Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nizevyn

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser | Case
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Korn (talk | contribs) at 23:39, 3 January 2009 (→Nizevyn: decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nizevyn

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
Note: I blocked this editor as they were created to edit the obscure article Threshold (online game) in exactly the same manner as User:Cambios 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 ([1])- which suggests that they know who one/both of those users are. Black Kite 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guy is clearly new to Wikipedia, he didn't even realize what he was banned for or that he had inadvertently blanked a page, I think it is just a case of confusion of what is and what is not allowed. It is clear that he is not a sockpuppet, which he has been accused of, and I wish to have this confirmed or not by ipcheck. Thank you. --Theblog (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't "inadvertantly blank a page", he continued editing an article in the same way as a blocked user had just been. IPCHECK is irrelevant when we have blocked by behaviour. Please read WP:SOCK again, taking note of the quote that I have highlighted above. Black Kite 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for myself, I checked my watchlist, and despite Black Kite's claims to the contrary, I haven't edited this obscure object's page in a very long time. But it is a subject I follow. --Theblog (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. A checkuser investigation does not seem necessary -- the behavioural evidence is sufficient. Checkuser cannot determine innocence. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 23:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nizevyn&oldid=261781352"