Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artisol2345

[edit] Artisol2345

• Artisol2345 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• AL2TB (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: G
• Supporting evidence: [1], for more see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345

Artisol2345 has used sockpuppets to corrupt an AFD before, and has received similar action. Artisol2345 left Wikipedia because of criticism he received. Furthermore, AL2TB claims that he has been impersonated by Artisol2345, this cousin. This is a flimsy defense. Both accounts have been pursuing the same patterns of disruptive and / or clueless edits, editing the same pages, and ignoring guidelines. Rschen7754 (T C) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• We should archive the SSP case due to the fact that there is minimal attention going on. The possible reasons for the minimal attention is there is in ArbCom case going on and the editors involved are taking wikibreaks due to wikistress. This has escalated to checkuser because of the reasons above. Hopefully, this will clarify all the mess that has been going for weeks. As AL2TB's "master/teacher", I have tried attempts to cool the situation down with the comments I posted at AL2TB's talk page. It didn't work however, and unfortunately I support checkuser because of this. PrestonH 00:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined There is no evidence presented that the accused is cheating the system. All you have said is that you think the first guy has retired and then reincarnated. The 1st account hasn't been active since. Unless the second guy is evading a ban (he isn't) or is avoiding some parole then it doesn't matter who he is, unless he is running two accounts at the same time to do something dubious. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommend that you re-examine this request, for the following reasons:
1 - AL2TB has caused disruption to the on-going Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artisol2345 case, by attempting to circumvent policy by replacing the PROD tag at the User:Artisol2345 page, thereby eliminating evidentiary content. This is a blatant disruption and violation of policy.
2 - Outside IP address tracing has resulted in the following findings:

IP Addresses attributable to AL2TB: 68.4.104.141 = [ ip68-4-104-141.oc.oc.cox.net ] Broadband-type cable (This IP is present in AL2TB talk history. PREVIOUSLY DIVULGED AS SUCH.)

IP Addresses attributable to Artisol2345: 68.5.47.155 = [ ip68-5-47-155.oc.oc.cox.net ] Broadband-type cable (this IP is a confirmed sockpuppet of Artisol2345. PREVIOUSLY DIVULGED AS SUCH.)

NOTE - This IP address range covers 68.4.0.0 - 68.5.255.255, and is assigned by the above provider.

Also, Wikipedia policy on the use of sockpuppets states that; "A time overlap is only one way to determine whether two accounts are alternate accounts. Consensus may determine that two accounts are alternate accounts even though they do not overlap in time and that only one account is active. For example, there may be a use connection between the two or more accounts that shows them in a constant state of succession as a line of alternative accounts. It is the actions of the editor, not the name of the account, that makes two or more accounts alternate accounts. (Sockpuppetry:What constitutes an alternate account)

Also, to recognise a deception, you must be able to engage in a little bit of deceptive thought. Speaking hypothetically, say I was Artisol2345, and I made a disruptive edit. Given my previous record of disruption and sockpuppetry, you would ban me, right? Now, say I'm AL2TB. If I make a few disruptive edits, with no visible ties to my previous account's history, you're going to take me through the RFC process a few times, then up to ArbCom. I've just evaded a ban, and gamed the system to do it! (Again, this is a hypothetical, as we have not concluded the socks case just yet. In essence, the check user is part and parcel of the socks case, and needs to be run, just for the sake of "getting to the bottom of this". Edit Centric (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Additional information needed I'm more inclined to agree than my esteemed colleague Blnguyen, you've built part of a case here... but I think a concrete case for disruption needs to be made a bit better. He's right on that matter, what is here now does not show a clear case for the CU being carried out, but I don't think I would have declined just yet. Please provide some specific diffs of disruption (more than has been given so far) and I will look into it. If you can't do that then I agree with the Decline ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Give us a few to get that info for you... Edit Centric (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? [2] --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My question at this point is if the check user will reveal any more info than what we've already managed to ferret out via standard IP checks and WHOIS... Edit Centric (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean by that. What the checkuser will answer is the question "how likely is it that these two users are related?". No specific information about IPs will be given out. My answer to the question is below. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk assistance required: Please move this back to open, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Result: There is a fairly high probability based on technical analysis of Checkuser results that these two userids are controlled by the same person, or by persons working closely together, so the result is adjudged as Likely. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: both blocked a week for sock/meat disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)