Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Archive 1

(untitled)
This page will provide an excellent service - if there are enough people with the CheckUser ability to carry out the work. Let us endeavor to give our best and most trusted vandal fighters yet another means to combat the vandalism that is our bane and our scourge! bd2412 T 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nicely put. Clarifies advantages, possible issues, makes an allusion to current policy without being confrontational. Well done. A wee tad "right before the battle speech" at the end, but hey, I'm picky. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this page is an excellent idea; it easily consolidates all of the multiple requests into a single location, helps eliminate any duplicated efforts, and allows everyone else to quickly visualise the workload being handled by those with CheckUser permissions. All that said, I still strongly endorse my original appeal to make Curps one of the selected few with said privileges.  Best regards, Hall Monitor 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Backlog
There's getting to be a fairly sizable backlog here, with only Kelly Martin responding to requests on this page. Since granting CheckUser access to additional users doesn't seem to be a very popular idea, I suggest that we modify the process so that admins review requests and endorse any they believe are likely to be sockpuppets. The endorsed requests would receive top priority for checks (although they could still be rejected). Any other ideas on how to streamline the request process? Carbonite | Talk 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This request left me speechless. Pertaining to Ukrainian topics, it's the same as if someone asked to check whether Kelly is Snowspinner's sock. Trolls clearly learned to abuse the process. --Ghirla | talk 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Use of this page by trolls is one of the reasons I think it would be helpful to use endorsements of requests by admins. An endorsement wouldn't obligate a CheckUser to be performed, but it would help to separate the legitimate requests from the trolling. Carbonite | Talk 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Trolls should be ignored and then politely warned and or blocked, but I would oppose unnecessarily turning this into a bureaucratic process. We do not require that AFD nominations be certified, and there is plenty of frivolity there.  Hall Monitor 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems the Minds of these People are so taken up with intense Speculations, that they neither can speak, nor attend to the Discourses of others, without being rouzed by some external Taction upon the Organs of Speech and Hearing; for which Reason those Persons who are able to afford it always keep a Flapper (the Original is Climenole) in their Family, as one of their Domesticks; nor ever walk abroad or make Visits without him. And the Business of this Officer is, when two or more Persons are in Company, gently to strike with his Bladder the Mouth of him who is to speak, and the right Ear of him or them to whom the Speaker addresses himself.
 * &mdash;Gulliver's Travels, part III, ch. II

Let's assume that the checkers are capable of distinguishing a genuine request from a troll. Let's not encourage divisions between admins and ordinary users; instead, why not notify the other five people with checkuser access about this page? None of them have been informed on their talk pages, so it's possible they don't even know it exists. If one or two of them were to help with the requests, that would cut down the backlog considerably. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Hall Monitor makes a good point about unnecessary bureaucracy above, but if some filter besides the judgement of the checkers is needed, it should apply to everyone equally; i.e. if requests have to be certified by an admin, then admins should not be allowed to certify their own. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm quite capable of recognizing a troll request when I see it -- and when I do, I often check the troll instead of the people the troll requested me to check. I don't mind comments from others on requests -- often they help me clarify whether the request has merit or help to formulate the scope of the investigation -- but it's my call (or that of my fellow CheckUsers) whether to investigate a particular complaint and how to formulate the response, if any.  Kelly Martin (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly&mdash;and I'm sure that David Gerard, Fred Bauder, Jayjg, Raul654, The Epopt, and Tim Starling similarly have no need of offici ous al flappers telling them who's worth hearing. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so there's no confusion, I wasn't implying that the checkers required admins to identify trolls for them; just that only so many checks can be made with limited time. I apologize if my comment was unclear. Carbonite | Talk 19:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not allow admins to use checkuser? An IP Address isn't exactly the most private of information. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the privacy policy. IP addresses are considered personal identifying information under EU law and can be used to do a great deal of harm to people who wish them not to be revealed.  Kelly Martin (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * However wouldn't all admins be considered to be trustworthy enough by the community to grant them all access. With all the checks and balances in place through peer review of actions, wouldn't it be a safe way to protect people IP addresses while serving the greater good of the community? Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe wanton disclosure of IP data may lead to legal action. Only one user supported your point of view on Admin accountability poll as yet. --Ghirla | talk 09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be a problem in having arbitrators do this. Although we need to have it from time to time, we used to have to beg developers; we don't have time to really get after this. Obviously it cannot be completely opened up, but some procedure to select a few more trusted folks needs to be implemented. Fred Bauder 13:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez
Is anyone even going to comment on this CheckUser request? DTC 04:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN
This page is now linked from the admin noticeboard, as "Admin noticeboard/sockpuppets". As all other admin noticeboard subpages share the same talk page, are there any objections to redirecting this (relatively unused so far) talk page to the same? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me.Mackensen (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to hold off on this for now. Wait a month and see how this page is utilised, then decide.  Hall Monitor 17:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

