Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knownot

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

Knownot



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: All above anons return to the same pages that have been edited by recently blocked editors User:Googlean or User:Knownot, and try to reinsert the same problematic content that was objected to at WT:INB. Knownot has been involved in a lot of sockpuppetry, per his block log. I have reason to believe that it is an IP range. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ is all of the above, and . Classic case of good hand, bad hand accounts. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Googlean and The Firewall indefinitely. Knownot had apparently exercised WP:RTV but this certainly seems like an abuse of that privilege - vanishing to continue socking to evade more blocks with a new account.  I unvanished his talk page.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that I renamed the case after Knownot as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I need to clarify here. By all of the above, I was referring to the IPs. Googlean is ❌. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, that was unfortunate. Between this and The Firewall's admission on his/her talk page, I have unblocked that account entirely (with a caution not to logout to obscure his/her identity in the future).  Nishkid has already unblocked Googlean.  I have indefblocked Knownot as a legitimately vanished user.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NCM, you probably would have thought of this and mistaken me, right? -- Googlean   Results  04:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wknight94 or Nishkid64, who is going to apologies to me as your defective findings which may have caused me beleaguered in the WP community between 16:24 to 18:29 yesterday? -- Googlean   Results  05:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't see that edit - I probably should've kept the page watchlisted. To clarify, I'd earlier contacted another CU regarding filing a RFCU, and I got a reply at about 17:00. Although it seems I've filed this RFCU after that action which you've cited, I'd prepared this RFCU within half an hour of that reply and left it until later so I could copyedit it. From experience, I knew the anon was not someone new to Wikipedia. My basis for including you as the first possibility was naturally your recent block, and the particular reverts you made on the article during this month. Knownot's reverts, and earlier block made me consider that user as the other possibility. Your reputation is not lost due to the unblock and its summary (which indicates it was a genuine mistake - those unfortunately occur from time to time on Wikipedia). It was unfortunate, and has been rectified, so hopefully it will not be perpetuated into something more - no one is perfect.
 * In any event, I'd like to thank Tiptoety, Nishkid64 and Wknight94 for processing my request very efficiently, so as to effectively prevent further disruption from the problem accounts. I apologize for the delay in my reply. As the user filing this request, I consider the matter resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2008 (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.''