Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alienus

Thank you for looking into this. This person has been a major pain for those of us trying to edit the Ayn Rand related articles. ThAtSo's obnoxious behavior caused an editor (User:AdamReed), an academic who has published papers on Rand, to leave. Endlessmike 888 05:04, 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]

Perhaps? They are nothing alike - that is pure fishing. What linguistic characteristics do they share? Or is he deliberately acting out of character to avoid detection? Sophia 07:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Or is he deliberately acting out of character to avoid detection?"

That is my hypothesis. Esmehwp's linguistic irregularities are neither natural nor consistent, typical characteristics of a "bad hand" account, who just happens to find his way to divergent subjects related only by their association with the more eloquent Alienus socks. As the most recently active of the others, it may prove instructive.Proabivouac 07:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or a bad english account? Sophia 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed most of this user's posts are bad English, but summaries such as "this section confuses equal oppurtunity first with equality then with affirmative action,"[1] despite the spelling error, indicate highly-educated native speaker ability.Proabivouac 08:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity is on the list of most frequently misspelled words. [2] None of the other words are. Also don't make the mistake that being foreign means you have to speak slow, loud and avoid long words. It's the stringing them together that takes experience and where Esmehwp shows his errors. But then he's just throwing you off the scent no doubt.[3][4] Sophia 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's exactly the stringing together that I'm looking at here, Sophia. "[predicates] first with…then with…" is an elegant and skilled construction which bats far above the native average (and this isn't the only example.) Besides this, one point is clear: if this isn't your friend Alienus, then it's just a banned troll, and I doubt you'd go too far out of your way to defend a banned troll. One of your central points was that the original ban of Alienus was unfair, which is only relevant if some of these socks are, in fact, Alienus. And you yourself supported the idea of a CU before it was filed; now you oppose tooth and nail. It is difficult not to conclude that, in perfectly good faith, you hope that Alienus has returned.

All that said, I've already plainly stated that this is the only username of those above that I wouldn't be incredibly (only somewhat) suprised to learn wasn't the same individual as the others; the others are quite obviously so.Proabivouac 10:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the real question here is what qualifies you to make sweeping statements about lingiustic styles in a multinational multicultural project? Sophia 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real question is why you suggested a CU and now are trying to chip away at it brick by brick.Proabivouac 10:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no more to be said. You obviously don't know how CU works otherwise you would acknowledge what Deskana has already told you - there is nothing from the Alienus account to check. I suggested it as an off the cuff remark without really thinking about the timescales and then realised I was wrong - hence my note here to save the CU users time. Now even that looks sinister to you. I illustrate your linguistic inadequacies (and I'm no expert myself) and even that is taken as a staunch defense of "my friend Al" and hence suspicious. All I have been trying to do is point out that your self confidence in your own judgement is ill placed as others have told you for a different case. I think I'd best leave well alone as all I do is add grist to your mill. As for Al being back - I have given examples and stated that I'm sure he never left - so why would I bother? The original case against him was unusually harsh and conducted in his absence against normal practice but I didn't challenge that as there was no point. Believe it or not I just don't like seeing someone get picked on and fast tracked for banning on dodgy evidence. Stepping back a little there is probably some wounded pride as I have never been called inadequate or incompetent before when genuinely trying to raise an important point. That is my threshold to walk away as when things get personal they tend to get irrational which helps no one. Sophia 11:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re wounded pride, yes, that was rude of me; I'm sorry.Proabivouac 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Haven't moved due to active discussion above. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 21:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done so don't hold it on my behalf. Thanks. Sophia 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here.Proabivouac 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac has a good amount of experience regarding sockpuppetry, so I think he deserves at least some explanation from one of the checkusers if this case is going to be closed. --Aminz 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Note:. Is there anything actually pending here? Mackensen (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, yes --Aminz 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aminz. Yes, there is. Read the discussion immediately following Deskana's token (since the rest between Sophia and me focuses only on already indefed Esmehwp) - it was declined as unnecessary due to the misunderstanding that the sockmaster was either Alienus or ThAtSo. Clarification was requested, and provided: active editor ThAtSo is Alienus evading his ban, as was Lancombz and his confirmed socks. The associated discussion is found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Alienus, where you will see that a majority of respondants concur.Proabivouac 20:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his contributions and behavior, I think User:ThAtSo is Alienus editing in violation of his ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus) Can checkuser tell us anything about this? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have recent contributions from Alienus or a confirmed sock to compare against, I would tend to think that checkuser cannot confirm or deny anything. But if there is a pattern of disruptive behaviour, or if a number of admins concur that the editing patterns are similar, why not just block? Checkuser would not be needed. That's my view. I may be all wet of course. ++Lar: t/c 02:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I thought the possible answers to my question might be that the data is too old and so checkuser can't help; or a straight 'Yes it is him' or 'No it is not.' Looking at contributions and behavior, I think ThAtSo is Alienus editing in violation of his ban. I said so at Requests for Arbitration Enforcement. Some people there said contributions and behavior weren't enough, and demanded checkuser. So I came here, only to be told that checkuser wasn't really the thing and I should rely on contributions and behavior (and I tend to agree, for what it's worth). Where exactly do we report a suspected sock of a banned user? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of users (I don't see why it should matter if they are administrators, as RfA isn't a sockpuppet-competence test) have indeed concurred that the editing patterns are similar - Tom Harrison, Nandesuka, Raymond Arritt, Jossi, Tbeatty, MONGO and myself, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Alienus. The right solution is, of course, to block.Proabivouac 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro, my bad, I was imprecise. You are right, evaluating sockitude is certainly not confined to admins only. However traditionally it seems like mostly admins endorse blocks, that was what I was referring to there.

