Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarah777

{{rfcu box|case=Sarah777|filed=00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}}

• {{checkuser|Sarah777}}
• {{checkip|123.242.230.157}}
• {{checkip|64.15.158.59}}

• Code letter: G

• Supporting evidence: {{checkuser|Sarah777}} was indef. blocked as a result of mass disruption and incivility, discussed at WP:ANI#619 in Ireland and WP:ANI#Can someone block Sarah777?. An indef. block was issued at 20:24 on 26 May 2008. At 21:12, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarah777&diff=215164722&oldid=215160137 this] comment from 64.15.158.59, signed as Sarah777, was placed on her talk page. Another [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarah777&diff=215168157&oldid=215167297 comment] at 21:33 was issued by 123.242.230.157, obviously Sarah777. seicer | talk | contribs 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Since the only recent edits from either IP are to Sarah's own talkpage, surely even if they are her nothing's being violated here? — iridescent 01:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I’m inclined to give her a pass on those edits as she claims that she didn’t know that she could edit her own talkpage while blocked. —Travis^talk 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarah777&diff=215169636&oldid=215168374] suggests that Sarah will be editing more than her talk page in future. This is probably moot until that point though. Kevin (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Addenum: The point is to find additional IP addresses, given the use of a possible TOR. Seeing [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sarah777&diff=prev&oldid=215175761 this]... seicer | talk | contribs 01:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

::::*Possible tor? Both addresses show as "not tor" on both the WP tool and two other tools that I have. Please. Risker (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

:::::* Good, then consider it closed. The petty escalation here is simply unwarranted. seicer | talk | contribs 01:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. What a waste of time. Please just close this, since it merely distracts from the real issue here. Rockpocket 01:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I concur; IP has made no attempt to hide their identity and other than posting on the users page, has done nothing. We already know this is Sara777; checkuser would serve no purpose. HalfShadow 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In agreement, Sarah has acknowledged her IPs & explained her reason for using them. She originally thought she was blocked from her User Page. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think it was reasonable for Seicer to post this, given that it is quite commonly done by such users, but as User:Alison has stated on the AN/I page that Sarah was not engaging in anything like mass sockpuppetry, any concerns about it from me are alleviated. I was/am concerned about another account, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MilkFloat MilkFloat] (who made a few contributions to this drama), but I'm certain it isn't Sarah. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim&diff=215186753&oldid=215117486] seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

:{{declined}} as being unnecessary here, given that Sarah is now already indefblocked and has made a statement about the IPs. And no, MilkFloat is not Sarah777 - Alison ^❤ 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)