Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse

Responding to Daniel.Bryant note. Part of the motivation to this RFCU is that some users are repeatidly branding users as sockpuppets of Mattise. If we assume the negative (i.e. they are not socks) then this is causing those users un-necessary distress. I am think of taking the dispute to WP:DR, but before that happens it will be easier to establish one way or the other whether there is a sock-puppet element. --Salix alba (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That sounds fair enough. However, filing an RFCU to "clear the air" is not disruptive; only in blatantly-obvious attempts at disruption is it warranted to accuse the filer of the RFCU of violating WP:POINT. Daniel.Bryant 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And I just want to comment to say that my RFCU addition is completely and totally apart from the actions of the others. I just tacked mine on because I did not plan on doing my own RFCU on this case (the possible sockpuppet Xampt was disruptive, but not so much so). I am not on some sort of fishing expedition like the rest of the RFCU might appear. Metros232 11:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. AGF would indicate exactly that. Daniel.Bryant 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)