Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Scottydukes

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

Scottydukes




The first user's page was nominated for speedy deletion, and probably would have been deleted if it weren't for the second user. The second user is brand-new, but their first edit was to remove the speedy tag claiming that the article was too long for deletion. That user's only contributions now involve discussion at the article's AfD, as well as attempts to challenge the policies on speedy deletion. It's rare that a new/contributionless user knows what a speedy deletion is, let alone tries to get removed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 12:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's clear enough to warrant a checkuser, it's clear enough to block without need for checkuser. Essjay  ( Talk )  12:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrific, and incredibly unclear. I'll just ignore the two for now, then. If they cause more trouble, I'll just list on the sock puppet reporting page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me try to be a bit more clear: Checkuser is a very powerful tool, and we don't use it randomly or wantonly. It's rather like that nuclear weapon of Wikipedia; you don't deploy it unless it's really, really serious, because it can have devastating consequences if misapplied. As such, we don't use it for routine matters; checking into minor AFD matters, the occasional RfA sockpuppet, and the like is not what the tool was developed for, nor is it allowed by the checkuser policy. This request doesn't demonstrate sufficient evidence of a serious policy violation to warrant using the tool; using the tool in such cases is referred to as "going on a fishing expedition."


 * Addditionally, you have to make a very strong case for two users being the same person to justify use of checkuser; in this case, if the evidence is strong enough to satisfy the checkuser threshhold, then it is strong enough for an administrator to block without the need for a checkuser. Essjay   ( Talk )  13:58, 12 July 2006 (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.''