Aunt Entropy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
The originator is asking for a CU, but didn't put the macro in properly. I'll add it so a clerk can accept or reject. As for the claim of "fishing", I don't think that applies: Hetoum I is indefinitely blocked, Hetoum I is a prolific sockpuppeteer, and there's reasonable suspicion that Ionidasz is Hetoum I. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kww|contribs]]) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
The originator is asking for a CU, but didn't put the macro in properly. I'll add it so a clerk can accept or reject. As for the claim of "fishing", I don't think that applies: Hetoum I is indefinitely blocked, Hetoum I is a prolific sockpuppeteer, and there's reasonable suspicion that Ionidasz is Hetoum I. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kww|Kww]] ([[User talk:Kww|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kww|contribs]]) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
{{RFCU|E|No2ndletter| |
{{RFCU|E|No2ndletter|Checked}}<small>Requested by [[User:Grandmaster]]</small> |
||
{{moreinfo}} Do you have any behavioral evidence? I am looking, and I don't see anything jump out at me. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Auntie E.]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
{{moreinfo}} Do you have any behavioral evidence? I am looking, and I don't see anything jump out at me. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Auntie E.]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
{{clerknote}} Ionidasz: please note our privacy policy [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Purpose_of_the_collection_of_private_information here]. If you are operating this account legitimately, the CU will not release any information about you. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Auntie E.]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
{{clerknote}} Ionidasz: please note our privacy policy [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Purpose_of_the_collection_of_private_information here]. If you are operating this account legitimately, the CU will not release any information about you. [[User:Aunt Entropy|Auntie E.]] ([[User talk:Aunt Entropy|talk]]) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
* {{user|Ionidasz}} is {{unrelated}} to {{user|Hetoum I}}. The account appears to be a legitimate alternate account, but the number of alternate accounts worries me, please stick to one. [[User:Brandon|Brandon]] ([[User talk:Brandon|talk]]) 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:40, 8 May 2010
Hetoum I
- Hetoum I (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date May 5 2010, 08:44 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
- Ionidasz (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Recent socks of Hetoum:
- Shamshadin (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Stepanakertsi (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ivanyan (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- CaptainGio (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
More socks and IPs of Hetoum are listed in the archives.
Evidence submitted by Grandmaster
Ionidasz is a brand new account, but his very first edit was following me to a discussion board, and then to an admin's page. It is very suspicious that a newbie knows his way around Wikipedia so well, and turns up in the middle of the heated discussion. According to Deskana, there appears to be "two different lots of socks at work here": [1] Usually one is related to Paligun (talk · contribs), and the other to Hetoum I (talk · contribs). I asked Jpgordon to check if Ionidasz has any connection to Paligun (since Jpgordon dealt with the recent CUs on Paligun), and the result was negative: [2] To eliminate all doubts, I think we also need to check if Ionidasz has anything to do with Hetoum I. Grandmaster 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the very first edit of Ionidasz was posting at a message board where I posted a request in my opinion is very suspicious. Usually brand new users do not know their way around Wikipedia so well. Plus, I've been harassed by Hetoum in the past, he vandalized my user page 20 times, ([3] [4], also see the history of my user page, the IPs used for vandalism belonged to Hetoum), and since then often appears to undo my edits or confront me at talk pages, which could be seen from the contribs of established socks of this user. Just an example, these accounts rvd me with their first edits: [5] [6] Another sock, ZiraFo (talk · contribs), it was not established whether it was Paligun/Verjakette or Hetoum, but he only appeared to post at a discussion, and protested being checkusered. And vehemently protesting the CU is nothing unusual for Hetoum, see my report on CaptainGio and his comments there, accusing me of harassment, etc: [7] Grandmaster 07:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by accused parties
I object to the CU run, there is no rational behind it. I already explained on the second phrase here that I don't claim to be a newbie. I will just copy past it:Users have the right to create a second account to not associate their main account with contributions on controversial topics. I didn't even edit an article related to Azerbaijan or Armenia nor a talkpage to begin with, because of all the complicated restrictions those article are placed on.
It really fails me why Grandmaster is on me like this after I explained once that I am not a newbie, and then asked him to reread where I say I am not one. I just wanted to comment on an administrators' notice board and did not want to use my first account because of the controversial nature of the subject, don't I have the right to do that? I am not those editors he claims I am, beside on what grounds he thinks I am them? He claims I should not be afraid of a CU here, that's not even the question. I don't want my account which has no history of editing in controversial subjects to be outed, and even if a CU confirms I am not those Grandmaster claims I am, and decide to not reveal my other account, this CU will know my primary account. I don't want to be associated with an account which has edited on a subject which is concidered as controversial.
