Homerjay90

Homerjay90 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date January 1 2010, 16:54 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Wheelock7002t (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 71.33.56.252 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Evidence submitted by ttonyb (talk)

User has used account to reverse edits by puppeteer and has used account to vandalize talk pages. ttonyb (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Sachgrg

Sachgrg (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date January 1 2010, 11:23 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• David Gupta (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Kcirb (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Victor Skype (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Mike Abhinav (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• JonesSteve (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Biker Biker

All these users were newly registered in a short time - some time after the original account was registered today - and all added the same spam links to daffodilsw.com. I have reported this domain to the spam blacklist Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#daffodilsw.com_-_multiple_accounts_being_created_to_add_link.

• daffodilsw.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Bread Ninja

Bread Ninja (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 31 2009, 13:28 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• 174.18.107.71 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Folken de Fanel

User Bread Ninja made a proposition in an article talk page. After weeks of debate, the proposition was rejected by consensus. For about a month, no one replied to the debate until a few days ago, when an anonymous IP (Special:Contributions/174.18.107.71) popped out from nowhere and supported Bread Ninja's proposition.

The problem is, Bread Ninja use sometimes a very awkward grammar, and has equally awkward choices of words. The anonymous IP appears to have the same awkward writing style.

Here's an example of Bread Ninja's style: "Explaining what specific areas where people have made there own interpretation is trivial" [1](emphasis is mine)

Now, a sentence from 174.18.107.71: "Also what would be the point of simply listing areas where people have made there own interpretation?" [2]

Bread Ninja uses the word "area" everywhere, and is the only person I've seen using this word in such a way. Now the new IP, who appears to back up Bread Ninja ("instead like what bread ninja said, we should [...]" [3]), talks exactly like her, and I find it highly suspicious.

That's why I'm requesting a checkuser, to be sure that Bread Ninja isn't trying to game the system by pretending to be someone else to fake a consensus.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Inconclusive whether the IP and the user are the same. Block on behavior is the best I can say. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigogag

Gigogag (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 22:10 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Terranovia360 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ipownfroobs (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Bdfjhkgj (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Abadaba123456789 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Eagles247

All three of these users have almost identical Userpage formats, a section for favorite music and a section for "friends" on Wikipedia, in which they all list each other. User:Gigogag has previously created pages called Harvest Hog and The Harvest Hog, both of which are now redirects to List of Dave the Barbarian characters#Knuckles the Silly Piggy. I made one of those articles a redirect, which led to User:Gigogag call me a "noob" (here). I went to Gigogag's talkpage and told him that personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia, and he quickly apologized and changed his page (here). Today, I saw User:Bdfjhkgj edit User:Gigogag's userpage by listing more friends (here). I quickly went over to User:Bdfjhkgj's userpage to see who he was, and I noticed he listed me as one of his "friends" on Wikipedia. I went over to his contributions and found out that I have never encountered him nor talked to him before (here). User:Terranovia360 seems to know a great deal about User:Gigogag, and has two sections of his userpage dedicated to Gigogag and his redirect articles. They all appear to go to the same school, PACE-Brantley Hall School. I asked User:Bdfjhkgj why I am listed as one of his friends, and he merely changed his userpage to show that I am not one of his friends (here, and replied that it is fixed (here). I have asked him how it got there in the first place (here), and he responded that I helped his friend Gigogag by giving him advice on an article (here), which I did not. Gigogag and Bdfjhkgj both have responded to their talk pages by starting a new section and replying there. This could easily be a case of a group of friends creating accounts and just copying each other's userpage format, but when User:Bdfjhkgj edited User:Gigogag's list of friends, it appears to be the same user on all three accounts. They all also seem to know about sockpuppets, since they all claim that they know it is wrong and will never do it.

UPDATE: User:Terranovia360 has also edited User:Ipownfroobs' userpage for him (here). This diff is also very curious.

User:Gigogag and User:Bdfjhkgj both "talk" to their new pages, as seen here and here

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Killercali

Killercali (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 28 2009, 09:14 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Archer Drezelan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 75.85.119.218 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Livewire legend (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by MuffledThud (talk)

Account created August 08, all but one edits were on Jim Markunas, editor of "Chicks with Guns Magazine" up to May 09. Note article created with unusual edit summary "Added notability, added sources".

