Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Timeshift9
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
User:Timeshift9 User:Orderinchaos
- Timeshift9 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Supporting evidence: Two users posting around the same time; as soon as one user (User:Timeshift9) had the Three-Revert Rule quoted to them, the other user (User:Orderinchaos) logged on and made a similar edit. Both users appears to be suffering from exactly the same misunderstanding as to Wikipedia standards (specifically, on the issue of the definition of a "consensus"). (Additionally, in a previous dispute with a third user (User:Neb Yevnoc), it looks as if User:Orderinchaos appeared rapidly after User:Timeshift9 had appeared, in the discussion page, and User:Orderinchaos mistook a statement addressed to Timeshift9 as being intended for him. All of this can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lindsay_Tanner Dissembly (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOL!! Checkuser will either reject this as rubbish or confirm we edit on different providers in different states and have entirely unrelated editing patterns despite a minor coincidence in interests when it comes to federal politics - he has a far greater one than I do, but I do have the current Federal Ministry watchlisted and noticed the back and forth and the crazy edit summaries on Lindsay Tanner from the comfort of my watchlist. We each have a featured article to our credit - mine on a Perth suburb, his on a South Australian election, obtained 2 months apart - and we both hold mildly left wing points of view, but one will find as much evidence of disagreement as agreement in analysing talk page contributions. I find this quite amusing considering we've just managed to unearth some coordinated meatpuppetry between this user and another at the Lindsay Tanner article. Orderinchaos 04:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, by "this user", I meant the filer, not the subject. Orderinchaos 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOL indeed! Orderinchaos is an admin, hardly someone who is likely to be a sock of me, or vice versa! Funny stuff. Timeshift (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough that it was declined; i don't have access to your IP addresses. But it's hardly ridiculous for an admin to be a sockpuppet. This Checkuser request was made entirely in good faith. Orderinchaos has been accused of this before, as he will no doubt tell you. Dissembly (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, this Checkuser request was made because you failed to get your content into the Lindsay Tanner article. Let's be honest here. That would also explain the three other different kinds of reports you've placed against me in the last 48 hours, all of which have now been declined. Orderinchaos 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough that it was declined; i don't have access to your IP addresses. But it's hardly ridiculous for an admin to be a sockpuppet. This Checkuser request was made entirely in good faith. Orderinchaos has been accused of this before, as he will no doubt tell you. Dissembly (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Declined absent some more compelling evidence of sockpuppetry. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thanks. Orderinchaos 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
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.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.