Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wordbuilder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It looks more like you're trying to use CheckUser for fishing. Is there any proof the IP is a sockpuppet of a specific user or users? If not, just report the IP to 3RR and be done with it. However, considering the reverts were made three days ago, I doubt anyone will block the IP at this point. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil is fishing. There is no proof that the IP is a sock. It could be an experienced user who just failed to log in and hadn't even reverted any edits on that article during the previous 24 hours. He also can't report the IP for a 3RR violation since a fourth revert didn't take place. This case should have never started but Andyvphil won't let it go. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I could have reported it to 3RR because the sock was used for edit warring and you can be blocked for 3RR/edit warring with less than 4 reverts. But I don't want the ip blocked for 3 reverts partly because I believe blocking should not take place for less than 4 reverts except in extraordinary circumstances, but mainly because there is a primae facae case that something out of policy was done here. The experienced user not only failed to log in, he made no other edits before the three reverts and he made no other edits after the three reverts, and given the autolink in his edit description he wasn't using the default shell, and thus probably had to log in to load it, log out leaving the page onscreen, and then fail to log in, and then fail to respond when challenged to identify himself. CheckUser is an investigative tool and if used may well (not likely, tho) exonerate the anon. So be it. But your proposed policy is apparently that any user who hasn't revealed his ip can get in one, two or three "free" reverts by first logging out, since CheckUser will not according to your proposed policy be used. I say "proposed policy" because I am not aware of any actual policy that supports you. Can you quote any, or are we just left with your "looks to me" opinion?

And I will add, to Wordbuilder, that the delay in acting on my request is not a good reason to "drop it". An experienced user has almost certainly gamed the system. He hasn't gone anywhere. He's gotten away with it, so far. Identifying and warning him should be enough. If you allow the rules to be flaunted, particularly by experienced editors, no one will respect them. Andyvphil (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what policy you are talking about, proposed or otherwise. You're the one going on and on with speculations about what the IP user did and you have zero proof. By the way, if you feel the anon was edit warring with three reverts, weren't you doing the same (or pretty close to it)? It's unfortunate that you can't just let this rest. You dragged me into the middle of this and attempted to sully my good name just to advance your own cause because you were miffed at being reverted. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn right I'm miffed at being reverted by a editor who had no reverts left that he could use without violating 3RR. And your revert was edit warring too, but as long as you don't violate 3RR I've got no quarrel with that. Speed limit-obeying edit warring is in actual fact how consensus is enforced on Wikipedia. Until the videos hit and changed the consensus I couldn't get a hint of the non-mainstream nature of Wright's preaching into Obama's bio. Never mind that I was right, everybody in the local pro-Obama claque got to put their thumb on the scale and I was outvoted. So be it. But the puppeteer behind 76.214.211.56 wasn't satisfied with just one thumb. And CheckUser will show who he is. And Checkuser policy, which is the policy at issue, allows it, so far as I can see. Someone pulling an "opinion" out of his rear end that I am "fishing" does not address my argument.

And saying I attempted to sully your good name is nonsense. I asked for a check which could not do other than exonerate you if you were not guilty. Which is apparently exactly what it did. And I said before CheckUser confirmed your ip that I believed your initial denial. The template required that I name a possible puppeteer. But this is not about you. Andyvphil (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're not fishing and if you're not trying to sully my name and if this is not about me, then drop it. Make it clear that you are satisfied with the action that has been taken and, as far as you are concerned, this case can be closed. After that, if you still have a problem with the IP editor, pursue it via the proper means. There's no reason to keep me on the hook. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not on the hook. Thatcher took you off. Yours is merely the name of the case. If you don't like that, take it up with whoever is responsible for the template instructions. I would have been perfectly happy to name this case "76.214.211.56". And would be happy to so rename it now. But I'm definately not satisfied with the action that has been taken. I have the evidence for a warrant, but it seems I'm being told that I can't get the warrant unless I first produce the evidence not merely for indictment but for conviction. Which is contrary to policy that allows the use of CheckUser in specified cases for "investigations". Andyvphil (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

surely the checkuser system would be overwhelmed if we ran one every time an IP posted three times within 24hrs on a 2008 campaign page 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Characterizing what happened here as "an IP post[ing] three times within 24hrs" is, unfortunately, typical of your misrepresentations. See "reported for sockpuppets", above. Andyvphil (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

did the IP post more than that? did I miss something? what did this IP do besides almost violate 3rr, on the side on consensus? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)