Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Clerk note: Moved from the 12th request started 13 January 2008:
WP:POINT won’t make your case stronger. Imitating (erroneously) our evidence and turning it into sarcasm doesn’t help your cause to have Ehud unbanned. Grandmaster you are obviously making fun of Khoikhoi's evidence, such acts are not healthy to the Wiki-atmosphere. - Fedayee (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please mind WP:AGF. I'm not imitating anyone. This is a cu request, and correlative behavior is a strong reason for requesting a cu. I find it strange that every time a cu is filed there's always someone protesting. The last cu was also protested, but it resulted in exposure of 4 sock accounts. Please let this issue be investigated, and see Lar's response to Pocopocopocopoco about the cu policy discussions. Grandmaster (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think cu needs to investigate all possible connections of Steelmate and Yerkatagear. The last cu was unable to tell whether Verjakette was Artaxiad, and this edit seems to suggest a relation between Steelmate and Yerkatagear (note the name of Steelmate on top of userbox frame on Yerkatagear's user page). So all possible connections of those accounts need to be thoroughly checked. Grandmaster (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
And more evidence today on User:Steelmate - [1]. Note, he just started out on November 6th, yet knows so much about User:AdilBaguirov banned back in April, concluding: "mighty Azeri user with long history of Wikipedia violations pushing Azeri POV... Lara, Of course he is Adil it is obvious!". Atabek (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- :) Atabek, it is a real delight to read such kind of messages about me. But please believe me knowledge comes in addition to logic, not instead. You can actually calculate 1+1=2, no previous knowledge is necessary if you know how to calculate... ;) Steelmate (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
user:Steelmate has demonstrate some knowledge of the Georgian language, unless any of the people you are checkusering him against had demonstrated this, you should remove him from the list. Also, with all due respect to admin user:Lar, I have to say that these checkusers by user:Atabek and user:Grandmaster look like they are done in bad faith. Basically anyone new that disgrees with them are getting checkusered regardless of their writing behavior. It looks like user:Artaxiad massively used proxies so anyone checkusered against Artaxiad has a good chance of coming up inconclusive. So a good way to smear your opponent is to checkuser them against Artaxiad so that it comes up inconclusive rather than unrelated. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not the first time you are trying prevent a cu on suspicious users. The last cu that you protested revealed 4 sock accounts. Your persistence looks very strange, to say the least. Grandmaster (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you try without any attacks, Grandmaster?? Whats really strange, its the adding of my name to any sock (at this list Im already the second time after an admin deleted my name as unrelated to Artaxiad), "evidence" etc list any time just to stop my protests against your pogroms denial at Shusha pogrom (1920) and some other lists. so lets to not speak about strange persistance! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grandmaster, you have very poor justification for checkusering either Andranikpasha or Steelmate versus Artaxiad. Your justification for Andranikpasha is that he is interested in a monastery in Nagorno-Karabakh therefore he must be Artaxiad. Your justification for Steelmate is that he commented on the blocking of Adil. So what, he probably read one of the arbcom cases. The previous checkuser you mentioned had no justification to run against Artaxiad as I correctly mentioned. When you say that my persistance looks very strange, am I next on the list of people that get checkusered vs. Artaxiad? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can you try without any attacks, Grandmaster?? Whats really strange, its the adding of my name to any sock (at this list Im already the second time after an admin deleted my name as unrelated to Artaxiad), "evidence" etc list any time just to stop my protests against your pogroms denial at Shusha pogrom (1920) and some other lists. so lets to not speak about strange persistance! Andranikpasha (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- My only contribution to this is addition of Verjakette and his sock. I think that Steelmate and Yerkatagear should be checked if they have anything to do with those accounts, as their edits bear strong similarity with them. As for the rest, no one is asking to cu Andranik vs Artaxiad, it is requested to check the connection of Steelmate and Yerkatagear with those users. I don't think checkusering will hurt anyone in any way. If it is proved that they have no relation, it would be only good for them, as it will stop baseless suspicions. I always welcomed anyone filing a cu on me whenever in doubt, and I'm willing to cooperate. Your vehement objections on the other hand only make me think that Atabek is on the right track by filing this cu, because the last time when you protested the cu revealed 4 sock accounts. I don’t understand, why are we even discussing this? The steward told you on previous cu that this is not a place to discuss the cu policy. Grandmaster (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I already explained my concerns with the fact that Atabek and yourself are checkusering everyone you disagree with against Artaxiad. You sound like you want to silence criticism of what I consider bad faith checkuser requests. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- My only contribution to this is addition of Verjakette and his sock. I think that Steelmate and Yerkatagear should be checked if they have anything to do with those accounts, as their edits bear strong similarity with them. As for the rest, no one is asking to cu Andranik vs Artaxiad, it is requested to check the connection of Steelmate and Yerkatagear with those users. I don't think checkusering will hurt anyone in any way. If it is proved that they have no relation, it would be only good for them, as it will stop baseless suspicions. I always welcomed anyone filing a cu on me whenever in doubt, and I'm willing to cooperate. Your vehement objections on the other hand only make me think that Atabek is on the right track by filing this cu, because the last time when you protested the cu revealed 4 sock accounts. I don’t understand, why are we even discussing this? The steward told you on previous cu that this is not a place to discuss the cu policy. Grandmaster (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Pocopocopocopoco, why don't you discuss this at talk? You have already been advised to do so, same as everyone else. Grandmaster (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence belongs in the main page, the other stuff belong in talk. What I added is evidence. Evidence can go both ways in terms of either showing that the users are posible socks or that they are not. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
