| Revision as of 23:56, 8 September 2006 editMackensen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators125,023 edits →Fact check← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:06, 9 September 2006 edit undoZer0faults (talk | contribs)5,735 edits →Fact checkNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| I've indentified the operator of the account, but as he's a user in good standing I'm not going to take any action. ] ] 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | I've indentified the operator of the account, but as he's a user in good standing I'm not going to take any action. ] ] 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| This sounds like fishing. --<span style="font-family: Monotype Corsiva; font-size: 11pt">]</span> ] 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!--Please do not remove the following tag until this case has been listed on RFCU. --> | <!--Please do not remove the following tag until this case has been listed on RFCU. --> | ||
| <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample/Tag}}</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Inputbox/Sample/Tag}}</noinclude> | ||
Revision as of 01:06, 9 September 2006
Fact check
- Fact check (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fact check (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Fact check is a new user who immediately began removing any text with a {{fact}} attached. I find it remarkable that a new user would know to create a purpose specific name and from the get-go be enforcing a tiny part of policy without having a history here first. On the assumption that this was just a purpose specific account created by another user, I requested on his/her talk page that the user mention who they used to be/what their other ID is. The user has been cagey, asking why I need to know. Perhaps it's a completely innocent purpose driven account, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible that this user might be someone coming back as a new ID to sharpen a WP:POINT about verifiability. If a casual CU is possible, it would be nice to verify that this is not someone who is currently under censure. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've indentified the operator of the account, but as he's a user in good standing I'm not going to take any action. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like fishing. --zero faults 01:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)