Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NostraDogbert

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

User:NostraDogbert
Voting on the Which Lost-related Wikipedia articles should we keep? on the second day from the first edit, the Voting was the third edit of the user, with the first and second edits have nothing to do with the Voting. the user said "I am new to Wikipedia", when I was new to wikipedia I would have never known to go to Discussion pages and write somthing that was deep in the code of the long page. Wikipedia has the policy of One User, One vote and thats it. -- muhaidib-- (Talk | #info |  ) 17:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Declined. Doesn't seem like a serious issue. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * really? then I guess it's ok to make more then one account to vote. thanks for the time -- muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 02:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple new accounts voting together, that might be more interesting, especially if they visit multiple articles together. One throwaway account for one vote is no big deal compared to the real problems floating around on a daily basis. (just my opinion) Thatcher131 03:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But a CARFUL person won't do that because they would know that it would get suspicious -- muhaidib-- (Talk | #info | [[image:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg|22px]] ) 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case it's not serious enough for Checkuser. One sockpuppet casting one vote on one article talk page fails to meet policies 1, 3 and 8, and possibly 9, as shown at the top of the page. Thatcher131 04:05, 23 April 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.''