userpage template
Is there something like the Sockpuppet template, but for IPs that may/may not be used by regular users? It feels a little funny to have User:24.11.91.3 on here when that's probably just him not logged in, not sockpuppeting. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

MFD
I was just about to nominate this page for MFD, but that would probably be a WP:POINT violation, so I didn't do it. But at least now you know I would've. As for I would do the nomination ... this page gives false hope and really isn't worth anything. Instead of pursuing sockpuppet vandals when they are very obvious, people put stuff on this page and then forget about it because the result never comes back. Gahhhrrrr. Frankly I don't see why every admin doesn't have CheckUser status. -- Cyde Weys 04:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be useful for more admins, bureaucrats, or whoever to have this ability. It would be nice to have here the kind of response we get on WP:AIV. --nihon 06:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * According to everyone(except me), IP addresses are private information, and allowing admins access to it could be a privacy concern. Mike (T C) [[Image:Star_of_life2.svg|20px]] 06:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I second the nomination. After filing a CheckUser request 10 days ago, not getting any response whatsoever, and having the person in question influence the results of 2 AfD's since, continue to just run roughshod reverting pages, violate 3RR, POV, and inserting insane babble into pages, I declare the Wiki CheckUser process utterly worthless from my POV. Jlambert 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I'm working on the backup. The thing is that there aren't many of us with the permissions and most of us are busy with a lot of other responsibilities, on-wiki or off. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

cleanup needed
May I request that some of those privileged cleanup this page once in a while? Old answered requests have to me moved to archive. Refused requests have to be marked as such and also moved to archive, clearly frivolous request should be marked as such and their authors possibly sanctioned for disruption, etc. The WP:RCU is getting unwieldy and there is a threat that it will become useless. This would be such a pity since recent emergence of this page was a first sign in a while that the problem of socks and open proxies has a solution.

I understand that everyone of the ten editors with the privilege are busy people, also likely also busy in their off WP life. Then we need ArbCom to bestow the privilege to more users. However sensitive the privilege is, there are enough Wikipedians everyone considers trustworthy enough to pick another dozen or so. But something should be also done right now as of 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC). Thanks, --Irpen 23:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I note that the CheckUser bit is not required in order to archive requests or do those other cleanup tasks. Thus, other users or admins can also volunteer to help. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that. However, from the brief responses of the completed requests, it is hard to judge whether the guilty party is sacntioned or not already. If it is waiting for someone to decide whether the block is still appropriate, it should not be removed to archive.

Then those requests that were not addressed. How can one tell whether the request was rejected or simply not considered yet?

Besides, users bringing clearly frivolous requests should be sanctioned. How do others know whether these were considered at all? --Irpen 00:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Questions:


 * 1) Who are those trustworthy editors, Irpen? Are you suggesting to elect, or appoint them, or what?
 * 2) Who's going to sanction users for RCU's (on a very questionable ground I'd say)? And how?
 * 3) Can we just say: "don't anyone dare to file RCUs for Russian editors" (since they're in majority here)? "For friends of Irpen" (or Irpen&Co. would turn such RCUs in a circus with their irrelevant comments)? Ukrained 11:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You see the principle behind Ukrained (as behind many provacators) is that he has a certain feeling of what right and wrong is, and who is not with him is against him. First it was me, then Alex Bakharev, now it is Irpen. Now he will stop at nothing and use all of the most childish ways and insults to maximally discredit other users. This rediculous RCU of me and Kazak is just an example. --Kuban Cossack 12:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, chill out. --Irpen 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Who are trustworthy editors you can find at Checkuser. ArbCom appoint them, not me. Read before asking questions.
 * 2) Who will sanction? Any admin may sanction for obvious disruption. A sanctioned may then appeal and if admin acted irresponsibly, he will get sanctioned himself.
 * 3) [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.svg|50px]].

