If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
((Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Otheus))
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.


Otheus (second request)[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets

Other suspected socks (inactive):

Although this bears obvious relation to the Agapetos angel arbitration case, I am opening this request based on the monthlong blocks currently in effect on 60.242.13.87 and 58.162.2.122. Otheus has been editing under a cloud of suspicion, as demonstrated here.

It's difficult to summarize the site's deeper rabbit holes in a checkuser request so I offer to share my draft report offline. In a nutshell, I think all the IP addresses represent one vandal (distinct from Otheus or Agapetos angel) who has disrupted and degraded a variety of topics for nearly two years while evading a general siteban. I expect this to be my most complex report since the Joan of Arc vandal. So please ask questions if the purpose and scope of this request is unclear. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Arbitration ruling on the user being banned is listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned. Real96 06:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was an article ban. I'm preparing a case for a full community siteban against the IP vandal since the ArbCom ruling covers only about 20% of that vandal's disruption. Would prefer to run this as a class F request (which is a rock solid basis) rather than as a class B request (which got RFCU rejected on a technicality last month). DurovaCharge! 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. I'm not giving anything away (per Otheus's comments on my talk page) that he doesn't match up with any of these IP addresses. Normally I'm loath to address that. Whether he's a reincarnation of Agapetos Angel is anyone's guess. Checkuser can't help here. Mackensen (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific finding on the 203... address, the one that made personal threats against me? I very much want to know whether it aligns with any of the others. DurovaCharge! 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much, unfortunately. It resolves to a public library in New South Wales, which dovetails with the other IPs. There isn't, however, an obvious account behind these. Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I hereby grant permission to Mackensen to disclose any IP addresses I have used. --Otheus 15:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. DurovaCharge! 06:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Otheus[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets

Suspected master account and those mentioned in RFAR ruling as being related

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel."

Otheus and 60.242.13.87 are walking in Agapetos angel's footsteps in their edits at Jonathan Sarfati and have characteristically for Agapetos angel launched a series of personal attacks against the admins who have enforced the RFAR ruling in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute at the Sarfati article. We suspect that the Otheus account and IP may be those named and banned by the ruling: User:Agapetos angel / User:Dennis Fuller / User:Phloxophilos / User:220.245.180.133 / User:220.245.180.134 / User:220.245.180.130 / User:58.162.252.236 / User:58.162.255.242 / User:58.162.251.204 / User:58.162.2.122

FeloniousMonk 05:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case lingering doubts exist after the checkuser, please consult an independent view.
 Clerk note: Added mentioned usernames and IPs to list, above. Feel free to revert if that wasn't your intention. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Unnecessary The purpose of the remedy was to permit any user "walking in Agapetos angel's footsteps" to be blocked without further ado. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it change that decision to note that this RFCU could also be rated as a legitimate class F request? The filing occurred five minutes before a 48 hour block on the IP address User:60.242.13.87[1] that remained in force during most of the time the request was outstanding and the User:58.162.2.122 address has been under a monthlong block that began before this request opened and will remain in force until April 17.[2] A recent post from Oroboros Otheus indicates this editor wishes a checkuser in order to clear a cloud of suspicion.[3] My own sockpuppet investigation indicates virtual certainty that all IPs listed represent the same person and suggests Oroboros Otheus is not the IP vandal in question. The whole situation would be easier if a checkuser confirmed this as right or wrong. Legitimate doubts exist, which is why the complaint was filed. DurovaCharge! 02:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish the checkuser to be performed, so as to at least clear some suspicion. --Otheus 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is clear from the diff that Durova meant Otheus, not Oroboros. --Otheus 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Apologies for the typo. DurovaCharge! 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


More