Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/82.7.39.174

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

82.7.39.174



 * Code letter: B


 * Supporting evidence: Per this discussion and this IP's edit history, it is obvious that it is an experienced user logging out to conceal their identity in internal policy discussions. I am requesting a checkuser per Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates..  MBisanz  talk 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it fishing? Technically yeah, but i think a check would be justified in this case. Wizardman  19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional evidence at Administrators'_noticeboard  MBisanz  talk 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One might say that the IP has consented to the search (search 'checkuser' for the relevant comment). justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoot, this is a tough one. I looked up the history and found some diffs that point toward a suspected sockmaster, but I really don't want to taint the person if it comes back unrelated.  Durova Charge! 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd email an active RFCU checkuser like Thatcher, Alison or Lar with your concerns.  MBisanz  talk 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've contacted a CU off-wiki. Just wanted to leave a note here so that somebody else doesn't speedily reject this as fishing.  Durova Charge! 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * - let's not close this one. I'm bringing this up for discussion amongst the other checkusers, re. it's fishiness, etc - A l is o n  ❤ 19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've received other evidence here which in private which suggests this case should be taken. I'm not going to reveal this as it's potentially damaging. However, checkuser shows up a blank on accounts behind this. It's pretty-much needle in a haystack, actually. Another checkuser has also ran a check here and cannot detect any 'master' behind all this. Sorry, but I have to mark this . Let's leave this open for a day or so in case any other checkuser wishes to comment - A l is o n  ❤ 06:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Alison. Couldn't see anything. --Deskana (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is retarded. MBisanz, get your head in the game here. It's 100% allowed that someone can log out and then participate in a policy discussion. WTF people, are we back to Wikipedia 101? A sockpuppet is someone who is using more than one identity in the same discussion and/or in some other manipulative way. Why the hell are experienced Wikipedians making this kind of request? -- Ned Scott 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, Ned, I've seen at least 3 or 4 checkusers willing to run such checks publicly, and probably more privately, such as in Requests for checkuser/Case/AnonymousGoodFaith. Since there are obviously admins other than myself willing to enforce the Privatemusings ruling, and so far I haven't seen too many admins objecting to that particular ruling, I'm not sure how you can categorically say such a thing is allowed.  MBisanz  talk 06:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm, nothing. What we don't allow is good hand-bad hand, which is what the arbcom case is talking about. Our sock policy is about accounts/IPs being used in manipulative ways, and you come here with zero evidence of that. I don't give a rats ass about how many admins and checkusers don't get it, it's a Foundation level policy, and you don't get to choose. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC )


 * While I am really unconformable with these kinds of requests, I should not be commenting while riled up about it. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''