The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Runcorn (review)
| request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch Filed: 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
- Runcorn ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Poetlister ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Londoneye ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Taxwoman ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Brownlee ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Newport ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- RachelBrown ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
I would like to request that all saved checkuser evidence of these users be released to a checkuser who was not involved in the original investigation, and for that checkuser to state whether on reviewing that evidence they agree that, as has been claimed, the evidence is so convincing/"damning" that there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others. -- Random832 ( contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Declined. CheckUser is not a magic wiki pixie dust, and no CheckUser will ever say "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others." That's a silly thing to ask for. What we do is say whether the technical evidence confirms suspicions, and to what likelihood. What you are asking for is a review of an ArbCom ban that has already been confirmed by more than half a dozen CheckUsers and all of ArbCom. It is obvious that CheckUser has therefore shown a high degree of likelihood repeatedly (high enough that ArbCom undertook it's first summary ban of an admin ever, so it was not done lightly). If you would like to appeal that, go to ArbCom, not here.
Dmcdevit·
t 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 is asserting that it has done so, so it's not so silly after all. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I said that asking for a CheckUser who only has access to information from server logs, not DNA tests to tell you "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others" is silly. Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't.
Dmcdevit·
t 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What Dmcdevit says is true. It is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty that people are sockpuppets, based on checkuser evidence. "Confirmed" actually means "This evidence is so compelling that I'll eat my hat if they're not sockpuppets", i.e. it's nearly completely impossible that they're not sockpuppets. I'm not sure why this needs reviewing, though? What has lead us to suddenly doubt the checkusers that were involved in the original investigation? --
Deskana
(talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basic human nature - people have difficulty admitting - even to themselves - when they're mistaken. @Dmc: Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't. No, it's implying FT2 said something he did say. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense; my comment was clearly referring to your "it's not so silly after all" statement. You are free to treat this like a debate and be cryptic about what comment of FT2s you are talking about, but I very much doubt that he said that anyone had ever proven "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others." You're trying draw is into a little rhetorical corner by having us admit that we're not that certain, as if the alternative is that we are wrong. Why don't you go do help write an encyclopedia instead? Dmcdevit· t 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basic human nature - people have difficulty admitting - even to themselves - when they're mistaken. @Dmc: Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't. No, it's implying FT2 said something he did say. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What Dmcdevit says is true. It is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty that people are sockpuppets, based on checkuser evidence. "Confirmed" actually means "This evidence is so compelling that I'll eat my hat if they're not sockpuppets", i.e. it's nearly completely impossible that they're not sockpuppets. I'm not sure why this needs reviewing, though? What has lead us to suddenly doubt the checkusers that were involved in the original investigation? --
Deskana
(talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I said that asking for a CheckUser who only has access to information from server logs, not DNA tests to tell you "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others" is silly. Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't.
Dmcdevit·
t 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 is asserting that it has done so, so it's not so silly after all. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You said that "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others." is a silly thing to ask for - yet that silly thing is PRECISELY what FT2 has already stated, I was simply asking for independent confirmation of that claim. --
Random832 (
contribs) 02:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either tell me what you are talking about or stop it.
Dmcdevit·
t 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If multiple accounts sharing the same IP across multiple IPs and ISPs is insufficient evidence for sockpuppetry, then we should just shut this whole page down. Or do you have a different standard for users who are popular than for users who are unpopular. I can name a dozen recent cases that were answered as "confirmed" on the basis of evidence of equivalent quality and quantity, do you also contest those findings? Thatcher 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either tell me what you are talking about or stop it.