The reason not to block is because we may be wrong,and if we are wrong we not only block an innocent editor but we also hurt Alienus, who is only blocked for a year and then should be allowed to come back. By blocking this user with an assumption that, if in error, we will affect two editors in major ways. That is a big price to pay, if we are wrong. I prefer we don't make any assumptions regarding who is who without concrete proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not simply the lesser standard of "more likely than not." And, reasonable people here, myself included, do have some doubts. So until there is proof, lets not block based on beliefs of associations, but instead the editors own conduct that deserve blocking on its own merits.Giovanni33 08:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support this CU?Proabivouac 08:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there is reasonable cause for belief, then a user check would be one possible way to establish the kind of evidence that would be beyond reasonable doubt. Even then I don't support investigating the possibility unless the editor is causing problems that appear to lead to the same problems the banned editor was banned for (and thus we are only saving time and preventing the editor from repeating the harm). If the editor is not doing this, then there is no reason even to want to find out if he is the banned editor or not.Giovanni33 08:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically would you check, though. Do we have a chain of socks to tie back to Alienus with the last confirmed sock recent enough to check against the unconfirmed ones? That's not my read. (please correct me if I misread things) Therefore checking would just be fishing around and we don't do that. If these new alleged socks are exhibiting behaviour patterns that suggest close correlation (and Pro's quite good at finding these, I tend to trust Pro on that score) the check itself is not needed, even if it were possible to do, block on correlation. If these new alleged socks are exhibiting disruptive behaviour, the check itself is not needed, block on behaviour. If neither of these is clearly the case (which is why having a number of people endorse things is helpful, it's more than one pair of eyes) let the IDs in peace. that's my thinking. Again I could be all wet. I also admit some bias in that I was one of the admins blocking Alienus originally, IIRC, hence I am just expressing opinion here as me, not officially as a CU. But CU is to be used sparingly, as a last resort, only if there is a pressing need. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your confidence. Re correlations, all of these usernames propagate from the same individual, excepting perhaps Esmehwp. Earlier socks aside, user has (at least) two reincarnations: first as Lancombz/FraisierB/FreddyTris (confirmed same user), now as ThAtSo, with Esmehwp as a possible "bad hand" account. The first batch edited last on 23 April, the second very recently (although ThAtSo has quit since this report was filed), and the Alienus sock page has some IPs which might still provide valid information.Proabivouac 13:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]