Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Moldopodo

Moldopodo

• Moldopodo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Brodnik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Sotnik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Code letter: E

After some editwarring on Moldova, the article was protected; two days later, the account of user Brodnik was created on November 3 and he jumped right in the controversial content by starting to make reverts, this time on History of Moldova; making me a bit suspecious on who he may be. Thus Spake Anittas 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the block log of the original account, per Code F. --Deskana (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have it up there. Moldopodo is the original account, unless that too is a sockpuppet of another nick. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account is not blocked. You cannot "evade a community based block or ban" if you're not blocked or banned. --Deskana (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I used wrong code. It should be E. I corrected it now. Well, if you don't want to pursue this, I understand. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to four or more diffs showing the 3RR violation, per Code E. --Deskana (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have four such cases. Is that what the requirements are? Anyway, here is what I have: first case, six reverts of Moldopodo in article on Moldova; second case, 3RR on Balti by Moldopodo with additional editwarring; third case, 3RR on Balti-City airport, by Moldopodo. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Code E. For Code E, you need to provide four diffs showing that were the two accounts the same account, 3RR would have been violated. Asserting that the primary account broke 3RR is not sufficient to check the secondary account if that is the only evidence provided. --Deskana (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I had evidence, I wouldn't have come here. I came here to see if there is any evidence that the user in question uses a sockpuppet. Showing a list of 3RR is not evidence, so the section of "supporting evidence" is incorrect. It may at best be a lead. I don't understand why you people make it so hard to just check on it. You got nothing to lose and it won't take you long. A bunch of beauracracy that ruins the whole thing. I checked on your little codes and I guess that the best to fit the appeal is code G, but it's all over anyway. Let's just forget the whole thing. --Thus Spake Anittas 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined. Anittas, please do not be offended. I understand your concerns, and I thank you for helping protect the encyclopedia. However, as checkusers we are mandated to only perform checks when we believe it is in the best interests of the encylopedia, and when there is sufficient evidence to suspect that we can prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. I do not believe there is enough evidence linking the users together to perform the check at this time. Should you find more evidence linking the two accounts together, please do not hesitate to file another request. I encourge other checkusers to review this request, and overturn my decline without hesitation if they feel this is appopriate. --Deskana (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]