The expansion of checkuser privileges to non-arbitrators is bogged down. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration Raul654 10:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (I have requested the signpost carry mention of that statement)

User:WarriorScribe and User:Arbustoo
This has been moved here form the WP:RFCU page

The following request was entered by a suspected sock of Jason Gastrich, and has no apparent basis outside of an ongoing dispute between the contents of Gastrichj's sock drawer and the users in question. If anyone considers it a valid request they are more than welcome to give substantive reasons for suspecting puppetry, but absent any request from a user with a real edit history (see ) I strongly suspect that this is WP:POINT.

These two user names have:

--Juicy Juicy 12:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A similar posting history (with a special interest in religion, religions figures, and religious schools) (e.g. Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Louisiana Baptist University, etc.
 * User:WarriorScribe alleged another user was using an AOL IP address to use sockpuppets on the same day (January 21) User:Arbustoo was created
 * Both accounts were used to sway several AfD votes (within 90 minutes of each other, here)
 * User:WarriorScribe has come to support User:Arbustoo in his RfC and has deflected the blame elsewhere
 * They have no two posting times in common, yet they have days (like Feb. 18) where they switched back and forth, and back and forth, again
 * User:WarriorScribe was the initial account created, yet a significant drop off in posting has occurred since the other account was created
 * User:Arbustoo created a category for exposing religious scandals after User:WarriorScribe created a GoogleGroup2  for exposing religious scandals
 * Both have an obsession with Jason Gastrich
 * Both are apparently opposed to Christianity and religion


 * This checkuser request is nothing short of harrasment by a Jason Gastrich sockpuppet/meatpuppet and should be given all the credibility one would give to any of Jason's socks. JoshuaZ 13:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Juicy Juicy is another suspected Gastrich sock. Will it ever end? FeloniousMonk 00:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there anyway to take this off the checkuser page given the massive backlog that already exists here?


 * If not, then I will cooperate fully with the site administration, and will gladly provide firm evidence of my usage and identity, as distinct from Arbustoo. I wonder if the complainant in this case will do the same with respect to himself/herself and Jason Gastrich.  - WarriorScribe 07:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Transparency
Is there any way that ordinary users can see some of the "raw data" from the CheckUser (generated by machine), in the interests of transparency? This is in order to remove suspicion of tampering and improve confidence in the process of CheckUser. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No. See Checkuser. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 03:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Should it then be the case that multiple people with CheckUser rights certify the "postive test" so to speak??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it should be so. At least if there is a request to do so. I have one in myself at this time. The problem with the process is that you can get false positive. For example, two friends with wireless laptops working together at a cybercafe with local DHCP and a router will give a false positive. This is also true of any place with a router or NAT server. I have three computers in my house, one a NAT server, so all three appear to have the same IP address. My place of employment has thousands of people behind some sort of router or NAT server—all of them appear to come from the same IP address. I've been misidentified as using sockpuppets while travelling with friends interested in the same articles. Since we we staying at the same hotels and going to the same cybercafes, our edits all had the same IP address. claimed it was impossible to verify my story of travel, but it would just take a few nslookup and whois queries. I'm sure that the Hilton has their own identifiable networks! Anyway, for all these reasons I think that a second opinion should be required if requested &mdash;Adityanath 14:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't routinely do second checks unless we're not quite sure or the data is severely questioned. I think the one case there's ever been a triple check was the current ArbCom case about and, because the pattern was confusing (most persistent vandals are one person, not a tag team). We do watch out for cybercafes, etc. We're not perfect, but we do try to fix mistakes when we make them! - David Gerard 01:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I typically will not review another CheckUser's results unless either (a) asked by that CheckUser or (b) requested to do so by the Arbitration Committee, a Steward, or the Wikimedia Board. I have complete faith in my fellow CheckUsers to fairly use the tool to the best of their abilities, and to request assistance from one another in cases where they are having difficulties interpreting the results.  Kelly Martin (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Header template rewrite
I've just rewritten to be much tighter and terser, and to hopefully give requesters a better idea of what checkers can and can't do. I realise this is clues to the clueless (a fundamentally futile endeavour), but it should give checkers something to point at when saying "um, no" to bad requests, and tell how to make them into good requests.

