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/Eyrian}} 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.
Supporting evidence: ALL edits are to delete articles in a fashion reminiscient of Eyrian and IPs related to Eyrian. For past cases, see
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eyrian and
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure. Also, even without the suspected sockpuppetry, the account has engaged in incivility, saying such things as calling opponents "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written," which suggests the account is not here to contribute constructively or cooperatively with its fellow editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Is it comedy time? Geographically speaking I am nowhere near any of these IPs, and if your "evidence" is that I vote to delete some cruft then your evidence is a bit thin on the ground. This account is a fully legitimate sock of an established editor, I even made that clear on my userpage.
Tottering Blotspurs (
talk) 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Legitimate socks do not have incivil and single-purpose disruptive premises for editing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Participating in deletion debates to delete policy violating articles is not disruptive, neither is participating in deletion debates to keep policy compliant articles. Hopefully I will do some of the latter tomorrow as well as the former.
Tottering Blotspurs (
talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
So far you have argued to delete policy compliant articles and having a premise of the acount being based on an overt insult to your fellow contributors is unacceptable. Not to mention that legitimate alternate accounts acknowledge who they are an alternate of a la
User:Bearian'sBooties or
User:Chaser away. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: moved everything that is not directly relevant to the CU request to the talk page. Please keep comments there. --
lucasbfrtalk 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Additional information needed - can someone clarify why 72.151.55.27(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) is mentioned here, and its relevance to the case? -
Alison❤ 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
One of the ones suspected to be Eyrian in a previous Eyrian related Request for Checkuser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your efforts. Could the civility issue still be addressed, i.e. comments like calling opponents "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Clerk assistance requested: Merge with RFCU/Eyrian please.
Thatcher 23:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid to me it looks like the arbcom-banned and desysopped
User:Eyrian has returned. Eyrian's mainspace edits focused in metallurgy/blacksmithing. His AfD participation focused on anti-popular culture and fiction related articles. Eyrian's various accounts were blocked last fall, but on December 31, 2007 a new account suddenly appeared with edits following a very, almost identical Eyrian-like pattern in that the mainspace edits are similarly overwhelmingly focused on metallurgy/blacksmithing and its AfD participation is focused overwhelmingly on attempting to delete fiction and popular culture related articles. Not likely a coincidence.
The IP 72.151.55.27 says: "It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but he has no real ipc AfD participation prior to that post
diff
As the person who spotted Eyrian's socking (which Eyrian himself later confirmed), I endorse this request. Concerns remain.
DurovaCharge! 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Deferred another checkuser. Try asking Morven, Lar or Dmcdevit. Graevemoore is not himself running socks but Eyrian's edits are stale unless another CU saved their results.
Thatcher 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks like it was Morven so I will post a note there referring to here. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk·contribs) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I emailed all three. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
What I have is thin but any en:wp CU can ask me for it... I would appreciate Morven sharing if he has anything saved... ++
Lar:
t/
c 01:50, 23 May 2008 (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.
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/Eyrian}} 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.
Supporting evidence: ALL edits are to delete articles in a fashion reminiscient of Eyrian and IPs related to Eyrian. For past cases, see
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eyrian and
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure. Also, even without the suspected sockpuppetry, the account has engaged in incivility, saying such things as calling opponents "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written," which suggests the account is not here to contribute constructively or cooperatively with its fellow editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Is it comedy time? Geographically speaking I am nowhere near any of these IPs, and if your "evidence" is that I vote to delete some cruft then your evidence is a bit thin on the ground. This account is a fully legitimate sock of an established editor, I even made that clear on my userpage.
Tottering Blotspurs (
talk) 20:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Legitimate socks do not have incivil and single-purpose disruptive premises for editing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Participating in deletion debates to delete policy violating articles is not disruptive, neither is participating in deletion debates to keep policy compliant articles. Hopefully I will do some of the latter tomorrow as well as the former.
Tottering Blotspurs (
talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
So far you have argued to delete policy compliant articles and having a premise of the acount being based on an overt insult to your fellow contributors is unacceptable. Not to mention that legitimate alternate accounts acknowledge who they are an alternate of a la
User:Bearian'sBooties or
User:Chaser away. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: moved everything that is not directly relevant to the CU request to the talk page. Please keep comments there. --
lucasbfrtalk 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Additional information needed - can someone clarify why 72.151.55.27(
talk·contribs·WHOIS) is mentioned here, and its relevance to the case? -
Alison❤ 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
One of the ones suspected to be Eyrian in a previous Eyrian related Request for Checkuser. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your efforts. Could the civility issue still be addressed, i.e. comments like calling opponents "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys obsessed with keeping every single piece of crap ever written"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Clerk assistance requested: Merge with RFCU/Eyrian please.
Thatcher 23:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid to me it looks like the arbcom-banned and desysopped
User:Eyrian has returned. Eyrian's mainspace edits focused in metallurgy/blacksmithing. His AfD participation focused on anti-popular culture and fiction related articles. Eyrian's various accounts were blocked last fall, but on December 31, 2007 a new account suddenly appeared with edits following a very, almost identical Eyrian-like pattern in that the mainspace edits are similarly overwhelmingly focused on metallurgy/blacksmithing and its AfD participation is focused overwhelmingly on attempting to delete fiction and popular culture related articles. Not likely a coincidence.
The IP 72.151.55.27 says: "It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but he has no real ipc AfD participation prior to that post
diff
As the person who spotted Eyrian's socking (which Eyrian himself later confirmed), I endorse this request. Concerns remain.
DurovaCharge! 23:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Deferred another checkuser. Try asking Morven, Lar or Dmcdevit. Graevemoore is not himself running socks but Eyrian's edits are stale unless another CU saved their results.
Thatcher 00:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks like it was Morven so I will post a note there referring to here. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk·contribs) 01:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
I emailed all three. —
Rlevse •
Talk • 01:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)reply
What I have is thin but any en:wp CU can ask me for it... I would appreciate Morven sharing if he has anything saved... ++
Lar:
t/
c 01:50, 23 May 2008 (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.