Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WCityMike

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

WCityMike
Brand new user Milkandwookiees immediately started on listing fan-type articles for AfD. Immediately used the "afdnewbies" tag on first AfD listing within seconds of listing. Started after several users questioned recent AfD actions by WCityMike. I'd like to be sure before proceeding. TheRealFennShysa 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, both users use the same Talk Page Header template, which also makes me wonder what's going on here. There seems to be a case of WP:POINT brewing. TheRealFennShysa 16:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the talk page header thing is disturbing, but note that as I've got my talk page header on a separate page, it'd be fairly easy to subst it (or cut and paste). Also, note that I actually actively suggested to FennShysa, when denying that I was Milkandcookies, that he do a CheckUser to clarify I'm not this guy.  You should show me posting from two IP ranges &mdash; the one this is currently posting from (my employer) and the one related to my home account.  I'm available for any queries you'd like. &mdash; WCityMike (T &darr; plz reply HERE  (why?) &darr; 16:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the guy's also using the same sig, minus the highlighted section. Seems a bit odd to me, too, but I'd appreciate the clerks' acceptance of this request just to clear my name.  You gotta ask yourself, though, FennShysa, if I was setting up a sockpuppet, would I take such pains to reproduce such items so exactingly, especially if I was hoping for anonymity? &mdash; WCityMike (T &darr; plz reply HERE  (why?) &darr; 16:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser requests are performed or rejected at the discretion of the admins with checkuser permission. Clerks do not accept or reject requests, we keep the page clean and perform other routine tasks like archiving old requests. (Although I pointed out that some kind of evidence would be required in the request below, judging whether the evidence being offered is sufficient is definitely not in the clerk's job description.) Thatcher131 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Because there are ways of avoiding detection, self-requested checks are inherently inconclusive, and tend to be looked upon dimly. I suppose it's seen something like "Yeah, go ahead and check, I know you won't find anything because I made sure to cover my tracks." Checkuser, as David Gerard says, is not magic wiki pixie dust, and is never the be-all-end-all of evidence; it's the similarity in edit pattern and interests that confirms sockpuppetry, checkuser just helps confirm or refute what is already known. There is never a way to tell whether a user is self-requesting because they are truly innocent, or because they've taken steps to avoid detection. With that said:

. I ran the check, and it's not possible to confirm or deny. I'm not willing to elaborate for WP:BEANS reasons, but anyone familiar with vandalism on Wikipedia should be able to figure it out. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  23:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: When you performed the check, if Milkandwookiees were a sock of someone else, would you have discovered that or are you checking just to see it he is the same as the person you were asked to check him against? In other words, I seriously doubt that he is WCityMike ... rather, I think it's someone trying to make a WP:POINT about WCityMike's AFDs. BigDT 23:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They can find the users on a IP or IPs on a user. (I think)  Will  ( E @ )  T  00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer the above question in any detail without teaching people how to avoid detection. There are some cases where we are able to identify related users, and others where we cannot. This is a case where we cannot. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  00:18, 7 June 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 below, in a new section.''