Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nilzy

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

Nilzy



 * Code letter: G

This one is slightly complicated, so please bear with me: on October 14, Chain of Flowers made some comments on Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del:. I considered that a portion of the comments violated WP:NPA and WP:BLP, and reverted that portion:. October 23, one of the I.P.s came along and restored the content, using the edit summary "reverting my so called "vandalism": . At the time, I just assumed given the edit summary that the I.P. was Chain of Flowers logged out; no problem there (except for the restoration of the content, which is a separate issue all together, and not requiring the attention of a checkuser).  October 28, a new account, Nilzy, showed up and began to take Chain of Flowers'/the I.P.'s side in the dispute: .  Almost all of Nilzy's contributions since his first, on October 17, have been surrounding this article, which made me suspect that he might be the same editor as Chain of Flowers and the I.P. (I was still taking it as a given that Chain of Flowers and the I.P. were one and the same). Then, today, an I.P. very similar to the other one stopped by and thanked Nilzy for his comments, explaining that he would have commented earlier but that his "net's been down for a while", this despite the fact that Chain of Flowers had been editing throughout the time that the I.P. had claimed that its net had been down:. To summarize: These accounts/I.P.s have not collectively approached 3RR (so code E doesn't apply), but have been collectively engaged in a slow speed edit war, which makes this sockpuppetry to avoid scrutiny for edit-warring. Additionally, while the identities are not vote-stacking in a closed vote (so code D doesn't apply), they are giving the appearance of widespread support for a position in such a way as to abuse the consensus process. Accordingly, I believe that any sockpuppetry going on here qualifies as abusive and is worth a checkuser. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is substantial evidence ("reverting my so called "vandalism"") that Chain of Flowers and the I.P. are one and the same.
 * The I.P. has denied being Chain of Flowers by stating that its internet had been down during Nilzy's participation on Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del, despite the fact that Chain of Flowers was editing during that time.
 * Nilzy is one of those SPAs that pops up in the middle of a dispute to vigorously take one side.
 * In my view, the above is sufficient to justify a checkuser. If you disagree, I'm confident that I could produce evidence of similar writing styles as well.
 * ❌ to . IPs are ❌ to either user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:49, 10 November 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.''