User:KoshVorlon/DoWeNeedCheckusers

 Why CheckUser should never be used  

1.) Sockpuppet_investigations/Frame-work

Per CheckUser Checkuser data may be used to check for sock puppetry, per CheckUser  Checkusers are given discretion to check an account, but must always do so for legitimate purposes.

On this report, we see two non-ip identities editing the same article, wanting to push the same sets of things into the article,   one primarily editing the talk page only, the other editing the article. They edit very few other pages and pretty much want the same thing in the article. Yes, SI'd say that meets the definition of sock puppetry and  legitimate reason to check. So what did the CU's do. Refuse to check, uh yea, nice move.

2.) A checkuser on "unkown user" who was connected to Fearofreprisal

That one's even better --  again, it met the criteria shown above, and not only  did a CU refuse to check this,  they rev-del'd it  under the lame reason that they were afraid someone's real name would be revealed. HELLO Check User won't reveal anyone's real name and since they're the only people that can see that information, perhaps maybe you should clean house ! Apparently I wasn't the only person to suspect this same editor, per  this CU check, which was also turned down. (Just so you know, Unknown user and Fearofreprisal were one and the same user.  So now we have a CU turning down CU's from two different users on the same user, and we didn't speak to each other either.  Yeah, that totally  doesn't look wrong, or even slightly suspicious.  No, not at all

3.) Sockpuppet_investigations/Doncram

So, user 1 is banned from creating articles about historical places, so user 2 takes his place, but when I attempted to ask for a CU to be run, again for all the reasons shown up top,   it's refused and not run.

4.) Sockpuppet_investigations/ThisIsNIRlythere

This one's good too, again, compelling evidence that a user is socking is given here,  and once again the CU declines to check. Uh, yeah, you DO know that the IP, even if it changes, will show you the appropximate location of the user in question so you can confirm same location or proxy being used.

5.) Sockpuppet_investigations/96.54.184.11

Once again, our illustrius Check Users have failed again, compelling evidence exists for socking, however, CU declines stating they don't publically connect I.P addresses. There was no request for thuat to be done, only for you to check to see if they were socking, you don't have to make that knowledge known publically, just do what you signed up to do.

6.) Sockpuppet_investigations/Meowy

Again, compelling evidence was given that a sock is active,  CU once again declined to do what it signed up to do, which is check a user to see if they're socking. Once again, they delared too stale,  uh  yea,  see #4 for a good reason why the check should have been run anyway

7.) Sockpuppet_investigations/NonoHIDE98

Just about the same reason as #5, and once again, nobody asked you to make the IP's information public!!    You were asked to check for socks,  if you don't want to CU anymore, turn your CU key back in for crying out loud!!!! (Most of these refusals are from the same person ))

8.) Sockpuppet_investigations/Yashrajkumarjha

A user with a history of socking was asked to be investigated for socking once again,  with compelling evidence, and the same CU declined  and didn't even give a reason!v

9.) Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtremedood

Lots of evidence given, once again, the same CU refuses to check, again, same reason and same response as #5

10.) Sockpuppet_investigations/HenryBlum    This one was from a sysop with plenty of compelling evidene and yet again, the same CU turned it down,  same reason and response as #5

I'd say CU is broken at this time and we no longer need it since:

a.)  CU's evidently don't want to be bothered checking users  b.)   Because of this sockpuppetry can't be proven to any reasonable doubt c.) Without that proof,  we'll become a haven for sock farms and ..... well.... there goes the neighborhood!!