Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nizevyn

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)[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]

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]

Having looked at the AFD, I have changed my mind and run a check. A relationship between the two users cited above is Possible, though by no means confirmed technically. A block on behavioural grounds may well be justified, however. On the other hand, Kallimina (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Confirmed to be Cambios.

Further, it is Likely on technical grounds that Greg Douglas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Cambios.

As a reasonable suspicion may be said to exist, I can say that Theblog (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Unrelated technically to the other users mentioned here.

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]