Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Elalan

[edit] Elalan

• Elalan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Trincomanb (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: D - Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome.

The cases are TfD and AfD

I would kindly request the admins to look into this request and check whether User:Elalan is a puppetmaster of User:Trincomanb as User Elalan's page has been marked to be a sockpuppet page of User Trincomanb. User Elalan has done a lot of contributions to WP:NCSLC and also a lot of Sri Lanka related articles and to brush them aside sounds very unfair to a fellow Wiki editor. He has been accused of vote stacking for a TfD by people who actually were votestacking and this sounds more like a vendetta than anything else. Like all other Wiki editors I strongly think that deserves a fair chance to prove his point.

Thanks for your help. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Likely. Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another. Essjay (Talk) 11:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like no effort is being made to prove otherwise than a clear-cut predefined notion that they are sockpuppets. Would like to have a complete check. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Why do you think this is not a complete check? Essjay has looked at the accounts and provided you with his analysis. Further details of IP addresses and such will not be released. Thatcher131 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

For one, I use a password protected university proxy server to access university subscribed content and internet. Its a pain to switch between that and my home isp assigned ip so I leave it untouched. Why was this mislabeled as a school ? Couldn't the checkuser person have identified that? This raises some doubts. Did the checkusers consider all the technical configuration that could have caused this ? Just some thoughts. With technical observations why is there no second opinion ? Trincomanb 01:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If I get caught editing wikipedia at my workplace, I'll be fired! There is no second guessing on that one. Thats not such a surprise is it ? To circumvent monitoring at work, I 'tunnel' to my home computer using ssh Elalan 02:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum User Trincomanb struck out his votes for the afD [1] and tfD [2] in question and notified the relevant admins after being notified of Essjay's opinion on this. Elalan 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: The check has been run, and the result announced. The result is that upon review of the technical evidence, it cannot be confirmed absolutely that the two users are the same individaul (hence not {{confirmed}}), but the results are consistent with a user editing from home and school. In such a case, it is up to the community to decide if the rest of the evidence (that is, the editing patterns of the two users) are consistent with sockpuppetry. Checkuser is not magic wiki pixie dust, and it does not provide an undisputed decision on sockpuppetry; it is one piece of evidence among many, and must be considered along with the rest of the evidence. Now, this is not the place for extended discussion of who is or is not a sockpuppet; take that to ANI. Clerk assistance required: Clerks, please process the case and archive it as necessary. Essjay (Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Essjay with this varying degrees of probability as you claim, do you have verifiable yet significant statistical evidence to conclude its "Likely" and "Looks like a classic case of editing at home with one account and at school with another" based on past checkuser cases ? A simple yes or no to this question would suffice. If its a yes, can you please present evidence of past statistics of checkuser cases to support your claim. If its no, is it not safe to conclude your comment is mere speculation on your part, without supporting statistical evidence Elalan 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As an acquainted party and also voicing concern over my WP:NCSLC project mate who has made valuable contributions to the project and related articles, I would really like to question the doubtful nature of these results. When no information is being given out, such as the 'supposed' similarities, IP address similarities or just anything at all, how are we to conclude or 'inconclusively' conclude that this is a sockpuppet account. If Elalan is a sockpuppet, then proof is warranted. If he is not, he should be acquitted and the tag should be removed from his page. I am sure this looks like a more conslusive result. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As an acquainted party and also voicing concern over my WP:NCSLC project mate who has made valuable contributions to the project and related articles, I would really like to question the doubtful nature of these results. When no information is being given out, such as the 'supposed' similarities, IP address similarities or just anything at all, how are we to conclude or 'inconclusively' conclude that this is a sockpuppet account. If Elalan is a sockpuppet, then proof is warranted. If he is not, he should be acquitted and the tag should be removed from his page. I am sure this looks like a more conslusive result. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trincomanb

• Trincomanb (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Elalan (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: Please do this checkuser on me and Trincomanb to stop what I perceive is continued harassment at me and user:Sudharsansn. I helped expose one of snowold4's friends (user:Lahiru_k) involved in massive vote-rigging and vandalism [3].

This has continued even today on other NCSLC wikiproject members [4]

User user:snowolfd4 who was under investigation from before, has made some dubious claims that I am a sockpuppet of user:Trincomanb and that I have been engaged in voting fraud (please see this case [5]). I just want to be cleared from this nonsense. Elalan 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this more as a kind of vendetta than anything else. Elalan points out Snowolf and Lahiru and they frame up something against Elalan and vandalize my pages with sockpuppets of Lahiru!! Eitherway, the procedure should confirm things. Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 18:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Declined. There is a major problem with using checkuser to try and clear yourself: Nobody will believe the result. In every case I can remember where this has been attempted, the following happens:

• We run the checkuser and say "Technical evidence cannot connect the two users."
• The user that was accused immediately brandishes it as undisputed proof that he/she is innocent.
• Everyone else immediately brandishes it as undisputed proof that not only was the user guilty of sockpuppetry, but was using open proxies and other means to avoid detection.
• The user finds that far from having been vindicated, he/she is now even worse off than he/she was to begin with.

So, the moral of the story is, having a checkuser run on yourself to "prove you are innocent" doesn't work, and that's why we don't do it. Essjay (Talk) 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Does it mean that the tag on his page is simply going to stay inspite of all his contributions to Wikipedia? This is unfair. Can someone please confirm how this procedure could be done and also how to get that tag out of his page. I am concerned because he has contributed a lot to WP:NCSLC and several other Sri Lanka related pages and I personally think that he should be given a fair chance to prove himself like all other editors in Wikipedia. Kindly help. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)