Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/IndigoGenius

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

IndigoGenius




Recently Kitia had recreated the Cesidian Root and TTF-Bucksfan entry, which had been deleted per Wikipedia policy. (See Articles for deletion/TTF-Bucksfan for the latter article's deletion.) Upon re-deletion and subsequent protection, Kitia became outraged and posted as much in the Cesidian Root talk page, and said outrage sounds an awful lot like the outrage expressed by IndigoGenius in the aforementioned deletion article for Cesidian Root, giving me reason to believe that they are simply one and the same.

--Dennis The TIger 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to the fire, on Talk:Cesidian Root, Kitia talks about how OpenNIC should be deleted too since Cesidian Root is. This is very similar to how IndigoGenius talked. --Kevin_b_er 17:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a policy violation alleged here, at least not one in which checkuser comes into play. IndigoGenius hasn't edited since May in any case. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I may have formed this wrong; I'm attempting to say that Kitia is the sock puppet. If this is still not what you're looking for, it's just as well, I suppose - we can let the sockpuppet issue play out.  Thanks for responding quickly.  --Dennis The TIger 08:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * IndigoGenius hasn't contributed since May, which is too long for a technical comparison. Also, as long as they don't edit the same articles or AfDs, there's no policy violation if IndigoGenius decides to stop using one account and start using another. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, then. Thanks.  --Dennis The TIger 16:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we're done here, then. Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2006 (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.''