On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:19:22 +0100, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(<whisper>If you're a known not-batshit person, some checkers will listen to important requests</whisper>)
I've only had one situation where what I thought was a reasonable request was turned down, and that was a user who was pleading innocence, and CheckUser would likely have cleared them. In the end the blocking admin and I agreed that an unblock was OK, but it would have been quicker and clearer with CheckUser. As to whether I am batshit or not, that rather depends on the phase of the moon...
The reason for the comment is that a good-faith editor has come to me for advice regarding apparent astroturfing by what look very much like socks of a non-banned editor. Remembering back to the Jason Gastrich case, we had several socks confirmed by CheckUser and blocked, and that formed an important part of the ArbCom case.
As stated before, I think it is wholly reasonable to require credible evidence of a case to be answered.
Guy (JzG)