Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJASE1

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

RJASE1

 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G
 * Code letter: G

Admin has already had a checkuser done on TortureIsBad by user:Dmcdevit (see here) that showed TortureIsBad=RJASE1. Now has shown up. Note the last two incidents of vandalism to User:Ryan Postlethwaite were by TortureIsBad and TortureIsDoubleplusungood. RJASE1 is blocked for 72h and the other accounts are indef blocked. RJASE1 has a history of reporting usernames to WP:RFCN and WP:UAA and actively participating in their discussion, and it is surprising and disturbing that someone who seemed to be a useful editor would create at least one disruptive sock. The question is has RJASE1 created other socks before? Is there a sockfarm needing blocking? Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Partly already done, per Requests for checkuser/Case/TortureIsWrong, TortureIsBad = RJASE1, and all accounts are blocked, all indef except RJASE1, who is set to expire on the 11th. --ST47 Talk 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Clerk, your job is not ever to make or suggest such determinations. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, however the first section stands. --ST47 Talk 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note is not blocked. GDonato (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note I've added some more that my have been created by RJASE1 to discredit . GDonato (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These Later accounts may be stale, as they were from March 31-April 1 or so. Flyguy649talkcontribs 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I stumbled across while looking for impersonation accounts; the account was created May 22, 2007, before TortureIsWrong's block. Considering the name parallel with TIS, and my own tussles with him, I'm highly suspect. I don't suppose CU can be performed on users who haven't edited, can it? EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it can and I've added it to the list as it sounds suspicious. GDonato (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Well, this puts a new light on the incident below, doesn't it? Adam Cuerden talk 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * RJASE1 only has one confirmed sock so far. The others might have nothing to do with him (or be too old to check). That's why I filed this. Flyguy649talkcontribs 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

❌ to RJASE1, but, as well. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And I'm rather glad that they aren't related. Flyguy649talkcontribs 14:44, 11 June 2007 (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.''

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

RJASE1



 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A
 * Code letter: A

A sockpuppet, Winkers6767, which RJASE1 was reporting here: Suspected sock puppets/Winkers6767 chimed in and admitted not only to be the same as the list of IP addresses - which doesn't need checking - but claimed to be the same person as the one who reported him. If true, all of them should be dealt with, but I'm unwilling to trust the person being reported to declare accurately that he's the same as the reporter. Can we say he is?

RJASE says he's in Nashville on his user profile, so mere geography probably isn't enough - evidence of further matching is needed. Adam Cuerden talk 19:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What the??? I was the one who originally reported this sockpuppet here. If you look at the edit history, you can see the sockpuppet came back and vandalized his case page to say that he was me. RJASE1 Talk  06:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah... to be fair, I'm not really inclined to believe that a user who seems to have as many good edits as RJASE1 suddenly snapped and went on a sockpuppet rampage. But, well, let's clear him and get on with it. Adam Cuerden talk 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Privacy policy forbids. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:03, 10 March 2007 (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.''