Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kevin Myers

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

Kevin Myers



 * '''Code letter: G

Myers has written a an opinion piece "Lies, damned lies, and the wickedness of Wikipedia" (link to article) in the Irish Independent, condemning the whole of wikipedia on the basis of some valdalism in his article.
 * Supporting evidence:

The supposed vandalism was inserted by a new single purpose account (diff), and then deleted by a new single purpose account (diff) - all around the time that Myers would have been writing his article.

The purpose of this checkuser request is to test the supposition that the vandalism was created to enable the article, by determining if the vandal and the anti-vandal are the same IP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - I'm really not sure if this is covered by Checkuser policy. You'll need to provide a little more justification that curiosity - A l is o n  ❤ 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know. Fraudulent use of a wikipedia account? The purpose would be to gather evidence to challenge Myers story with his editor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * - where's the disruption to the project?, plus a desire to use the information for your own ends off-wiki? I don't think that's appropriate at all, sorry - A l is o n  ❤ 19:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I don't really mind our unwillingness to counter quotes such as "And so -- do these wretched Wikipedia people ever lie awake worrying at the damage that the evil or the impressionable might inflict upon those who have been maligned in their uncontrolled and filthy internet gossip-shop, whose very power derives from the complete fiction that it is an "encyclopedia"?". --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While it might be fun, that would be in complete contradiction with our own privacy policy (we only reveal personal information in extreme cases). We need to hold our detractors to the same standards than our supporters. -- lucasbfr  talk 19:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat that I'm happy with the decision, though I disagree with it. Alsion asks "where's the disruption to the project?". I think his article is the disruption. Nor do I understand that I am asking for a revelation of personal information. Only the checkuser has access to the IPs. I merely wish to know if the, for me /very/ atypical single-purpose account Mmmerfa is related to the single-purpose account Bhbulldog on whose actions the Myers story is predicated. I'm not actually seeing the fun element at all, but respect that milages vary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:31, 28 May 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.''
 * I agree these edits look like a setup. I think it would be up to the office to decide whether they want to pursue the matter, and they have their own checkusers. Thatcher 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)