Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alkivar

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Alkivar



 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.
 * Code letter: G.

Shortly after opening a request for comment on User:Alkivar (a user with whom User:Abu badali had also had a dispute), User:Hidey Ho appeared and began making accusations of sockpuppetry against me and Abu badali on various user talk pages. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse request. Hidey ho's first edit smells like it comes from a laundry pile.  Timing is close enough to the RFC opening to raise eyebrows.  Durova Charge! 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, there's an arb case about me going on, what means that I have a large "foe-club". I have no Idea who could have done that, but, intersecting my friends with Videmus's seems a good start. --Abu badali (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding BlueSapphires, who first edited on 29 July 2007, swiftly went to Alkivar's RFC, and knows a lot about Wikipedia process. Durova Charge! 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My first edit was in June, not July. I used to edit under another login. Someone guessed who I was.  Privacy. BlueSapphires 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Added another IP from the RFC. First edit 26 July 2007.  Knows a lot about process (fifth edit ever was to WP:AN).  Incivility.  Uncivil edit summary blanking warning.  Durova Charge! 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I doubt that Alkivar is a sockpuppeteer (though I guess CheckUser will find out); though I may disagree with him, he is a long-time admin. But when I saw Hidey-ho's and BlueSapphire's edits, I was reminded of this CheckUser request at an ArbCom talk page.  I would request that a CheckUser investigate the relationship between those editors and the three suspected editors here.  --Iamunknown 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good observation. Durova Charge! 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this will blow your minds... but Endorse Request these accounts are not me, and I want factual evidence to back this up so they cannot be claimed as me.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Endorse Checkuser. Please disprove this one of Durova’s many false allegations made after I pointed out on the RFC that User talk:Videmus Omnia, who instigated the RFC had two ANI reports open. [1] [2] for multiple attacks on 4-5 users, including one expert newbie – I met Videmus Omnia from his expert-newbie attack, then discovered he had four attacks ongoing.  As payback (for bringing this information to RFC) she accused me of being a sock on 3+ boards (here, RFC and AN; on AN she was begging for me to be POINT blocked for refuting her procative accusations on the RFC & AN which they did not do. Yesterday I was forced to notify other admins [1][2] [3]  that I was making RFC strikeouts at the request of Videmus Omnia, to avoid more of her unfounded POINT accusations [1] [2] from her on AN. I’ve told her 3-4 times that I changed names as my old history was linked to my real name, but she continues the attacks on RFC/Alkivar 1 2 3 and if I respond, she’ll request me blocked for POINT. What to do?  WP:DISAGREED WITH DUROVA is not an actionable offence. I refer everyone to what Swatjester replied to Durova's accusations of me:
 * While I agree with both of you, it doesn't stop the evidence from being correct. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said by Swatjester. BlueSapphires 10:10, 30 July 2007
 * I honestly don't believe anymore that Alikivar is involved either - I'm actually pretty sure now that they're all BlueSapphires-related. Sorry, Alkivar. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Videmus Omnia you owe me an apology for that, and I'll be waiting for it on my talk board.BlueSapphires 10:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

that they are related. is avoiding his block and sockpuppeting as he promised to do. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''