There is no ground for an outing here, and I hope Grandmaster is warned to refrain badging an editor at the slight comment he makes. I hope he retract from the CU request himself and if he does not, I am confident the clerck who will review it will see that there is no rational to such a request. A CU is not for fishing. Ionidasz (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- As mentioned here I ended the discussion, I hope this satisfies Grandmaster. Ionidasz (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply: What is the reasonable suspicion that I am user Hetoum? I repeat, I simply replied on the administrators' noticeboard. I did even not engage in the articles. After doing that, I was accused to be Paligun..., Grandmaster has gone further requesting a check, which came negative. He then want another check. If a CU is going to check the socks of this Hetoum to see if he is using other socks, so that it satisfy Grandmaster, good. But I oppose to be directly checked. No evidences was provided which shows that I have anything in common with those users, neither any connection. Since Grandmaster continued after a first negative CU, asking me to be checked with another user, if that is not fishing I wonder what it is. It's ridiculous..., will he later ask a check with each and every banned users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Answer to Auntie E. : The only thing I might have done wrong, was first to act as a foaming-from-the-mouth retard not to appear to come as very knowlegeable. But everything I did was all within the rules, I was not even given any chance when I was reported as two different users for simply writting in the administrators' noticeboard. Kww claimed there is reasonable suspicion, but I have written twice to him asking for some explaination and was ignored twice. Ionidasz (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to have not replied. Yes, this case is not a clear-cut smoking gun. I was presented with a malformed SPI request: the requester clearly wanted a checkuser run, and hadn't included the macro. I added it for him. Hetoum I is clearly a sockpuppeteer, and I have no problem requesting checkusers to examine the behaviour of known sockpuppeteers. You are clearly a sock account that has been created solely for the purpose of commenting on an issue that Hetoum I is involved in. Sockpuppets are forbidden from editing project space. I'll grant that a notice board isn't specifically enumerated in the list of examples under editing project space, but it is still project space.
- Basically, the case is strong enough for me to pass the buck to a clerk, which I did by providing the missing macro.—Kww(talk) 04:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where does it say that a CU request is justified for the use of an alternative account used for a day in the administrators' notice board? That's not about whatever CUers are untrusted, it is more about having another account which name reveal real information which I don't want a CU to know without valid reason. Grandmaster claims another sock CaptainGio protested, but what I can see from that persons contribution, he must've been checked for having contributed in those articles. I tell it again, I have created an account to edit something I have seen in the administrators' noticeboard. Ionidasz (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- WP:ILLEGIT includes Editing project space as something a sock isn't supposed to do.—Kww(talk) 15:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Where does it say that a CU request is justified for the use of an alternative account used for a day in the administrators' notice board? That's not about whatever CUers are untrusted, it is more about having another account which name reveal real information which I don't want a CU to know without valid reason. Grandmaster claims another sock CaptainGio protested, but what I can see from that persons contribution, he must've been checked for having contributed in those articles. I tell it again, I have created an account to edit something I have seen in the administrators' noticeboard. Ionidasz (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The originator is asking for a CU, but didn't put the macro in properly. I'll add it so a clerk can accept or reject. As for the claim of "fishing", I don't think that applies: Hetoum I is indefinitely blocked, Hetoum I is a prolific sockpuppeteer, and there's reasonable suspicion that Ionidasz is Hetoum I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kww (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
- Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.Requested by User:Grandmaster
Additional information needed Do you have any behavioral evidence? I am looking, and I don't see anything jump out at me. Auntie E. (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note:Ionidasz: this is the policy you are claiming this sock falls under:
Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.
This policy is to protect you from real-world ramifications for editing controversial subjects. Ones that can get you in trouble with your family or employer, not ones that can get you in trouble on wikipedia. This policy is not to protect you from a checkuser if there is cause for one. Checkuser function is only granted to a very few highly trusted users. They can be trusted not to expose your original account if it is shown you are editing in good faith. Auntie E. (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed I will endorse; legitimate socks are to be quietly editing article space, not getting involved in AN/I. Auntie E. (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: Ionidasz: please note our privacy policy here. If you are operating this account legitimately, the CU will not release any information about you. Auntie E. (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)