Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Andrew81446

Andrew81446

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew81446 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
87.41.56.30 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Code letter: G.
Supporting evidence: Diff, Diff, Diff.

Accusations have been made against me that I used an IP address 87.41.56.30 as a sock puppet. I have no idea who this user is or what they were talking about, and just because they happen to support my thinking I being victimised. A debate on a talk page has degenerated with people threatening to request a "checkuser", so I have requested the "checkuser" myself in an attempt to clear my name.

Andrew81446 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to waste RFCU's time with this, because it's patently obvious. But if you do end up looking, please look into this one as well:

87.41.56.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable requests

Situation Solution Checkuser on yourself to "prove your innocence" Such requests are not accepted. Please do not ask. Enigma ^msg! 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - checkuser cannot be used in this way to "prove innocence" - sorry - Alison ^❤ 07:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it can't be used to prove innocence, then everybody concerned must accept the post and that's it, instead of removing it because it doesn't conform to one's point of view.

Until then, "Guilty until proven innocent" I presume.

Andrew81446 (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The post that is being called a Sock Puppet is evidence required for an arbitration case

The post is crucial evidence in an arbitration case and therefore the "checkuser" is necessary to make sure that the Arbitrators know they can trust it. Just because one person says its a socket puppet such claims should not be used in arbitration until verified.

Therefore, I am kindly requesting again that this check be run.

Andrew81446 (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two possibilities: Either this was a posting by you (sockpuppet)/one of your fiends (meatpuppet), or not. In the first case, simply admit it. In the second, the result won't prove your innocence anyway, and any attempt to abuse checkuser for that purpose is frivolous. --rtc (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a matter in an accepted (opened) Arbitration case, many of the Arbitrators are checkusers and can investigate if they choose. You can add this to the evidence page or evidence talk page. If the case has not been accepted and opened yet, then there is no need to have this check as evidence. Thatcher 03:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]