Aramgar

• Aramgar ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kafka_Liz ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: G

This is a fairly urgent request for suspected fraud on an ongoing RfA. The common interests an interwoven edit patterns of these 2 accounts draw a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. The account edit similar areas and never at the same time. The close proximity of their edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3 are further cause for concern. WjB scribe 00:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed and more pairs of eyes are coming. It seems fairly flagrant. Needless to say, they were using very very noisy IP ranges, yet there were multiple exact hits of the same exact IP numbers. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed as well, based on timing. Dmcdevit· t 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Confirmed. Yup. -- Deskana (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: The sock account has been blocked indef. The main for 24 hours. - JodyB _talk 00:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Belated, but I'm calling  Confirmed here, too - Alison ^❤ 04:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My finding in this case is  Inconclusive. I hate to do this, but I looked at the evidence too (in fact WJBscribe asked me first, but I said I wasn't sure I could get to it before my flight yesterday so he asked others since time was of the essence, and they had sent him information at about the same time I did) and I do not come to the same conclusions as my colleagues. That does not mean they are wrong. I think that demonstrates that the CheckUser tool is inexact, subject to interpretation, and imperfect, (i.e. not magic pixie dust) as folk have said all along. My findings instead suggest that these two users are somehow related (friends, perhaps) but that during the RfA in question they were editing from different places. So I'm not sure the block is justified. As I've said before, if one were to CU my ID and my wife's ID, one would see clear patterns where we were editing from the same IP, including patterns where we edited the same article in turns (any CU is invited to do just that to see what I mean), yet we are not socks. Certainly we have influence over each other, and we try to keep that in mind, but we are separate people. Note that admins do sometimes justifiably block apparent single purpose accounts as meatpuppet accounts where edit patterns suggest sockery but technical analysis suggests different underlying machines/connections etc. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: I've received an email that comports with User:Lar's comment above. Hearing nothing contrary I will unblock later today. - JodyB _talk 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Clerk note: As the blocking admin I have unblocked based upon User:Lar's comment above and the email I sent to each of you. I am happy to answer any questions. - JodyB _talk 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

 Note: - given that there is not a unanimous opinion amongst checkusers involved, and per email on unblock-en-l, I endorse unblocking here - Alison ^❤ 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply