Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GabrielF

[edit] GabrielF

• GabrielF (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Tewfik (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: D and E

Thanks. The case is complex, because it involves two quite long-standing accounts which have potentially been orchestrated together for quite some time. My concern was raised primarily by the following two edits onAnti-Zionism on February 21, before which neither Tewfik nor GabrielF appear to have edited the page in several weeks or months:

• Edit 1: 20:44 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik enters content dispute to revert Reinhart paragraph
• Edit 2 (Talk page): 20:47 21 Feb 2007 - Three minutes later, not Tewfik, but GabrielF leaves message "explaining revert" of Reinhart paragraph (see edit summary).

Editing the page at the time, I was faced with the peculiar situation of responding to GabrielF's "explanation" of Tewfik's revert. In fact, despite claiming to "explain revert," GabrielF had not edited the page for several months. The appearance was very strong that one had just reverted thinking they were logged in as the other. This led me to look into each of their edit logs, which uncovered the additional evidence listed above. Unfortunately, I think most of this requires review due to the complex and elaborate nature of the case.

I do not know how these issues are generally dealt with, but I also supplied three types of rule violations in relation, including editing together to bolster the appearance of support, voting together, and violating 3RR together. This has now been exacerbated by GabrielF's personal attack against me on my talk page,[1] as well as his convoluted explanation here that "Sometimes the software doesn't report an edit conflict." [2]

In sum, I believe a checkuser is necessary, after which the next step would have to be determined. Mackan79 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Please summarize this request, preferably in 500 words or less. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

To ensure that the clerk sees this I'll restate what I said above. Mackan79 says that myself and GabrielF are somehow linked based on our contributions, with the assertion that in my first 7 months of editing we never were online at the same time. What isn't mentioned is that I edited 1, 7, 1, 35, & 35 times respectively for each month of the first half-year, with only the 7th month being reasonably active at 397, and thus that that is not reasonable grounds for proving anything. The rest of the charge seems based on the fact that we were present in the same content-dispute in which GabrielF left a message on Talk which justifies an edit I made. Of course several other editors made a similar edit with similar reasoning as well, including GabrielF. While I can appreciate how someone caught up in an involved content-dispute might initially see this as 'evidence', I very much hope that it is recognised that the grounds are too weak to justify so lightly invoking using checkuser. Tewfik^Talk 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a simple misunderstanding that seems to have gotten blown out of proportion. Both Tewfik and I are longtime editors in good standing. I've been around since 12/04 with >4,000 edits and no blocks. Tewfik's been around since 11/05 with >7,000 edits and no blocks. Both of us frequently edit articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and as a result we occasionally edit the same article. Anti-Zionism is a high-profile article which is frequently subject to disputes and a number of editors keep an eye on it. Just for the heck of it I grepped through my contributions and found that I've edited the article 13 times.

As it happened, Tewfik and I both saw an addition to the article that we didn't think was appropriate and we reverted it at about the same time, resulting in an edit conflict. Anyone who does counter vandal patrol or edits highly visible articles knows that sometimes when you submit a revert immediately after someone else does it will appear to you as if your revert went through. Although I don't remember the incident clearly, I'm assuming that's what happened. Thinking I had reverted the page, I left a note on the talk page explaining my rationale for doing so.

I can understand how Mackan might find the summary of my talk page edit odd. However, instead of asking me about it on my talk page, he decided to accuse me of being at the center of a vast web of conspiracy. The truth is that any two active editors with the same interests will probably find themselves editing a few high-profile articles at about the same time. If they happen to have the same wiki-philosophy they'll probably take the same side more often than not. To accuse Tewfik and I of being sockpuppets of each other on such flimsy evidence is not only insulting, its patently absurd and I responded accordingly.definite

I don't really feel that this is worth my spending a lot of time arguing about. Do a checkuser, don't do a checkuser, I don't care. I'm considerably more interested in improving the encyclopedia than playing these games. GabrielF 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: I have refactored the case to have the summary as the explanation on the case page. The lengthy original evidence has been moved to the talk page, along with some threaded discussion. 20:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Where has the original dicussion been placed exactly? I checked the talk pages of all three users involved and couldn't find it. Did I miss something? Thanks. Tiamut 10:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To the talk page of this request, Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/GabrielF. Thatcher131 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Should GabrielF and Tewfik have been checked on the say-so of Mackan79? This query was based on an edit summary of GabrielF's which said, of a revert of Tewfik's "explaining revert, agree that balance is appropriate but this isn't the right quote." I can't see how this indicates they're one person, and I don't think editors in good standing should be checked on the basis of such flimsy evidence. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Judgement call by the checkuser who fulfilled the request. Thatcher131 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'm looking through the edit log again to see if I may have overlooked something obvious; who knows. I still find it strange, even if the two are entirely good faith editors, that Gabriel would respond as he did if indeed the confusion was caused by a glitch in the WP software. Contrary to what he says, I never accused anyone of any sort of "conspiracy," which doesn't even make basic sense (I thought you were conspiring, so I asked for checkuser?). In any case, the possibility that the software malfunctioned was definitely not something I considered, when faced with the strange situation of Tewfik having reverted and Gabriel claiming three minutes later to be explaining the same reversion -- that potentially GabrielF actually thought Tewfik's revert had been his. Anyway, I'll try to look through it and possibly be done with this by tomorrow. Mackan79 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. Having looked through it a little more, I see the two do in fact edit more frequently together after the first 7 months, so I guess that was my mistake not to look through more. Apologies for the wikidrama, Mackan79 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This was an entirely bogus harassment of two long-standing editors in good standing, based on nothing more than content disputes and paranoia. I strongly recommend sanctions against the requester. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A request for checkuser is hardly a basis for sanctions, IMO. .V. _[Talk|Email] 00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as the check was granted. People make honest mistakes sometimes, and the requester has also apologised for the drama. —Ashley Y 00:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per Ashley and V. He and GabrielF have since worked this out with admirable humor and civility; let's try to rise to their example.--G-Dett 05:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)