`  == That Grburster case again ==  Hi Tim. Do you remember this checkuser case? I've just been looking over it again while discussing it with someone else, and I noticed that you said in that thread (at 15:40, 31 October 2008) that you ``...called for a check partly because an account that was a self-admitted alternate account was showing a strong antipathy to ScienceApologist and the first edits this account made were to Talk:Non-standard cosmology. This raised the immediate suspicion in my mind that this was a sock (which I noted in my checkuser request) and Iantresman was the user that I suspected most strongly of being the sockmaster.`` The thing that puzzles me here is that you said none of this at the actual request for checkuser. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grburster. You mentioned that Grburster was an alternate account, but you didn't mention at the checkuser your concerns about the antipathy to ScienceApologist, or the edits to Talk:Non-standard cosmology, or your suspicion that it might have been a sock of Iantresman. You just said ``these may both be sockpuppets of another account``. Was there a reason for not stating your suspicions in full? The only reason I can think of is that you weren't quite sure. With hindsight, I think detailing your suspicions in full would have been helpful. Certainly, if you had said at the checkuser what you later said at ANI, I wouldn't have objected to the checkuser.   `