Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/68.54.56.198

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

68.54.56.198

 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F
 * Code letter: F

Okay, I've got pretty strong evidence here. Both sockpuppets act like the owner of a link in question (which we know is true with the sockpuppeteer; they go by the handle of Advocate diff and have an e-mail address at the link in question diff), and they use the EXACT SAME argument when it comes to keeping the link. As this one has to be concise, a detailed argument is at Suspected sock puppets/68.54.56.198.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 12:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that there are meatpuppets floating around at First-person shooter; whether these are or not remains to be seen.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, both 68.54.56.198 (on Talk:First-person shooter) and HavenBastion on (User talk:HavenBastion) claim to own the website in question (i.e. they both call it "my site"). I think that's pretty solid evidence, especially since neither has bothered to read WP:EL and WP:COI; they both use the same argument that their website is a good resource.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * case listed, but if I may, if you're convinced by editing patterns that the IP and the user are the same person already, what are you expecting from this RFCU? -- lucasbfr talk 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in case they decide to take up the "it wasn't me!" defence, a successful RFCU will trump them and remove any uncertainty and doubt. They've got a history of being ignorant and dishonest, so they'll likely dispute the results of a SSP case alone.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 16:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

. CheckUser unnecessary; user is blocked already. Dmcdevit·t 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC) ''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.''