User:Archer Drezelan created October 09, immediately began creating links and articles on Lucas Hardeman, related artists, and template to link them together. Note intro of Lucas Hardeman: employee of "Chicks with Guns". Note also edit history of Lucas Hardeman, where edits are made by User:Archer Drezelan with edit summary "added notability" at [4], [5]. On 28 Dec. 09, User:Killercali awakens from 7-month hibernation to remove AFD notice and refimprove tag from Lucas Hardeman in these two adjacent edits. MuffledThud (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:75.85.119.218 has made only one edit: blanking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hardeman in this edit, two minutes before User:Killercali removed the AFD from Lucas Hardeman.

User:Livewire legend's first edit in March 06 was to add Lucas Hardeman to the notable alumni of a college in this edit. User:Archer Drezelan re-attempts this in Nov 09 at [6], [7] and [8] in the space of a few minutes. User:Livewire legend has subsequently been the sole co-editor with User:Archer Drezelan of Template:R.E.B.E.L., The Dance: The History of American Minstrelsy, Jason Christopher White and Aaron White. This behavior was already noted by another editor at User talk:Livewire legend#Speedy deletion nomination of R.E.B.E.L.. User:Livewire legend has also uploaded photos of Lucas Hardeman File:LH in Studio.jpg, File:Lucas Hardeman Rosa Parks.jpg, claiming self-creation by Lucas Hardeman in the summary. File:Lucas hardeman pinches tacos.jpg is credited to "Markus Eliance", which is noted as an alias of Lucas Hardeman in Lucas Hardeman.

Comment A day after User:Killercali removed the AFD notice and refimprove tag from Lucas Hardeman, User:75.85.119.218 did the same in this edit. MuffledThud (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

As was stated in the deletion page for Lucas Hardeman, myself and Archer Drezelan share an IP address, and have been making edits to a number of pages to, what I now know to be a "Walled Garden". After reviewing the rules of Wikipedia, we both have condeded to move the remaining pages we've edited to our sandbox, until the original subjects are notable under Wikipedia guidelines.

However, we do not have any connection to User:Killercali. Whomever made those edits would not be from our same network, as I personally am not familiar with any other editors for the particular pages you've submitted as evidence. Livewire legend (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: Same thing for User:75.85.119.218 -- No idea who that is. I didn't even know you could edit Wikipedia without a real username. Unless the admins just removed the name or something. But yeah, I don't know who killercali or that othr user are. It's just me an Livewire legend who were editing those other pages. Archer Drezelan (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ALSO Re: the picture files, we had access to those pictures from the subject of the page. Which is also why we said in the deletion page for Lucas Hardeman that we did in fact make an AUTOBIO of sorts; meaning specifically that we know the subject, but he did not write it himself. We had access to his personal history just the same.

Again, we've gone through the guidelines and understand what we did was against policy. We will make sure not repeat our error in the future. Archer Drezelan (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You're saying here that you're not Lucas Hardeman: "we know the subject, but he did not write it himself. We had access to his personal history just the same."

Yet as noted above, you've uploaded images claiming that "I, Lucas Hardeman" (or in some cases "I, Archer Drezelan") is the creator and copyright holder, and grants permission to publish it under CCA license, etc. So which is correct: are you the creator of the photos or not? If you're not both Lucas Hardeman, or his relatives old enough to have taken the photos yourself/yourselves, then you've both falsely claimed to be creators of these images, and they should be deleted immediately. MuffledThud (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: We gave the subject credit for creating the photos because the photos belong to him, and we used them for the page. Obviously these pictures were not in public domain, with the exception of the Newsweek article (which we should have included) and the infobox. So technically, yes, we did make a false claim in being the creators, because we have no way of knowing who physically took the picture. Livewire legend and I are not his relatives, but we do have a relationship with the subject that would constitute a COI under Wikipedia's guidelines.

As well, when originally uploading them, it was done without carefully going over the categories on Copyright and proper submission. As is policy, if the pictures are to be deleted, so be it. Archer Drezelan (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Response: Shouldn't we keep this argument about sockpuppetry? The issue of the images lacking proper citing is not wholly relevant to this particular case. Just like I said on the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucas_Hardeman#Lucas_Hardeman, the killercali dude is screwing up our peace negotiation. :) We just want this resolved, and to keep our accounts. I personally don't care if the subjects page gets deleted, because there are plenty of other subjects I'm interested in contributing to. But, like Archer said, do what you must, MuffledThud. It's your world, and I'm just a ferret.Livewire legend (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

