| Revision as of 00:03, 8 April 2008 editKaiba (talk | contribs)12,047 edits too bad checkusers on yourself to "prove your innocence" aren't excepted← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:13, 8 April 2008 edit undoLandon1980 (talk | contribs)Rollbackers9,403 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| :I asked ] (a checkuser) to come review what you wrote here to see if filling a checkuser case would be worth the time doing. — ] 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | :I asked ] (a checkuser) to come review what you wrote here to see if filling a checkuser case would be worth the time doing. — ] 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks. ]]] 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | ::Thanks. ]]] 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Too bad I wasn't asking for one, I merely said I do not care. I would enjoy watching the two of you fall flat on your faces lol. ] (]) 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:13, 8 April 2008
Landon1980 and 76.177.242.179
Hi, do you know anyone who has checkuser ability? I have reason to believe that 76.177.242.179 and Landon1980 are the same person. I quote from each one's edit summaries reverting additions of rock to the lead in Flyleaf, "do not mess with lead", in those exact words. They also seem to edit many of the same articles, such as August Burns Red and Flyleaf, and they seem to also behave similarly to Hoponpop69 (I've been in several arguments with him), but I'd like to see a checkuser done on Landon. I believe he is sockpuppeting to try and reach consensus in his favor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's against policy and merits a checkuser. Timmeh! 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I asked Alison (a checkuser) to come review what you wrote here to see if filling a checkuser case would be worth the time doing. — Κaiba 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Timmeh! 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Too bad I wasn't asking for one, I merely said I do not care. I would enjoy watching the two of you fall flat on your faces lol. Landon1980 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)