Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Essjay

Essjay

• Essjay (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Robbie31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: D (Essjay's request for bureaucratship)

Cue the backlash against me, but someone has to do it. The recent Essjay debacle has sparked concerns that Robbie31 (talk · contribs) was just a continuation of Essjay's wiki-identity, and as a result is not really another person but Essjay himself. This might not be important were it not for the fact that Robbie31 !voted in Essjay's request for bureaucratship. Instead of having editors endlessly speculate whether the two usernames belong to the same person, we should just find out for sure (and yes this does fall under Code D; the result of this probably would have affected the result of the RfB even if not going by numbers). -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems kind of an irrelevant request to me. The claim is to be in a relationship, if that's the case then there is a good chance they'll edit from the same IP. i.e. I can't see how this would prove or disprove anything. (Not of course as you mention this is just speculation i.e. a fishing trip) --pgk 00:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • pgk beat me to it. This RFCU is a little pointless, since Robbie31 (talk · contribs) will be editing from the same IP(s) as Essjay (talk · contribs) regardless of whether they're the same person or two people living together. – Steel 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah yeah, that's a good point. Even just visiting each other might result in a positive result. I won't list this then (the reason I had not done that the first time around was that I got so tired, I fell asleep). -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]