), along with reasoning as to why a check is required. --Deskana (banana) 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But ThAtSo hasn't been banned, except insofar as he's a sock of someone who has been. The code letter system would seem to require that it be listed this way.Proabivouac 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've totally confused me. Before you seemed to be indicating that you suspected either one of being a sockmaster, not that they were the same person. If instead you're indicating that ThAtSo is a sock of Alienus, provide evidence here for a check, please. --Deskana (banana) 23:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proabivouac put his evidence here. ElinorD (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, yes, they're all the same person, excepting perhaps User:EsmehwpProabivouac 03:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Once the check is done (or not done), all the above chatter will be moved to the talk page. If possible, could you continue the discussion there? Kwsn(Ni!) 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Discussion moved to talk page. Miranda 02:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the proof. Was this uncovered and was consensus established for banning? Maybe I missed it.Giovanni33 20:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll play rather than revert. Why AnonnyFell (talk · contribs)? He appears to have no common ground with any of these accounts. You can't just lump any new disruptive user onto an old case that's got a perm ban conveniently in place - that's known as fishing. Seeing that the MONGO case is being discussed off wiki and there are a lot of people with a grudge against him - why Alienus? Sophia 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous discussions with Deskana.Proabivouac 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link please? A quick glance at your talk pages doesn't show anything relevant. Sophia 08:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been informed there is no link [5]. Sophia 09:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no Unnecessary, since ThAtSo is already blocked now. --Deskana (banana) 10:58, 21 August 2007 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alienus&oldid=1138655201"