Note the addition, in prominent bold letters, of CheckUser is not magic wiki pixie dust. Checkers should feel free to repeat this phrase over and over as needed. I've linked to the user manual page on meta as well, to give everyone a better idea of what CheckUser can and can't do - David Gerard 01:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * UninvitedCompany has extended it greatly, and has pretty accurately described what it is and isn't used for. Even without the phrase "magic pixie dust." I suspect we need to add something about "please don't stalk checkers on IRC, they tend to go into hiding if you do that", but need the right phrasing - David Gerard 13:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Administrators only?
I made a request here which was denied on the grounds that it was plain that the users were sockpuppets without needing CheckUser. If so, it makes sense to me to say that if you think users are sockpuppets then it should be raised on WP:AN/I, and if an administrator decides that a block cannot be applied without CheckUser being consulted then they could escalate the request to here. That might help keep the backlog under control. &mdash; ciphergoth 16:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Block template
I've created Template:Checkuserblock for those situations where we have to temporarily block an IP address to stop a flood of inappropriate usernames. I've had to do it several times this week, and I think it would be helpful to be able to stick that on the IP talk page, as well as use it in the block field, since it will expand on the blocked text page. I encourage other checkusers to use it in similar situations. Essjay Talk •  Contact 05:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reordering
I've reinstated the original ordering of the page, with new requests at the top, and completed/rejected requests below. Please do not make dramatic changes like this without discussing first, particularly with the checkusers, as we are the ones who use this page most often. Essjay Talk •  Contact 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough &mdash; ciphergoth 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Fishing?

 * User_talk:Guanaco at 05:57, 30 March 2006
 * Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser at that time
 * Explicitly identified secondary accounts
 * {|border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size:80%;"

! Account !! Date blocked !! Block reason
 * - style="background:#f2f2f2; text-align:left;"
 * User:Nina Myers vs. Wikipedia (talk • contribs)
 * 18:09, 26 March
 * Anonymous editor blocked "Nina Myers vs. Wikipedia (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
 * User:Jack Bauer vs. Chuck Norris (talk • contribs)
 * 18:10, 26 March
 * DakotaKahn blocked "Jack Bauer vs. Chuck Norris (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
 * User:Jack Bauer, Wikipedia admin (talk • contribs)
 * 18:10, 26 March
 * DakotaKahn blocked "Jack Bauer, Wikipedia admin (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
 * User:Walt Cummings, Wikimedia steward (talk • contribs)
 * 18:14, 26 March
 * Anonymous editor blocked "Walt Cummings, Wikimedia steward (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (really)
 * User:Tony Almeida on a wikibreak (talk • contribs)
 * 18:15, 26 March
 * Naconkantari blocked "Tony Almeida on a wikibreak (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username)
 * User:Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! (talk • contribs)
 * 03:30, 29 March
 * Cyde blocked "Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (If you HAD donated you wouldn't be getting blocked right now.)
 * User:AIDS reappraisal (talk • contribs)
 * 03:30, 29 March
 * Freakofnurture blocked "AIDS reappraisal (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
 * User:A. Beesley (talk • contribs)
 * 06:40, 29 March
 * Kelly Martin blocked "A. Beesley (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Impersonation of Angela Beesley)
 * }
 * User:AIDS reappraisal (talk • contribs)
 * 03:30, 29 March
 * Freakofnurture blocked "AIDS reappraisal (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (user...)
 * User:A. Beesley (talk • contribs)
 * 06:40, 29 March
 * Kelly Martin blocked "A. Beesley (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Impersonation of Angela Beesley)
 * }
 * }

I'm not clear on the interface for check-user. Do you put in one username and it spits out every other username that edits from this IP? Otherwise I don't understand the order of events here. None of these accounts appear to have any edits, none of them were on the check-user page at that time. - brenneman  {L}  07:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have Checkuser access (never have), but IIRC it spits out the IP(s) of the username being searched for -- whether or not that username has any edits to its name. (This is just a rough guess based on what I've heard.) Reportedly, Checkuser data requires a lot of interpretation (which is why it can't be automated), so I'm probably wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser works in one of two ways (and this is basic, to keep the knowledge from being abused): If you put in a username, it tells you the IPs that username has used. If you put in an IP, it shows you every contribution made from that IP, whether the contrib was made from a logged in account or not.

