Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Journeyist

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

Journeyist



 * E:


 * Supporting evidence: Here is a bird's eye view of the mess that resulted in the uncontrollable editing amoc that just ensued. This illustrates how Truthfulness acts desires the article to appear. Here are two blogs of Journeyist that reveals his sentiments about certain portions of the article and WP in general . Notice how Journeyist's sentiments, as expressed in his anti-WP blog and previous "contributions", exactly reflect Truthfulness acts' edits. Thank you. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TA does seem to be a probable single-purpose account, but appears ❌ to Journeyist (who is mostly ). – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Luna Santin! I understand that Journeyist's records are now stale due to lack of edits since the 21st of October 2008 (it should be within a month's time, isn't it?). Would it be possible to leave this checkuser as inconclusive then? If you will look at Journeyist's last 3 edits, all done within the same day, you will see that they are all POV edits in favor of the subject  . Journeyist's account is also a single purpose account. My fear is that if you declare this as unrelated at this point that Journeyist is, basically, unverifiable due to being stale, that this decision could be used by him and his sock to justify future edits in tandem. – Shannon Rose (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * re-adding to outstanding due to request from filer. JodyBtalk 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the results are not as conclusive as might be hoped for. I trust our administrators will be smart enough to take context into account. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:45, 9 December 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.''