Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJASE1

[edit] RJASE1

• RJASE1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• TortureIsBad (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• TortureIsDoubleplusungood (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• EVisWrong (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• PunchingGrandmothers,RapingNunsANDLitteringAreAllWRONG (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• FondlingChildren,Torture,ANDKickingPuppiesAreAllWRONG (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• I Dont Like Child Molesters (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• JEE-ZUS CHRIST, DO I HATE CHILD MOLESTERS! (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• I DETEST CHILD MOLESTERS (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Code letter: G

Admin Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has already had a checkuser done on TortureIsBad by user:Dmcdevit (see here) that showed TortureIsBad=RJASE1 [1]. Now TortureIsDoubleplusungood (talk · contribs) has shown up. Note the last two incidents of vandalism to User:Ryan Postlethwaite were by TortureIsBad and TortureIsDoubleplusungood [2]. RJASE1 is blocked for 72h [3] and the other accounts are indef blocked [4] [5]. 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? Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: Partly already done, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TortureIsWrong, TortureIsBad = RJASE1, and all accounts are blocked, all indef except RJASE1, who is set to expire on the 11th. --ST47Talk 17:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk, your job is not ever to make or suggest such determinations. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, however the first section stands. --ST47Talk 17:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note EVisWrong (talk · contribs) 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 TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs). GDonato (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• These Later accounts may be stale, as they were from March 31-April 1 or so. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• I stumbled across EVisWrong (talk · contribs) 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 // ☯ // 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. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• Thanks! And I'm rather glad that they aren't related. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RJASE1

• RJASE1 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Winkers6767 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Dodgers7878 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 69.245.51.13 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 129.59.152.128 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 129.59.150.103 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 129.59.150.135 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 129.59.150.138 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 129.59.181.50 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• Code letter: A

A sockpuppet, Winkers6767, which RJASE1 was reporting here: Wikipedia: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)

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