Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nizevyn

{{rfcu box|case=Nizevyn|filed=04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)}}

• {{checkuser|Nizevyn}}
• {{checkuser|Cambios}}

• 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)

:{{clerknote}} Related to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Theblog. 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 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FThreshold_%28online_game%29&diff=261629634&oldid=261627486])- 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)

{{declined}}. 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 {{possible}}, though by no means confirmed technically. A block on behavioural grounds may well be justified, however. On the other hand, {{checkuser|Kallimina}} is {{confirmed}} to be Cambios.

Further, it is {{likely}} on technical grounds that {{checkuser|Greg Douglas}} is Cambios.

As a reasonable suspicion may be said to exist, I can say that {{checkuser|Theblog}} is {{unrelated}} 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:

:{{confirmed}} {{checkuser|Cambios}} = {{checkuser|Kallimina}}

:{{likely}} {{checkuser|Greg Douglas}} = {{checkuser|Cambios}}

:{{possible}}, though by no means confirmed technically that {{checkuser|Nizevyn}} is related to the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)