Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dagoth Ur, Mad God

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Dagoth Ur, Mad God



 * Code letter: D


 * Supporting evidence: Vote-stacking in RFB. DUMG goes for RFB, User:Edward Smiley's account is just created.  His first contrubution is Support vote on the RFB.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  11:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as all.  B  G  7even   12:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support- More or less obvious but we need that extra confirmation. Argentium (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A. We don't support/oppose checkuser actions like that. This isn't a vote or consensus thing; checkusers decide whether a checkuser needs to be run or not. B. Please read the top portion of WP:RFCU, especially the "unacceptable requests" part. This falls under the "Vote fraud, closed vote, did not affect outcome" part and is not a "D" like is suggested here (which is for fraud that affects the vote). Metros (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The RFB was just snowballed and I speedy deleted it. See RFA talk. This is so obvious I blocked the sock indef and warned the master under standard policy. I wonder if there are more socks in his drawer? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, are we supposed to just sit here? What if he uses it again?  Will he be penalized or not?  Shapiros10  contact me My work  14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go and read what I told you to read, you'll figure out your answer. Additionally you can see Rlevse's note above and his action here. Metros (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mr. Metros sir. And it's good that this has been taken care of.  Shapiros10  contact me My work  15:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With the Edward Smiley account indef blocked, there seems to be no need at the present time. Thatcher 03:15, 26 June 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.''