Those particular accounts were being created rapid fire; a checkuser was run sua sponte to determine the IP address from which they were being created, so the address could be blocked and the creation stopped. Standard proceedure is to run the IP address to be sure there are no legit contributors using it who would be affected by a block; that was when the connection was made. There does not have to be a checkuser request for a check to be performed; it merely has to fall within the checkuser guidelines, one of which says "to assist in the targetting of IP blocks". Essjay Talk •  Contact 04:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll have to put my "ZOMG! Cabal abuse!!  Call Wikipedia review on the batphone!!!" back in the box.  For today.  brenneman  {L}  06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct sections
Just a reminder to checkers to put completed and declined requests in the correct sections when completing/denying them; it's very difficult to see what still needs to be done. If there are a couple of non-checkers who regularly watch this page that would be willing to keep it in decent shape, I for one would appreciate it. Essjay Talk •  Contact 07:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I will gladly help out. &mdash;Khoikhoi 07:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, done. &mdash;Khoikhoi 07:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to help out too, but how long should I wait before moving an outstanding request (with a result) to Completed or Declined? Some requests continue to have discussion after the checker posts the results. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Once a result is posted, it should immediately be removed from the new requests section. If there is to be discussion of the results, that can take place in the confirmed/denied section. If someone requests additional checks, they should move it back to new. Essjay Talk •  Contact 18:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I will be checking it and fixing it. -- ( drini's page   ☎  ) 01:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you want completed/denied requests put at the top or bottom of the list (chronological or anti-chronological)? Thatcher131 02:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I usually put things at the top of the section, since new requests are usually put at the top of that section; either is really fine with me. Is there a demonstrated trend you've noticed either way? Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  ) 16:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The newest cases tend to be at the top but there are a few that are out of order; you're asking for cleanup help but the last thing I want to do is tick off an arbcom member by messing up the page, so I figured it was better to ask. Thanks. Thatcher131 02:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, don't worry too much. For the most part, stick everything at the top; people who are returning here looking will look for the particular case they are interested in in the TOC, so it doesn't matter if it gets a bit out of order. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  ) 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indicators
I realized today, while I was sorting out the checks I ran last night, that it can be difficult to tell the result of a check from the rest of the text on the page; even with bold text and my bright blue signature, I still missed things. To counter this, I took an idea from RFA on commons, and created a set of templates (appended to Requests for CheckUser so as not to crowd up the templatespace}. The templates are:

They can be inserted anywhere with the full  coding, but can be inserted on the RFCU with just , as indicated above.

If this catches on (I'm already using them, obviously, but nobody is under any obligation to do so), it should make finding the result and keeping the page in order easier. Essjay (  Talk  •  Connect  )  15:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice :) Syrthiss 15:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Have added one more,, which renders as:

Intended for those cases that basically ask that we "go fishing" based on a gut feeling, a mild curiosity, etc. Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  )  08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My bad. I'll remember that next time. :/ &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Consent by two users for checkuser
I was wondering if checkuser could be used on non vandals if both "suspects" consented to having checkuser performed? If two users wanted to prove to the community that they weren't sockpuppets, could they give consent and checkuser could be performed here? DarthVad e r 07:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. It would be a bad practice to get into; we already have enough requests as is, to have voluntary checkusering of yourself would add to the request pile and back it up further than it already is. (It's clear now, but it took me about twelve hours of checking to clear it out yesterday.) If there was a serious problem, like ArbCom level serious, it could probably be done; the IP address information would not necessarily need to be released.


 * There is one problem to this, however; an inconclusive, or even a no-connection, result from checkuser does not always mean 100% that the two are not related. Some people use techincal means (like open proxies) to avoid detection; it is not uncommon for someone to be quite willing to be checkuser'd, simply because they know they've used illegal means to avoid detection. The results of such a voluntary check would, for the most part, be self-disproving. (That is, in many cases, getting a negative would actually mean positive, because they would have set it up to appear negative.) Essjay  (  Talk  •  Connect  )  08:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)