Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nodekeeper

[edit] Nodekeeper

• Nodekeeper (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Proabivouac (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

• Code letter: see below

i was told to refer this to RFCU per a sock enquiry Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nodekeeper. the relevant diffs and reasonings are present there. briefly: it seems clear that User:Proabivouac is a sock from looking at his contribs and esp his first few edits, and there are reasons to suggest it may be that of User:Nodekeeper. both have similar approaches in their writing and presentation; User:Proabivouac has been contacting users whom he believes may provide him support in content disputes (under an hour after creating the new account)[1][2], both of whom are notable for having participated in a content dispute on Talk:Muhammad, in which User:Nodekeeper was also involved; User:Proabivouac has been noted as making ridiculous accusative generalisations against Muslim editors [3]( which was, by the way, his first edit with that account) , which is also a hallmark of User:Nodekeeper's behaviour ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). User:Proabivouac denies that he is a sock of User:Nodekeeper. other evidences (from another editor) are presented in the sock enquiry link as provided previously. ITAQALLAH 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask that this request be declined as "fishing", because this user's evidence is weak as it provides no clear evidence of sockpuppetry on my behalf. I did not have a chance to respond to this users original case. Nodekeeper 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined Code letter not specified. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional information needed Code letter, please. Clerk note: Per the new procedure, I struck the decline and asked for more info. Daniel.Bryant 03:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Daniel.Bryant) Sorry i have been bereft of time as of late so i didn't get a chance to respond. i don't think the case neatly fits into any of the codes given (is this a new process recently established?), although there was a bit of vandalism it wasn't ongoing or serious enough for code C. the case was brought to RFCU per the instructions of an admin in WP:SSP. the account in question in my opinion is an SPA sock per the diffs given, although it has not committed any serious violations of the WP rules (actively participating under two persona without legitimate reason may be a contravention however). in the light of that, if the case is expected to strictly meet one of the six codes then it should probably be closed until there is more serious reason to investigate in which case i will re-submit the query. thank you. ITAQALLAH 16:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Declined While the codes themselves are new, the policy on what requests we accept is not. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)