Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PHG

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

PHG



 * Code letter: B Link to closed ArbCom case


 * Supporting evidence:
 * The following edits were made on April 18:
 * 19:37: PHG argues on his talkpage that he should be allowed to use foreign-language sources:
 * 21:16: Anonymous IP 86.207.128.215 adds foreign-language sources to PHG-created article Louis-Émile Bertin:, with additional edits at 21:38 and 21:44
 * 21:35: Anonymous IP 86.207.128.215 adds foreign-language sources to PHG-created article France-Japan relations (19th century):
 * 21:37: PHG argues again about using foreign-language sources:


 * 81.255.154.129 is a known PHG account, as evidenced in an edit when he forgot to log in on March 6: . I'm including it in case it's helpful, although it appears to be a dynamic IP from L'Oreal France.

PHG appears to have been editing from an IP address to evade his 1 week block issued April 14. The time stamps, content and style (note the similarity of the citation style to those previously added by PHG) aroused my suspicion. These edits were made on April 18, while PHG was still blocked. I've included another of PHG's IPs for the record. Both IPs can be traced to France via WHOIS: and. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As another datapoint, I've had concerns that this account was used by PHG as well:
 * The account was infrequently used on Romanian subjects in 2006 and 2007, and then suddenly on April 16, 2008 (PHG was blocked on April 14) it had a burst of activity in completely different topic areas, the Asian/Greek/Indian realms that PHG usually frequents. Edits included adding sources, such as to this PHG-created article, Tenjiku Tokubei.  I also found another edit very telling, as what seemed to be the "new owner" of the account actually removed the Romanian-language babel box from its own userpage. If it's not PHG, it's definitely a different controller on the account, from earlier usage until April 16, when it had a complete personality shift. --Elonka 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The account was infrequently used on Romanian subjects in 2006 and 2007, and then suddenly on April 16, 2008 (PHG was blocked on April 14) it had a burst of activity in completely different topic areas, the Asian/Greek/Indian realms that PHG usually frequents. Edits included adding sources, such as to this PHG-created article, Tenjiku Tokubei.  I also found another edit very telling, as what seemed to be the "new owner" of the account actually removed the Romanian-language babel box from its own userpage. If it's not PHG, it's definitely a different controller on the account, from earlier usage until April 16, when it had a complete personality shift. --Elonka 15:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PHG has a fairly dynamic IP address. The 86.207.128.215 address is consistent with PHG's usual IPs but is not an exact match for any IP he has previously used, so . Vpopescu is ❌. Thatcher 12:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Request for further clarification; I paste PHG's statement here on behalf of him because of his sanction.


