Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Archifile

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Archifile



 * Code letter: F & G
 * Code letter: F & G
 * Code letter: F & G
 * Code letter: F & G
 * Code letter: F & G

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 Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Silveriver.

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

And now personal attacks ExtraDry 13:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I have a hard time seeing that as a personal attack. The user seems to be saying that your actions are in good faith. ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, I will rewrite it for you "He does not give a shit what he reverts or reads because he is to busy deleting things" Deffently not good faith by him. ExtraDry 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate this with you here. This is not the place to debate user conduct. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Results
Note that the previous case Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Silveriver which covered many of the same users came out My advice is to let the CU part of this go, I almost rejected this whole thing on ... 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)
 * somewhat (but certainly not confirmed) that Mitchplusone == Archifile
 * that Tallum == Archifile
 * that Castlemate or Waterdanks are related to each other or the other three.
 * It's confirmed that Tallum == Archifile have a look at this diff ExtraDry 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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 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 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)

''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.''