Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Edwy

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/Edwy}}
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.

Edwy (talk · contribs) and LionKing (talk · contribs · block log)[edit]

Reopening the request per discussion with Essjay:

1. Before creation of his new account, Latinus was pretty much involved in pushing Greek POV in the Macedonia related articles (I will now concentrate only on one article:Republic of Macedonia: [1], [2], [3]… (now in the page history he appears under his new user account Edwy.

2. On 1 april 2006 a new user account Edwy is created by Latinus and the previous one was deleted, as he admits that in this discussion: [4]. However, user Edwy doesn’t want to admit the relation with his previous account and stops with his contributions on the Macedonia related articles:

deletion of the following comment from his new talk page: [5]
HolyRomanEmperor makes a redirect to his new users page and Edwy reverts that: [6]

3. If we check the user contributions, we can see that Edwy is not more involved around the Macedonian articles, but the newly created user LionKing appears for the first time on 3 April 2006 and from that moment he is completely involved only in editing, edit warring and discussions in the Macedonia related articles.

4. I found that LionKing has very good knowledge in WP policies for a user that has only few days experience on WP and very similar altitude as Latinus. For example, Latinus mentioned straw pool for renaming the Republic of Macedonia article several times before: [7],[8], [9], and now LionKing has similar opinion: [10], [11], [12]

If my assumption is correct, than that this case can be considered as prohibited use of sockpuppet under the:Deception and impersonation, because he possibly tries to create an illusion of broader support for a position (Greek POV pushing) in the Macedonia related articles using a sock puppet LionKing, but having in the same time another account Edwy that will have no relation with his biased past regarding the Macedonian articles. IMO that is the reason why he is trying to hide the relation between the former and current user account.

Bitola 12:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitola, do you think you could stop pestering and go and write some articles or do something more constructive. Assuming that your amusing conspiracy theory is true, the circumstances you are describing would fall within the "legitimate uses of sock puppets" section, specifically, the "segregation and security" and the "keeping heated issues in one small area" paragraphs.

So even if your suspicions are 100% correct, there is no policy violation unless sockpuppets are supporting each other; that has not happened. When Edwy appears on the talk page and starts agreeing with LionKing and they are indeed sockpuppets, then there would be the violation you are describing. As you yourself have said that Edwy is keeping away from the Macedonia related articles, then the violation you are alleging is impossible.

Not to mention, that using terms such as "biased" and "pushing Greek POV" are definitely personal attacks, and should be treated as such. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the sensitive areas as the Macedonian articles are (there we have almost constant edit warring), one sockpuppet can make a lot of trouble whether with posting biased discussions on the talk page, edit warring, voting etc. and for that reason it is very important to clear the mess and find our every possible use of prohibited sockpuppetry. Moreover, if this potential sockpuppet is created in good faith, then why we have no clear declaration by Latinus announcing that he created two new accounts (on the contrary, he is hiding the relation between the former and his recent user account). Finally, what are you afraid of, if I'm wrong, then a simple user check would reveal my mistake. Bitola 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these "users" are very suspicious. They seem to be the former user:Latinus. Check User:HolyRomanEmperor talkpage for instance. Latinus used to chat with him, and since he "disappeared", user Edwy continues chatting with this user on similar (even same) topics. Bomac 14:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No violation means no checkuser. No checkuser means you are mistaken. This is the second time. CheckUser is not pre-emptive and the privacy of users is not invaded just because you "suspect" something might happen at some indefinite point in the future. Present a violation of policy as described in the green box above or be on your way. I also invite the admin who will fulfil or reject this request, to see admin Essjay's reasons for rejecting this request when Bitola made the same request yesterday, but his rationale was deleted by Bitola! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikoSilver, I know that you are making an attempt to disrupt this request by flooding: this is not a DISCUSSION page and I will stop this pointless discussion with you right now. (by the way, this request was reopened after discussing it with Essjay). Bitola 15:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean here? Pointing out that "no vio"="no rfcu" is pointless? I made my point briefly. Did you have to answer by repeating yours? Ok! I stop the discussion. I've flooded enough already... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request for CheckUser --Realek 21:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.