Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ramu50}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Ramu50[edit]

  • Supporting evidence: I believe that indefinitely-blocked user Ramu50 (block log) is edit-warring again, among other places at cloud computing, as 70.79.65.227. The topics are the same, the general style of not-correct English is the same, specific unusual word usage (e.g. "I am putting that back on") (see diffs here and here ) is very similar, specific points being warred over are identical - Ramu50 made a change, it was reverted, the IP restores Ramu50's change (see diffs here, here, and here). Moreover, the list of contributions from that IP clearly shows a close relationship with Ramu50 starting from his earliest time on WP: See this and subsequent diffs where this IP is obviously doing Ramu50's work, Ramu50 simply forgot to log in. But recently this IP has been active during each of Ramu50's recent blocks, including the current indefinite block. Jeh (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Ramu50 has been indefinitely blocked so this would be him avoiding his block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, per WP:DUCK, I have given the IP address a short block for avoiding his block. I'm watching his talk page. If he at least acknowledges he is avoiding his block and sincerely wants to return, I'll go ahead and lift the protection at his logged in page so he can do that. This is a moot point but if a checkuser could tell us whether this is rotating or a semi-fixed one, that would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Completed, though I would prefer not to publicly disclose Ramu50's IP address(es) without a very compelling reason, per our privacy policy. I will say that there's no apparent risk of collateral damage, if the block on 70.79.65.227 needs to be extended. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.


source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ramu50