Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliko

[edit] Eliko

• Eliko (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Manstorius (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• SSnormal (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ostiferia (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Partigenary‎ (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: G
• Supporting evidence:
  Most obvious series of diffs, including all puppets used for 3RR avoidance: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
  Diff where Manstorius claims ownership of SSnormal, Ostiferia and Partigenary socks: [15]
  Recent diffs where Eliko, Osterferia, Manstorius, and SSnormal work together to represent consensus from multiple users: [16][17][18][19]

Additional evidence and explanation can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko, which I posted to WP:SSP a week ago, with no response. An appeal to WP:ANB three days ago for help with the backlog at SSP was also unanswered. Hopefully the request here will be viewed. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eliko's comment:

• Why does Andrwsc say that there has been "no response" to what he has posted to WP:SSP? On the contrary, there was a clear response (posted on 19 February), including both my testimony (which also shows how the accuser's suspicions are refuted) and a clear (objective) proof for my not being involved in Manstorius's deeds (see ibid. "Eliko's testimony", section no. 1), but nobody (including the accuser) has responded me yet (see ibid.)!
• Andrwsc has indicated here just two versions of mine:

1. In my first version indicated by Andrwsc - I didn't revert to any of Manstorius's versions (nor to any of his sock puppets' versions), on the contrary: this is Manstorius who reverted back to my version, as other users reverted to that version! Really, in that article, some users had the same position as mine: Manstorius (and/or his sock puppets) was one of them, and also: Andrew pmk had the same position - which made Andrew pmk revert back to the same version, as you can see here, and also Mike Rosoft (being an administrator) had that position - which made Mike Rosoft revert back to my version, as you can see here. Note that neither Mike Rosoft nor Andrew pmk is Eliko, and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to! Furthermore, Manstorius reverted back to "Mike Rosoft's version" (being identical to my version), although they are (probably) two different persons (and I'll try to prove that if you just ask me to), so if you're consistent - you should have declared that in the same way as Manstorius's revert to "Mike Rosoft's version" is by no means an evidence about Mike Rosoft's identity, so Manstorius's revert to my version is by no means an evidence about Eliko's identity! Furthermore, if you were consistent then you should have declared that in the same way as neither Mike Rosoft nor Andrew pmk is Eliko (and I'm ready to prove that if you just ask me to) - despite their having shared the same position as Eliko's in that controversy (and despite their having reverted back to Eliko's version), so Manstorius can be another person - despite his having shared the same position shared by the other three! Furthermore: I've found out that when Manstorius reverted back to Mike Rosoft's version (being the same version as mine), I had had just two reverts in the past 24 hours, so if I had really wanted to revert - I could have done that without "Manstorius's help"! But even when I had three reverts - this could just prove that I obey the 3RR, nothing else! I shouldn't be blamed for other users' help!
2. In my second version indicated by Andrwsc - I just reverted back to a previous version of Andrwsc's (which is simply the last version preceding a harmful version), not to any of Manstorius's versions (nor to any of his sock puppets' versions), while neither Manstorius nor his sock puppets reverted to my version (in that article).

A clear proof for Manstorius's being a different person than Eliko - can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko (see Eliko's testimony, in secion no. 1). Note that Manstorius has admitted to being the owner of all other sock puppets indicated here; consequently they can't be mine - according to the before-mentioned clear proof for Manstorius's being a different person than me.

Eliko (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read any of Eliko's defense -- and I have no reason to. I'd be shocked to learn that Eliko is not Manstorius. I have never seen anyone else on Wikipedia use just a single period in nearly all of their user talk edit summaries (and let me just say I find the practice extraordinarily annoying). -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not "Eliko's defense" - but rather "Eliko's testimony", including a clear proof for Manstorius's being a different person than me; If you read that proof - you'll be shocked again - but on the opposite side. No, you don't have to read it: that won't help - because you've prejudged me before having listened to me. Anyway, let me just ask you a personal question: Do you hate me? It just seems like you do (although I don't hate you and I don't hate anyone). Tariq: here is an advice from a person who is much older than you: Try to be more polite, less hostile, with no prejudge; try to avoid getting annoyed by nonsense - and then you'll see how the world will change in favor of you. Eliko (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I now have read your defense, and I don't find it convincing at all. Your defense on this page (as opposed to SSP) is especially evasive. Your presentation of the fact that Andrwsc didn't allege you were a sockpuppet of Mike Rosoft and/or Andrew pmk seems more like a distraction than a useful piece of information.

