Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ray andrew

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

Ray andrew



 * Code letter: F, G
 * Supporting evidence: Block log for Ray andrew
 * Supporting evidence: Block log for Ray andrew

I believe Ray andrew may be evading a 3RR block, the account was created today and within minutes began reverting changes in an article similar to the one Ray andrew was blocked for edit warring on. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * - one of the editors was using an open proxy - now blocked - A l is o n  ❤ 13:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See both users' talk pages. 's direct block expired and he requested removal of the resulting autoblock.  The IP he gave was not blocked and he was not directly blocked, so I accepted his request to remove his autoblock.   requested unblock but declined to specify who was blocking him so there was nothing to do.  If there is a checkuser or other reason to reblock Ray andrew, feel free - I wanted to let you know in case any followup is needed since obviously you have more information than I do. --B (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See both users' talk pages. 's direct block expired and he requested removal of the resulting autoblock.  The IP he gave was not blocked and he was not directly blocked, so I accepted his request to remove his autoblock.   requested unblock but declined to specify who was blocking him so there was nothing to do.  If there is a checkuser or other reason to reblock Ray andrew, feel free - I wanted to let you know in case any followup is needed since obviously you have more information than I do. --B (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even see why this warranted a check, if you look at the time stamps Proctor spock's first edit was within hours of my ban being lifted. Not to mention the topic at hand in this 3rr block was controversial, and is still under discussion, with many other editors raising objections to Locke Cole's changes, so it would be reasonable for interested parties to make an account and enter the "debate". Furthermore I am upset that even now with no proof Locke Cole is still acusing me of having sock puppets on public talk pages in an effort to discredit me (Talk:Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats). I know Locke Cole has a history of harassment on wikipedia (Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole), and I don't think the mods should stand by and do nothing but approve his every request. Furthermore I dont like the presumption of guilt, "Likely" just because the other editor is using an open proxy with no other evidence, how about "Possible"? --Ray andrew (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * per request on the clerk noticeboard --Michael Billington (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the SSP case has degenerated into a name-calling match from all sides here. It's not good. "Likely" does not mean "confirmed" here & the reason "likely" was chosen can't really be revealed. However, one of the two editors is using a largely unsecured proxy. Checking into this further shows that it's used by an ISP. I've spent about an extra hour looking into this, including tracking IPs to locations, etc. Given this, plus additional IP information that's come up since the first case, I'm now marking this as -  A l is o n  ❤ 00:25, 18 January 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.''