User talk:Hillabear10


 * Would note for reviewing admins info, that he was connected quite clearly with a few other accounts through CU by the looks of the SPI case. And those accounts are the ones that have a very blatant common edit history with Pogers. Would also note 4 minutes is rather irrelevant as most of the checking could have been done before saving the page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And I would note that AGK never said he shouldn't be blocked. Just that if more were created then he should be blocked, at that point in time he didn't realize you had socked more than the two accounts. As for being involved, I didn't deny your unblock because it could remotely be seen as involved. That being said my being "involved" doesn't preclude me from pointing out important facts. Clearly DQ had some behaviour evidence to make a check or he wouldn't have made one. The behaviour evidence between you and Teedy34 is pretty obvious. Enough for a CU check. And then once all the accounts were linked its quite clear from the behaviour of those accounts that they are all one and the same. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If one would take time to look at the interactions with Djsasso and AGK, it becomes clear that the only reason for DQ to assume that there is a link between porgers and myself, is for Djsasso to ask DQ (OFF OF WIKI) to do a checkuser. While Djasso, says that "behaviour evidence between you and Teddy34 is pretty obvious", how is teedy34 linked to porgers and the others?  Teedy34 made one edit, on a page I edited.  Do I know Teddy34?  Yes, he works down the hall from me at work.Hillabear10 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I never requested anything. I only saw this because I saw your comment struck out in the deletion discussion and then came here to see if you had requested unblock. I actually don't think I have even ever seen DQ before let alone talk to him. If I was going to get you CU'd I would have done it the first day you came to my talk page spouting off uncivilly instead of being polite and asking why I had removed the prod. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel that I was being uncivil, that was not my intention. As you are an admin, I asked you for clarification for the reasons why you deleted a prod. So I know in the future, what words did I use that you consider to be "spouting off uncivilly?"Hillabear10 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To DQ AKA DeltaQuad, please explain why you conducted a checkuser request as it appears to breach wiki policy;
 * On the English Wikipedia, CheckUsers asked to run a check must ask for (and be given) clear evidence that a check is appropriate and necessary. The onus is on an individual CheckUser to explain, if challenged, why a check was run. Do not make any presumptions, no matter who asks. The CheckUser log is regularly examined by arbitrators and especially by members of the Audit Subcommittee, who have previously initiated investigations of their own motion. All actions associated with the CheckUser tool, especially public or off-wiki actions, are subject to public view and can result in a complaint being filed against you with the Audit Subcommittee, the Wikimedia Foundation Ombudsman, or both.
 * Please reply by 03:30 August 25 2012. Hillabear10 (talk) 18:46, 24

August 2012 (UTC)

Tennisledes
Heya, this diff I couldn't agree more. Have replied. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)