Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nikodemos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nikodemos}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Nikodemos

main edit links history watch talk
Filed: 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: Obvious use of sockpuppets to create illusion of broader support for article version than actually exists by reverting to sockpuppet versions.

Nikodemos and Ruadh are the same people, and Nikodemos has been reverting back to Ruad's versions in articles. Compare their dates of their edit histories. Both are absent and present on the same days. Ruadh: [1] Nikodemos: [2] Proof:

Nikodemos was gone from December 30 through January 12. There were no edits from Ruadh during that time.

Nikodemos and Ruadh take an extended leave, not making any edits from January 19 through February 19. Both arrive back on the same day, which is February 20. Both names make edits on February 20 and February 21.

Nikodemos and Ruadh don't make any edits from February 22 through Februrary 25. They both arrive back on February 26 and start making edits.

Nikodemos takes a break, not making any edits after March 5. Ruadh also stops making edits after March 5 as well and has not made any since. Nikodemos arrives back on March 12 to revert back to Ruadh's version of the article Economics of fascism here: [3] . I revert it back with the commont "you really think I'm that stupid Ruadh?" [4] In aother article Anti-capitalism he uses the Nikodemos name to revert back to a Ruadh version there as well [5] pretending that he's a third party coming in to stop some kind fighting. Nikodemos/Ruadh realizes he's been found out and leaves a message on user talk page accusing ME of being a double user of someone else.

This IP 69.6.107.236 has also revertin away my edits on the Anti-capitalism [[6]] and Economics of fascism [7] articles, which is obviously Nikodemos/Ruadh as well. Billy Ego 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional information needed Looking at these diffs, the alleged sockpuppeer may have used their socks to violate 3RR, in which case the letter of this case would be E. If this is the case, please find four diffs showing the 3RR violation. PTO 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll look for that but are you saying that a person can use sockpuppets in the same article reverting to each puppets version as long as they don't violate 3RR? Wouldnt that be a violation of the rule against making an illusion of activity or support for one's cause? Billy Ego 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation. It's obvious sockpuppets though, trying to make it look like more than one person supports these changes. Billy Ego 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, policy only forbids a person using two accounts from editing the same article at roughly the same time, or participating in discussion at the same time, or using the two accounts to support each other's arguments. There was a 7 day break between editing by User:Ruadh and editing by User:Nikodemos, and I have never claimed to have Ruadh's support for anything. Let me say it again, on the record: If you wish to believe that Ruadh and I are the same user, that's fine. You can act as if there is only one person opposing you (which is most obviously the case right now, given that Ruadh hasn't edited in over a week). I do not claim to have any support for my edits, other than my own. -- Nikodemos 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Moved most of a discussion over whether this editing may or may not constitute a WP:SOCK violation to talk. Please direct further discussion there. Thank you. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional information needed I'm still unclear what the justification for this checkuser request is; if it's "A", it should be down below, but I don't see any evidence of "blatant vandalism and attack accounts". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Clerk note: <moved discussion to talk page> Please leave comments on the talk page. PTO 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Additional information needed I beg your pardon? I'm asking for justification for this request, not comments or discussion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to your note, Jpgordon. I was moving a thread that stemmed from the tag that you left above to the talk page, which can be found there as "Copied from the page again". Sorry for the mix-up. PTO 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Declined --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nikodemos

  • Code letter: E

3RR violations:

-- Vision Thing -- 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Declined, that block is more than a week old. CheckUser is not needed for dead issues. Dmcdevit·t 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's a dead issue because IP is possibly used for avoiding scrutiny [8] and as a "bad hand" account. 72.139.119.165 has been warned for vandalism a number of times [9] and it has a similar edit pattern as Nikodemos, so I believe there are enough valid reasons for a checkuser. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 8 November 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.