Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Paul.h

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

Paul.h



 * G
 * G

I am noticing inthe Ronald Reagan article edits by one and then the other which seem to share a number of similarities in writing style, partisan bent and editing/reverting behavior. The problem isn't huge, but could escalate over time. I've never done one of these before, and I could honestly be wrong, but the similarities of the editing styles and behavior between the two is extraordinary. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  16:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You've given a G ... are these edits problematic in some way? Are any of these IDs blocked and the alleged sockery is block evasion? Merely being a sock is not prohibited per se, it's using socks for disruptive purposes that is prohibited. Please give us a reason to carry out the check, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, its my first time submitting a checkuser. the edits occur in the same article, tend to defend and support each other, and have extremely similar writing styles. I don't know enough users to know who the block-dodgers are, but both of the usernames hold steady at not breaking 3RR (though they support each other in those instances where revert limit is reached by one or the other). Their methods of constructing an argument are unusual enough that a pattern of verb use and the like seem similar. That the edits support each other within the same article seem problematic, wherein one is disruptive (bad cop) and the other tries to play the peacemaker (good cop); the pattern seems too smooth, somehow. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ❌ ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for checking,a nd I am glad they aren't the same. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  05:03, 19 September 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.''