Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pappin76


 * This is all part of a campaign of Harassment. --Domer48 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no agreement, there was a request though,, and , . As per norm, Sony never lets the facts get in the way of a good story. When this check user shows I'm not this new editor or Sarah I want these two editors repremanded.--Domer48 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: I have long suspected that Domer48 and Sarah777 are directly connected users and Sarah777 has previously admitted using other accounts. Could this be checked as well please? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: The User pages of Pappin76 and BigDunc are almost identical and I suspect both of being sockpuppets for that reason. Both have posted on the Irish Famine Talk page (diffs: (posted on July 20) and (posted on July 21) ).

The two User pages in question are: Pappin76 and BigDunc.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha Ha are you all of the head, I thought it was me being accused! Major Bonkers we all know you friends have a number of accounts, I did not think you would have a problem with that. But here is another new user having a finger pointed and all you have to go on is they robbed there user page icons. I better but the harp I robbed back then! --Domer48 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for checkuser
Moved from User_talk:Domer48:

Domer, you're getting taking this the wrong way. 1. I moved you comments to the talk page because they are not a request for checkuser but talk about the request. 2. I don't have no ill intent with the request - both you and I know it will show that Pappin76 is not you, I just want to know who it is. 3. I think Marks requests is without foundation, but so what if he does ask for it - again, you and I know it will show that Sarah is not you!

Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? --sony-youth pléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Insult
Moved from User_talk:SirFozzie:

Fozzie, Domer has altered me that I insulted you when I said "I would prefer if SirFozzie didn't do the checkuser as he is also involved in the ArbCom." Is this the case? If so that wasn't my intention. --sony-youth pléigh 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Requesting a check user on Frozzie is OTT. Questioning their ability to act impartially is a slight on their character and questions both their integrity and honesty. I may not like Fozzie's advice at time but I respect their opinion and position. --Domer48 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The check user is for all editors involved in the ArbCom. Edit warring was taking place - two apparent SPAs appeared, reverted the article, and apparently engaged in the edit war. Checkuser is hardly OTT in that circumstance. --sony-youth pléigh 10:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sony's reasoning.
 * I deprecate the use of allegations of puppetry as some sort of Witch Hunt to try and block or punish editors of a differing PoV. We should concentrate on edits not editors.
 * However, in the proximate case there is strong circumstantial evidence that socks or single purpose accounts were deliberately created to circumvent both consensus and administrator's rulings andbeing seen to flout the arbcom process.
 * Furthermore I believe it is for the alleged subject of a perceived insult to complain; I doubt that SirFozzie is either so thin skinned or insecure in the impartiality of his position or the rectitude of his logons... Gaimhreadhan  • 13:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually was a little amused at it, to be quite honest. If it was honestly thought that I had made the edits in question I would have used the old Bugs Bunny line, "He don't know me vewwy well, do he?". I think it's been well established that I don't have the level of knowledge to make such a detailed edit. I see it more as kinda just a "Let's clear the air, make sure that all the folks before ArbCom are not trying to get unfair advantage in our conflict.


 * In fact, I remember saying to MarkThomas during, um.. one of our disagreements, something like "I could have just initiated the ArbCom case, and stepped back and watched, but instead, I figured that since I brought the case, I figured I should have my edits scrutinized with the same fine toothed comb that the other four people in this case. Complaining, or being insulted by it now that it that someone's basically called me on my words.... well that would make me a hypocrite, wouldn't it? 15:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)