If you think what I said was impolite or hostile or that I hate you, you need to grow some skin. All I said was that I felt no reason to read your defense because the edit summary similarities were so glaring. I still feel that way. Contrary to what you said at SSP, the use of a single period for nearly all talk edit summaries is not common. If this is about the article and the 3RR violation... again, this is not about some sort of vendetta I have against you. Administrators don't favor one side in a content dispute by protecting an article and then reverting to another user's version. There's nothing "illegal" about the current version of the article. If you can't understand that, that's not my problem; I personally am not discussing it any further.

And please don't lecture me, especially when you're suggesting your age makes you better or more knowledgeable. The fact that you are playing the age card suggests that you're not. -- tariqabjotu 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Again, not "defense" but rather: "testimony" (at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko).
• You haven't referred to the clear proof for Manstorius's being a different person than me. This proof can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko, see Eliko's testimony, in secion no. 1 (ibid.). You've referred to section no. 2 (ibid.), not to section no. 1.
• You haven't reffered to section no. 2 above.
• I'm sure you didn't understand what I was claiming above in section no. 1: not only Manstorius (and/or his sock puppets) reverted back to my version, but also other users (including an administrator) reverted back to the same version! So how can this fact establish a proof for Manstorius's being Eliko?
• Common or not common: I learnt to use the single period from other users, and this is my testimony (rather than a defense allegation), and now you are free to choose whether to believe. Anyway, I don't know where Manstorius (to whom I have no connection) learnt this style from: maybe from me (note that we edited common articles), maybe from all of the many other users - as I did.
• If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then you're welcome to express your opinion, and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as opposite opinions of other administrators will be taken into account.
• The route you have taken - to halve my second request (on the article talk page) into two parts - is illegitimate: The template I had put on the talk page - is an integral part of my request. I don't want my request to be presented partly, because presenting my request partly - does not reflect my request. This is a legitimate request, and this is my request - rather than your request. The sole explanation - about which one can think - for your behaviour (i.e. your halving a legitimate request which is not yours - into two parts, i.e. your removing the template from the request) is: basic hostility. However, if you say now that you don't hate me - then I'm ready to believe you (not like you - who insist on not believing me), but you must prove your claim by your next steps (regarding your act of removing an integral legitimate part from a legitimate request which is not yours).
• The person who began first to "lecture" the other one - is not me. I just responded.
• And...yes: I'm probably much older than you - provided that your testimony about yourself on your user page - is correct (and I really assume that it's correct, not like you - who don't believe my testimony about myself, and about where I learnt to use the single dot).
• Have a nice day.

Eliko (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is somewhere between Possible and Confirmed. Except for Partigenary‎, who is too old to check, these editors all use the same dynamic ISP and almost never edit on the same IP, but also have no edits that overlap in time. It is certainly possible that there is one editor who dials in to get a fresh IP between users. And there are limited instances of the same editors on the same IP address within minutes of each other. Thatcher 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • So has it been established that Eliko has been using the sockpuppets abusively? These actions have resulted in multiple edit wars as described above and a MEDCAB case may depend on the outcome of this. Thank you. Rudget (?) 19:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Since I know that I'm not Manstorius (who has used the same ISP as mine), then I'm sure that those "some" instances of the same IP used by same editors - may have only been used by Manstorius and by "some" of his admitted sockpuppets, i.e. not by me, and that's why it has not been 'confirmed', but just: "somewhere between 'possible' and 'confirmed', i.e. 'possible' for Eliko, and 'confirmed' for Manstorius and for some of his admitted sockpupptes.
    • The MEDCAB case is not about individuals, but rather about the more correct version which should be used by Wikipedia. To sum up: no connection between The MEDCAB case (dealing with a topic) and the current case (dealing with individuals). Eliko (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)