Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RogerMooreArm

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

RogerMooreArm
has striking resemblance to User:RogerMooreArm (blocked for 3rr vilation) and User:Lifer00


 * (blocked for 3rr vilation)


 * (already blocked indefinately for being a sockpuppet of RogerMooreArm)
 * (needs check)

As per evidence at: Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive20, has striking resemblance to User:RogerMooreArm and User:Lifer00 (blokced indefinately for being a User:RogerMooreArm sockpuppet, confirmed via checkuser)).
 * 14:33, 26 June 2006 - edit by User:RogerMooreArm
 * 00:30, 08 July 2006 - edit by User:Houlihan1
 * 16:43, 08 July 2006 - edit by User:Houlihan1

-- Cat out 12:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Deferred to Dmcdevit, who ran the initial check. I'd suggest contacting him directly, as he's not been active on RfCU. Essjay  ( Talk )  12:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I contacted him directly via talk page now. Wouldn't it be easier if a checkuser was just preformed as from what I recall lasy one was "a fairly obvious case" (in the words of the person orriginaly preforming the check, Dmcdevit)? -- Cat out 07:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because "fairly obvious" does not provide me with record. Dmcdevit will have the records of the check he ran, and will be able to compare to them. Essjay   ( Talk )  10:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. This checks out ✅ and I have blocked both accounts and the IP for a time, as it is static and he is the only one to have ever used it. Dmcdevit·t 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * User:70.235.121.129 is also editing in a similar manner. Perhaps that should also be checked. -- Cat out 22:48, 20 July 2006 (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.''