Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ludvikus

[edit] Ludvikus

• Ludvikus (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• ObserverA (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Lucaas (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: Unsure -- see below.

My position is as a mediator on Philosophy. Ludvikus is an editor on Philosophy, who is considered by many other editors on that article to have played a significant part in an edit war there and in driving off other editors. There is serious discussion of a community ban, supported almost unanimously by all other editors of that article. As mediator, I summarized the situation and requested WP:AN feedback on how other sysops would see his conduct, which led to comment that it was "appalling". At almost the same time another new brand-new editor ObserverA suddenly appeared and commented at length on my talk page in a long defence of Ludvikus and disapproval of all other editors [1]. This response was criticised as a "characature" which nonetheless included some good points, by Lucidish, a user who has made fairly responsible comments in the debate. [2]

(Note -- the assessment of comments as unbalanced, "plainly false", "characature" claims and yet some good points is one that is repeatedly made by many people -- of Ludvikus' edits)

The reason for the RFCU is that I need to carefully assess AGF. Ludvikus has, on the evidence, acted extremely damagingly, and has stated in one comment an apparent wilful intent to do so [3]. If he is in addition breaching WP:SOCK during the very process intended to assess his conduct with goodwill and support, then the matter will probably need to go direct to ArbCom for editing restrictions. The issue might seem likely, but likely is not confirmation. In view of the seriousness of the matter, and my own neutrality as mediator, I would like to obtain Checkuser on Ludvikus' editing, against two other accounts: ObserverA who mysteriously sprung up almost from nowhere to support him, and Lucaas, his almost-sole supporter and (in Ludvikus' eyes) co-conspirator (!!) in the talk page debate. The rationale for the latter is simple - I'm now double-checking for possible sock activity on a plausible basis. If there is sock activity then Lucaas is a very obvious check as having also supported him similarly in the past, needing clearing or clarifying. If Ludvikus was in addition to his own edits, also using a sock puppet in the debate, that would at this point be a very serious concern. On the other hand, if none of these are socks then that is necessary to know for successful mediation too, as that is currently a concern and adds doubts over goodwill to the present difficult discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit/Update: I edited the above between 23.50 Jan 28 and 00.03 Jan 29 2007. By 00.08 a reply had been written by ObserverA [4], confirming this is a sock of some unidentified user [5]. Whoever it is, was clearly watching my contributions list rather closely (a new RFCU won't show up on a watchlist), uses a Jewish language ("shemozzle" is Yiddish, a German-Jewish language, Ludvikus claims to be European-Jewish-New York, familiar with at least one north European language (Polish), and edits on Jewish topics), and is at pains to emphasise that he only thinks they are called sock-puppets. (Hi FT2. Just wanted to let you know that I am not a sock-puppet (as I believe they are called) for Ludvikus).

The request for sock-check stands. I am hoping that there is no sock-use, but I would like confirmation rather than assumption. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely. No open relays; one of them uses a dynamic DNS, others don't; three different continents between them. Good luck with this one. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)