User:Amalthea/IPs in SPIs

Sockpuppet investigations regularly list IPs as suspected sockpuppets of a named account.

The CheckUser handling the case faces the dilemma that generally, publicly linking a named account to an IP address must be avoided unless required to protect the project, per the Privacy Policy and our own CheckUser policy. CheckUsers will thus generally respond to such requests with "no comment on the IP", or words to that effect. Even if technical evidence clearly shows that an IP is unrelated, CheckUsers will generally not deny the link, to avoid that astute editors can draw conclusions if a CheckUser does not deny a link.

In addition, per WP:Sock puppetry, simply editing while logged out is not by itself inappropriate use of multiple accounts. It must be shown that this was done "to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". Only if an IP edit was made inappropriately and the CheckUser feels that for protection of the project confirming the link is necessary will the connection be made public (often only implicitly).

What this means:
 * Do list IPs if you have good reason to suspect they are related to named accounts, and you suspect the person behind the account to have engaged in abusive socking. IPs can help show a problem, and they can help the CheckUser in the investigation.
 * If IPs have engaged in inappropriate use of multiple accounts, make sure to provide diffs proving that.
 * Trust that the CheckUser will have considered all evidence presented, including IP accounts. But do not expect that the CheckUser will comment on it either way.
 * Don't try to draw conclusions from absence of comments or cryptic answers. Answering like a Magic 8-Ball is sometimes part of the task.