Dmcdevit·
t 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Runcorn
| request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch Filed: 12:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
- Runcorn ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Rumping ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: B [1]
- Supporting evidence: appears to have started off where banned User:Runcorn finished. Last edit by Runcorn and first edit by Rumping MRSC • Talk 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Clerk note: case formatted, I can't find previous RFCU cases (weird)... --
lucasbfr
ho ho ho 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC) 
Stale -
Runcorn (
talk ·
contribs), thus there is little else that checkuser can hope to achieve here, sorry -
Alison
❤ 19:22, 30 December 2007 (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.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Runcorn (review)
| request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch Filed: 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC) |
- Runcorn ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Poetlister ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Londoneye ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Taxwoman ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Brownlee ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Newport ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- RachelBrown ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
I would like to request that all saved checkuser evidence of these users be released to a checkuser who was not involved in the original investigation, and for that checkuser to state whether on reviewing that evidence they agree that, as has been claimed, the evidence is so convincing/"damning" that there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others. -- Random832 ( contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Declined. CheckUser is not a magic wiki pixie dust, and no CheckUser will ever say "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others." That's a silly thing to ask for. What we do is say whether the technical evidence confirms suspicions, and to what likelihood. What you are asking for is a review of an ArbCom ban that has already been confirmed by more than half a dozen CheckUsers and all of ArbCom. It is obvious that CheckUser has therefore shown a high degree of likelihood repeatedly (high enough that ArbCom undertook it's first summary ban of an admin ever, so it was not done lightly). If you would like to appeal that, go to ArbCom, not here.
Dmcdevit·
t 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 is asserting that it has done so, so it's not so silly after all. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I said that asking for a CheckUser who only has access to information from server logs, not DNA tests to tell you "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others" is silly. Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't.
Dmcdevit·
t 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What Dmcdevit says is true. It is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty that people are sockpuppets, based on checkuser evidence. "Confirmed" actually means "This evidence is so compelling that I'll eat my hat if they're not sockpuppets", i.e. it's nearly completely impossible that they're not sockpuppets. I'm not sure why this needs reviewing, though? What has lead us to suddenly doubt the checkusers that were involved in the original investigation? --
Deskana
(talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basic human nature - people have difficulty admitting - even to themselves - when they're mistaken. @Dmc: Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't. No, it's implying FT2 said something he did say. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense; my comment was clearly referring to your "it's not so silly after all" statement. You are free to treat this like a debate and be cryptic about what comment of FT2s you are talking about, but I very much doubt that he said that anyone had ever proven "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others." You're trying draw is into a little rhetorical corner by having us admit that we're not that certain, as if the alternative is that we are wrong. Why don't you go do help write an encyclopedia instead? Dmcdevit· t 21:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Basic human nature - people have difficulty admitting - even to themselves - when they're mistaken. @Dmc: Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't. No, it's implying FT2 said something he did say. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What Dmcdevit says is true. It is impossible for us to say with absolute certainty that people are sockpuppets, based on checkuser evidence. "Confirmed" actually means "This evidence is so compelling that I'll eat my hat if they're not sockpuppets", i.e. it's nearly completely impossible that they're not sockpuppets. I'm not sure why this needs reviewing, though? What has lead us to suddenly doubt the checkusers that were involved in the original investigation? --
Deskana
(talk) 20:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I said that asking for a CheckUser who only has access to information from server logs, not DNA tests to tell you "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others" is silly. Your response seems to be implying I said something I didn't.
Dmcdevit·
t 20:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- FT2 is asserting that it has done so, so it's not so silly after all. --
Random832 (
contribs) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You said that "there is absolutely no possibility that any of these users could be a different person from any of the others." is a silly thing to ask for - yet that silly thing is PRECISELY what FT2 has already stated, I was simply asking for independent confirmation of that claim. --
Random832 (
contribs) 02:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either tell me what you are talking about or stop it.
Dmcdevit·
t 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- If multiple accounts sharing the same IP across multiple IPs and ISPs is insufficient evidence for sockpuppetry, then we should just shut this whole page down. Or do you have a different standard for users who are popular than for users who are unpopular. I can name a dozen recent cases that were answered as "confirmed" on the basis of evidence of equivalent quality and quantity, do you also contest those findings? Thatcher 14:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either tell me what you are talking about or stop it.
Dmcdevit·
t 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Runcorn
| request links:
main •
•
links •
history •
watch Filed: 12:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
- Runcorn ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Rumping ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: B [1]
- Supporting evidence: appears to have started off where banned User:Runcorn finished. Last edit by Runcorn and first edit by Rumping MRSC • Talk 12:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Clerk note: case formatted, I can't find previous RFCU cases (weird)... --
lucasbfr
ho ho ho 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stale -
Runcorn (
talk ·
contribs), thus there is little else that checkuser can hope to achieve here, sorry -
Alison
❤ 19:22, 30 December 2007 (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.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.