Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Janeyryan

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Janeyryan



 * Code letter: B


 * Supporting evidence: This account is being used to edit solely in controversial areas that have already been the subject of various different arbcom cases, many socking-related. I haven't posted anything here before, and appreciate that this might be considered fishing by some as I cannot determine the identity of the possible sockmaster. (I have two ideas, but neither with enough evidence to toss around unless someone really wants me to). I urge, however, that due to the nature of the articles involved and the arbcom sanctions surrounding them that someone does take a brief look. Brilliantine (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Our friends at Wikipedia review have two ideas (or more; I haven't followed the relevant thread). I have a third.Some of this editors edits are covered under this remedy, part A and possibly also part D.  Yet the related edits do not appear yet to meet the "substantial edits" test of that remedy.  In the other subject area, I don't see any reason at this time to run a check.  My personal thoughts are to run a checkuser, log the results, and don't disclose anything at this time unless the results are suprisingly clear.  GRBerry 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a contributor to that site and do not necessarily agree with their ideas in this instance. Brilliantine (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oo-kay. Myself and another checkuser concurrently ran this case earlier today. As GRBerry points out, there are a number of Arb cases which this checkuser could cover; the Mantanmoreland one, the Patrick M. Byrne article probation, etc, etc. Right now, I'm calling this . While this account doesn't appear to be blatantly similar to others and nothing stands out in particular, there are a number of technical quirks which lead me to not declare this unlikely to be related to anyone else at this time. This is my own interpretation of checkuser data and I welcome further input from other checkusers - A l is o n  ❤ 05:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * another checkuser for possible followup, if required. It's an unusual case with an unusual result, so let's not archive quite yet - A l is o n  ❤ 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The IPs are a domestic (US) dial-up provider. Assuming the geolocation is correct and if the user is local to the phone numbers, then unlikely to be anyone of concern.  On the other hand, someone could make a long-distance phone call from just about anywhere, and the user whose IP usage is most similar to Janeyryan has been blocked as a sock or meat puppet in an unrelated matter.  This is really a textbook case of . Thatcher 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * - A l is o n  ❤ 06:50, 31 July 2008 (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.''