Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Chadbryant: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
merge |
→Some more Chadbryant: clar. |
||
Line 5:
* '''Code letter:''' none; see below
Yes, yes, we don't do self-requested checks, we rarely do checks not directly related to a code letter etc. etc. - I know the routine. However, this user was blocked as a result of being what I would consider the most blatantly obvious sockpuppet of Chadbryant I have ever seen - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Roger_Gregerson&diff=81953037&oldid=81952118] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Roger_Gregerson&diff=prev&oldid=94026574]. User <s>is</s> was "trolling" their userpage with {{t1|unblock}} requesting a checkuser.
Now, and this is also unusual, I know, what I would like if this is accepted is a response where the benefit of the doubt lies with the blocking admin, rather than the accused. Given the diffs we have, it is '''extremely''' suggestive; however, if the checkuser results come back with no possible links (eg. no proxies, in different countries etc.), then the admins may have to grant a benefit of the doubt. If they're in the same area, state even, or proxies are somehow involved, the admins will simply discard the technical evidence as being not 100% either way, and go on the diffs. I hope you get my drift :) '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[ [[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]] ]</sup>''' 11:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
| |||