Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Reasonablelogicalman

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/Reasonablelogicalman}}
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.

Reasonablelogicalman

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasonablelogicalman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
165.166.193.82 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Code letter: G.

Prostatitis is being edit warred over by 2 editors each accusing the other over the use of external links supposedly owned or managed by the other.

User:Skoppensboer is heading for a block under WP:NPA (for these) and possibly a warning over WP:COI if the allegation that he is indeed the owner of the external link he is trying to protect is true.

However, to be fair, I agree that edits 31 Oct & 2 Aug by User:165.166.193.82 with the further removal of the external link, looks like sockpuppetry by User:Reasonablelogicalman to further an edit war and thus hide from possible accusation/action under revert-warring and WP:3RR (there aren't 3 reverts in 24hrs, but I would threaten to block if further revert-warring continues as this is proving disruptive).

I seek checkuser to help clarify situation if Reasonablelogicalman is using sockpuppets to further an edit war. If so then i'll apply a short block for this disruption (given also that accused of WP:MEAT off-site), and I need to ensure I can fairly take firm action, if required, against either of these 2 editors (I have a horrible feeling one or other of them is going to RfArb if we can't put a firm break on the dispute). Thanks David Ruben ^Talk 03:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. This seems like a clear case to me. The IP is clearly the same user as the account in question, on behaviour alone. --Deskana (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2007 (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.