Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zero g
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Zero g
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
- Zero g (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Nyuba (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Rubidium37 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Jagz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Code letter: G
- Supporting evidence: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zero g. These user accounts allegedly edit warred without technically violating 3RR in a 24-hour period. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I object to the addition of my username to the list after the supporting evidence was posted by Shalom as it is a breach of protocol by User:Ramdrake.[1] I request that appropriate punitive action be taken against Ramdrake. I assume that checkuser has certain protocols such as the submission of supporting evidence that need to be followed so it doesn't become a fishing expedition. --Jagz (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look at it this way: if none of these are socks of yours, you have nothing to fear. If even some of them are, your protest makes you look even more suspicious.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok ok was jsut checking the page but I need to respond to this comment. Where are we now? McCarthy (sp?) era? 1984? War on Terror? Because that is one of the most clear cases of Guilty Until Proven that I've seem. I'm not sure on the merits of Ramdrake accusation, but come one, this reason here is at least ridiculous. 201.92.80.61 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)— 201.92.80.61 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Look at it this way: if none of these are socks of yours, you have nothing to fear. If even some of them are, your protest makes you look even more suspicious.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I object to the addition of my username to the list after the supporting evidence was posted by Shalom as it is a breach of protocol by User:Ramdrake.[1] I request that appropriate punitive action be taken against Ramdrake. I assume that checkuser has certain protocols such as the submission of supporting evidence that need to be followed so it doesn't become a fishing expedition. --Jagz (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- The accounts are all
Unrelated. Thatcher 15:03, 29 May 2008 (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.