On 08/10/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:19:22 +0100, "David
>(<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.
Oh, certainly. I won't add a new letter to the list myself as I'm not
actually actively checking WP:RFCU (and have no intention of
starting), but if someone who does could answer here (wikien-l) and/or
on WT:RFCU, that would be good.