Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Archifile

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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/Archifile}}
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.

Archifile

[edit]
request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

All users are editing articles realated to Newington College & are adding alot of Schoolcruft Archifile has had known to use sockpuppets & one of thoes has been blocked. (See Tallum) They use the accounts to make multiple keep votes in AFDs. The school has had 3 Users & 4 IPs blocked for the same thing on a separate RFCU Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Silveriver.


So to summarise Vote fraud & Evasion of community-based bans or blocks ExtraDry 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now personal attacks [1] ExtraDry 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted ExtraDry has been alleging this for months (see also User:ExtraDry/Newington Sockpuppets), and I'm not absolutely sure the bans which have been enacted are sound. Whatever way, the edits on Newington College and related articles and talk pages by both sides of this one have been inflammatory and unhelpful. I am unaware of any "community based ban or block". Orderinchaos 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

Note that the previous case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Silveriver which covered many of the same users came out  Inconclusive

  • somewhat  Likely (but certainly not confirmed) that Mitchplusone == Archifile
  •  Possible that Tallum == Archifile
  •  Unlikely that Castlemate or Waterdanks are related to each other or the other three.

My advice is to let the CU part of this go, I almost rejected this whole thing on fish CheckUser is not for fishing... grounds. Monitor behaviour of all parties to the applicable pages, and act accordingly, but don't go witchhunting. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's confirmed that Tallum == Archifile have a look at this diff [2] ExtraDry 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have supplied this diff earlier. I don't see it as confirmation though. In any event, see no reason to change my findings. I think those that point out that both sides have done things that are unhelpful have it exactly right. I think it would be useful for everyone to consider changing their approach, but this is not the place for that sort of extended discussion, take it to AN/I. I consider this case closed at this point, although perhaps I am wrong. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note as well that according to Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, the arguably proven connection between these two, given there was no prior injunction against Archifile, is not against Wikipedia's policies but merely discouraged by them, so long as they were not used abusively (i.e. double-voting on AfDs or getting around 3RR). As Lar said, though, this is not the venue. Orderinchaos 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somone please explain to me why I am being accused of being a sockpupprt of Archifile. Please explain, and or prove, this comment or remove the comment immediately. Mitchplusone 08:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "why it is alleged that you are related" would be a question to ask the person asking for the check, if the information presented in the case (above) was not sufficient to satisfy your concerns. Note that in reviewing the information, I considered the probability of a link, based on that information, high enough to warrant investigation. I then investigated, using the powers granted to me as a m:checkuser by ArbCom. My investigations using the facilities available to me suggest it is likely (but not confirmed) that you and Archifile are related. Checkusers do not discuss the particulars of how or why they come to the conclusions they come to. That is more explanation than usually is given, if you have further questions you may want to review the m:ombudsman process. Finally, I see no need to remove any comments in this case. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:09, 8 October 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Archifile&oldid=1080979078"