Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/82.7.39.174

{{rfcu box|case=82.7.39.174|filed=18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{checkip|82.7.39.174}}

• Code letter: B

• Supporting evidence: Per this discussion and this IP's edit history, it is obvious that it is an experienced user logging out to conceal their identity in internal policy discussions. I am requesting a checkuser per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates.. MBisanz ^talk 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:Is it fishing? Technically yeah, but i think a check would be justified in this case. Wizardman 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::Additional evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Requesting_independent_review MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::One might say that the IP has consented to the search [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_in_the_history_of_business] (search 'checkuser' for the relevant comment). justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Shoot, this is a tough one. I looked up the history and found some diffs that point toward a suspected sockmaster, but I really don't want to taint the person if it comes back unrelated. Durova^Charge! 20:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I'd email an active RFCU checkuser like Thatcher, Alison or Lar with your concerns. MBisanz ^talk 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::I've contacted a CU off-wiki. Just wanted to leave a note here so that somebody else doesn't speedily reject this as fishing. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:{{take note}} - let's not close this one. I'm bringing this up for discussion amongst the other checkusers, re. it's fishiness, etc - Alison ^❤ 19:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

: {{take note}} Ok, I've received other evidence here which in private which suggests this case should be taken. I'm not going to reveal this as it's potentially damaging. However, checkuser shows up a blank on accounts behind this. It's pretty-much needle in a haystack, actually. Another checkuser has also ran a check here and cannot detect any 'master' behind all this. Sorry, but I have to mark this {{inconclusive}}. Let's leave this open for a day or so in case any other checkuser wishes to comment - Alison ^❤ 06:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::Concur with Alison. Couldn't see anything. --Deskana (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is retarded. MBisanz, get your head in the game here. It's 100% allowed that someone can log out and then participate in a policy discussion. WTF people, are we back to Wikipedia 101? A sockpuppet is someone who is using more than one identity in the same discussion and/or in some other manipulative way. Why the hell are experienced Wikipedians making this kind of request? -- Ned Scott 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:Erm, Ned, I've seen at least 3 or 4 checkusers willing to run such checks publicly, and probably more privately, such as in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AnonymousGoodFaith. Since there are obviously admins other than myself willing to enforce the Privatemusings ruling, and so far I haven't seen too many admins objecting to that particular ruling, I'm not sure how you can categorically say such a thing is allowed. MBisanz ^talk 06:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::Erm, nothing. What we don't allow is good hand-bad hand, which is what the arbcom case is talking about. Our sock policy is about accounts/IPs being used in manipulative ways, and you come here with zero evidence of that. I don't give a rats ass about how many admins and checkusers don't get it, it's a Foundation level policy, and you don't get to choose. -- Ned Scott 07:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:::While I am really unconformable with these kinds of requests, I should not be commenting while riled up about it. -- Ned Scott 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)