Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jhurlburt

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

Jhurlburt



 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G

Purpose of request: substantiate user Jhurlburt's claim to edit in non-SPA, non-disruptive manner as an IP editor.

I have indef blocked Jhurlburt for being a disruptive SPA on Jimmy Wales - only edited there, nonconstructive edits, part of an ongoing edit war, etc. QuackGuru participated in that, and has rather insistently asked for an unblock on my talk page, and might be related in some sense, but I don't know if there's enough suspicion for true sockpuppetry claim there.

If it is true that Jhurlburt edits constructively under IP addresses, then the SPA and disruptive-only aspects of observed behavior are moderated by that and an unblock may be justified. I hand this to people with checkuser to see if anyone wants to dive into it a bit and determine if there's evidence there that would justify an unblock. If so, feel free to unblock. If you don't want to bother, I understand that too, but I figured I owed them the chance to clear themselves. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused. This editor is blocked for using a logged-in account to be a pest but claims to edit constructively as a logged out IP user?  And he wants to use his logged-out edits to mitigate his being a pest?  I think if one is going to be a pest one ought to be prepared for the consequences.  If Jhurlburt wants to disclose his IP he can do so on his user talk page and you can judge his edits for yourself.  (I will confirm he is telling the truth if he asks for confirmation but I will not disclose his IP myself.)  Otherwise there is nothing to do here, as there is insufficient evidence to support a check of Quackguru. Thatcher 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - I concur with Thatcher here & there's insufficient evidence presented, esp. regarding Quackguru. This is largely a fishing expedition - A l is o n  ❤ 23:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be accepted to show that QG and Jb are two differt people. This will also demonstrate the admin was making a WP:POINT. Quack   Guru  01:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been declined already, but... how was this POINTy? There were legitimate questions raised as to you and Jhurlburt prior to the incident that led to the block.  Given how actively you petitioned on my talk page, I thought it was to some degree fishing but defensible to ask for that check... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was absolutely NO evidence of sockpuppetry. I questioned the block. I explained the mistake. Instead of unblocking, the admin made a pointy checkuser. Quack   Guru  01:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - can you please remove this discussion from the checkuser page? Thanks - A l is o n  ❤ 01:25, 9 February 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.''