Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nizevyn

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

Nizevyn



 * 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)
 * Related to Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. 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)
 * 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 - which suggests that they know who one/both of those users are. Black Kite 11:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

. 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)

Having looked at the AFD, I have changed my mind and run a check. A relationship between the two users cited above is, though by no means confirmed technically. A block on behavioural grounds may well be justified, however. On the other hand, is ✅ to be Cambios.

Further, it is on technical grounds that  is Cambios.

As a reasonable suspicion may be said to exist, I can say that is ❌ technically to the other users mentioned here.

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

I was asked to do a double check and I confirm Sam's findings:
 * , though by no means confirmed technically that is related to the above.  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * , though by no means confirmed technically that is related to the above.  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * , though by no means confirmed technically that is related to the above.  — Rlevse •  Talk  • 00:02, 5 January 2009 (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.''