 * Hi Kafka Liz. I have absolutely nothing to do with the edits of User:86.207.128.215 (your suggestion), nor User:Vpopescu (Elonka's suggestion). And I don't think I've ever used another account to evade a block (by the way, I don't have any other registered account). Cheers PHG (talk) 09:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Thatcher just confirmed here that User:Vpopescu has nothing to do with me (Elonka's accusations proving false again), and that User:86.207.128.215 is not one of my IPs. I can only reaffirm that I have nothing to do with the edits of User:86.207.128.215. The account seems French, but it is not mine, and I had no knowledge of it until Kafka Liz's accusations. Please note that one of the edits of that anonymous user (21:38: ) was almost simultaneous with mine (PHG 21:37 ), although that anonymous user works with a different provider and in a different location (Wanadoo in Bayonne ), about 500 miles from Paris where I live and made the 21:37 edit. Cheers. PHG (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The time stamp of PHG's edit and the 86.207.128.215's edit on April 18 are almost overlapped and the two location is one and half far way from each place by car with 100km/hr. I think the two user are not likely the same user. --Appletrees (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My own ip address suggests that I am in New Jersey which is far away from my true location. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Oh well, even if the location could be incorrect, how do you explain that their time stamps almost at the same time on the same day? You may live in a vicinity of New Jersey State such as New York City, Delaware, or Pennsylvania, so your IP info may show unrelated information.--Appletrees (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I live several hundred miles from New Jersey; my state does not border it in any way. And it would be quite simple to log out and insert a cut-and-paste edit in under a minute. I am naturally suspicious of an anonymous newbie editor from France who adds detailed references to PHG's articles while he is blocked. I would not have filed a report based on mere whimsy. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I recommend you get a better ISP checking page providing coherent info. Your suspicious still does not explain the time stamp at all.--Appletrees (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has a computer that can open two windows can make a few simultaneous edits. A small number of timestamps don't prove anything. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In your theory, at least their ISP information in one minute should be the same. The anon did not edit with WP:OP, so how do you explain with your theory plausible?--Appletrees (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) IP geolocation will often return the place of the Internet service provider, not the user. I am in West Hartford, Connecticut.  My IP geolocation sometimes returns Marlboro, Massachusetts which is about 90 minutes away. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Time stamps. Here is everything to provide the time stamps of PHG and the French anon's edit on April 17 to 19. The gray green color indicates the anon with his/her edit on French Wikipedia as well. Please pay attention to the bold text --Appletrees (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the evidence can clear up the bad-faith allegation. --Appletrees (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything in your evidence that proves or disproves any part of this case. Shell   babelfish 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read carefully the file again. The time stamp is a evidence to prove that the two user from the two place with two ISP can not be a commmon tactic of editing from work, home. The closest interval is 58 seconds. What I present here is much valuable than everybody's groundless accusation.--Appletrees (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed the fact that the IP and PHG use the same ISP, as Thatcher said above. After that, editing close together anonymously and logged in is rather simple. Also, you may not be aware that it is possible to have access to more than one ISP from the same location or even have access to your work ISP while at home (see VPN).  While there may be other ways to decide if the IP and PHG are one and the same, nothing on this report so far really does that. Shell   babelfish 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thatcher did not clearly say they use the same ISP.--Appletrees (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, but a consistent IP range is unlikely to belong to more than one entity, otherwise, saying the range was consistent wouldn't make sense, eh? Regardless, the evidence was inconclusive, which means that if someone wants to make a case that PHG is editing anonymously, they're going to have to come at it another way. Shell   babelfish 18:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy: Louis-Émile Bertin and France-Japan relations (19th century). Both articles are PHG’s creations and have been edited primarily by him. The content of the posts in question consists of the addition of French language sources. Within minutes of these post, PHG was feeling persecuted by the prospect of not being allowed to add sources in languages other than English as evidenced by his arguing against such restrictions on his talkpage. Let no one be under the illusion that this is anything but more of PHG’s gaming. How much longer will the community allow one disruptive user to occupy its time? Aramgar (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I get that many people related to the Franco-Mongol Alliance article hate him. However, your accusation with mere assumptions based on bad faith is making a big drama set near a big fire. This page is to present evidences to confirm whether disruptive editors in question are using abusive sockpuppetry or not. Here is not forum to preach your agenda. Your impatience with providing no evidence but just slanders has nothing to do with the case. --Appletrees (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

. Based on the timing of the edits listed above and checkuser information, I can tell you that those edits do not appear to have been made from PHG's usual method of connecting to the internet, and I can probably rule out that he used the simple strategy of resetting his modem in between edits. However, I can not rule out the possibility that these edits were made by some unknown technical means, or were coordinated with a friend. Ultimately, checkuser is a tool to assist sockpuppet investigations and is not the sole or final decider of "truth." (Further discussion on the talk page or at WP:SSP or WP:AE, please.) Thatcher 19:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is still interested, I was cruising at 25,000 feet onboard a long-distance flight when User:86.207.128.215 made his edits on the French Wikipedia on April 19th. I have a boarding pass and a Customs stamp available should a Sysop wish to investigate, and my current IP address would also confirm my current location :). I thus consider myself fully cleared of the accusations that have been made here. As a conclusion, I would appreciate if several contributors would refrain from their systematic attacks and assume good faith in my actions, a stance clearly affirmed by the Arbitration Commity, which also actually encouraged me to continue with contributions outside of my restrictions. Please kindly follow the Arbcom stance instead of using its ruling as an excuse to corner me and try to block me for any possible reason. Cheers. PHG (talk) 11:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusion

''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.''