I think the patch in its current form is then, unfortunately, not acceptable - unless Stuart Shelton actually signs a contributor agreement. I don't know what makes you believe that he actually meant to contribute the code to Python, but I just don't want to take the risk that he comes back later and says that the contribution was unauthorized (or perhaps not even his own work).

For trivial patches, redoing them might be reasonable. It might then be useful to record (e.g. in a comment) how they had been done, and to also indicate how the submitter has tested them.

Rejecting this patch.