Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nizevyn
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) |
- Nizevyn (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Cambios (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- F:
- Supporting evidence:
Nizevyn has been banned as a sockpuppet of User:Cambios, I request a checkuser to verify that he actually is, if he is not, I request that Nizevyn be unbanned. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Theblog. Please keep in mind that due to technical and policy limitations (single purposes accounts can be considered as socks), "innocence" requests are seldom accepted though. -- lucasbfr ho ho ho 10:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)- Note: I blocked this editor as they were created to edit the obscure article Threshold (online game) in exactly the same manner as User:Cambois which I had just blocked for edit-warring and disruptive editing. Even if this CU comes back negative, they are still clearly related per WP:SOCK ("For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity."). There may also have been off-wiki canvassing occurring here. Meanwhile, interestingly, the user that brought this case - which hadn't edited for nine months and suddenly came back, editing on that obscure article's subject - seems very confident that the CU will come back negative - which is interesting. Black Kite 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
