Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mnyakko

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/Mnyakko}}
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.

Mnyakko

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mnyakko (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
70.105.253.147 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Code letter: F

IP user turned up shortly after User:Durova issued this one week block. The language of the IP user is similarly condescending, and the user edits a very limited set of pages. He also seems to know a lot about the history of the global warming discussion and conflict. Stephan Schulz 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

observation by uninvolved editor

It appears to me that the is no community based ban or block so a categorisation of "F" is incorrect. Category "G" may be more appropriate. The user who submitted the request may wish to make corrections and correctly categorise the request.VK35 00:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, a sock/meat puppet block is a community based block - at least it used to be this way. --Stephan Schulz 01:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for my comments [[1]]. Did this happen? Yes? No? I don't have an interest in any particular outcome of this RFCU so I don't intend to debate further. I haven't researched the edits in question so I express no opinion on who is right and who is wrong.VK35 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have already been punished for honest and forthcoming disclosure, so I do so again with reservations and in a limited manner. There are 3 IPs I would possibly appear through in the event I forget to log in (or time out). I have used them all in the past so they should already be on record. Verizon is NOT one of those three.

This request is yet another effort towards sanction in a long line of retaliatory actions by a group of editors & admins. This request, regardless of true motivation, will allow one member of that group who also has checkuser access to obtain information about me that otherwise would be protected. Since privacy is a huge concern to Wikipedia AND that Raul654 is one of the people who have been in contenious discussions with many others including myself, I request Raul654 not be permitted under any circumstance to perform a checkuser on me, or to be afforded any information as a result of checkuser requests involving me. After consulting counsel on this matter we believe it is a prudent request to expect fulfilled in the name of privacy, personal data security and personal safety. It should be noted that I do understand the necessity of checkuser and am not seeking to prevent it. My request is a standing request, not just limited to this particular action by Stephan Schulz. -- Tony G 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. If he's acting like a blocked user then block and be merry. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2007 (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.