--By the way, thank for your vote on AFG, User:MuZemike.Livewire legend (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I am leaning towards AGFing here that these are two separate people sharing one common IP, that IP not being the one who blanked the deletion discussion. –MuZemike 22:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Mandanmishra

Mandanmishra (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 16:48 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mdabral (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by WuhWuzDat

After Mandanmishra received final warning about speedy deletion notice removal on Dinman, new user Mdabral was created, and as their first edit, created a duplicate article at Dinaman WuhWuzDat 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

Before2012

Before2012 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 13:14 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Lanolamua (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Naloenal (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Gothic4ben (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Cargoking

I noticed the three above editors on WP:ITN/C, when commenting here. My initial suspicion arose when two users (Before2012 and Naloenal) I have never seen before appeared on the page and had no created user talk pages. I then looked at their contributions to see they both had contributions to P:CE and ITN/C. Also, they both supported, within 3 minutes of each other, the same nomination. I then accidentally came across the nominator of the topic. Most of Lanolamua's contributions are at ITN/C.

This evidence alone is probably investigation worthy, but then I noticed one other trend. On the exact minute that they contributed to a page that involves a signature, Lanolamua and Naloena created their userpages with either 'hi' or 'To start a page called User:Naloenal, type in the box below', not the usual content of a userpage. Before2012 did something very similar, but after 17 minutes.  Cargoking  talk  13:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gothic4ben, another new, ITN/C only contributor with a similar userpage. Left a message at Lanolamua's talk page.  Cargoking  talk  12:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

WalterMitty

WalterMitty (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty/Archive.

[edit] Report date December 25 2009, 04:44 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Betty Logan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Melody Perkins (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence

The following report was rejected by a checkuser in August 2009, because the editing data for WalterMitty and Melody Perkins was stale, but the report does not seem to have been relisted for consideration on behavioral evidence alone:

Evidence submitted by TheRetroGuy

User:Betty Logan appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked user Melody Perkins, itself a sockpuppet of User:WalterMitty, both of whom were indef blocked for block evasion. Not only do Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common,[9] [10] but Betty Logan has embroiled herself in the Jenny Agutter nudity debate, seeking a similar outcome (see these two discussions for a comparison [11] [12]). Betty Logan registered on 7 November 2008 [13] and began editing within a few days [14], a couple of weeks after Melody/Walter's block. The Betty Logan account was registered shortly after activity from these suspected socks ceased. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Melody Perkins was blocked on 20 October 2008 [23] as a block evading sockpuppet of WalterMitty, itself blocked for 6 months in May 2008. [24] WalterMitty's block was reset, then changed to an indef block after the user later went on to engage in harassment (see suspected socks above, links 7 to 14). Betty Logan and Melody Perkins have several articles in common with each other. Some examples include:

• Maximum break, Betty Logan, 62 edits, Melody Perkins, 10 edits [25]
• List of most expensive films, Betty Logan, 80 edits, Melody Perkins, 21 edits [26]
• Bikini waxing, Betty Logan, 10 edits, Melody Perkins, 9 edits [27]
• Steve Davis, Betty Logan, 21 edits, Melody Perkins, 8 edits [28]

There are others, but these appear to be the most significant. I know we all have articles in common, but the diversity of these subjects lead me to believe it is possible that Betty Logan and Melody Perkins are one and the same person. Please see also this checkuser report for further details. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
:Also see this comment from Betty Logan regarding the addition of this video to the article by Melody Perkins, which was subsequently deleted. I find it strange that Betty can recall a video which was included in the article for less than an hour over a year ago and can give directions to it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update by User:Beyond My Ken

The commonality between the edits of these three accounts remains striking:

• Maximum break, Betty Logan, 67 edits; Melody Perkins, 10 edits; WalterMitty, 1 edit[29]
• List of most expensive films, Betty Logan, 216 edits; Melody Perkins, 21 edits [30]
• Bikini waxing, Betty Logan, 14 edits; Melody Perkins, 9 edits [31]
• Steve Davis, Betty Logan, 22 edits; Melody Perkins, 8 edits; WalterMitty, 7 edits[32]
• Jenny Agutter, Betty Logan, 11 edits; Melody Perkins, 13 edits; WalterMitty, 6 edits [33]
• Stephen Hendry, Betty Logan, 32 edits; WalterMitty, 22 edits [34]
• Alex Higgins, Betty Logan, 32 edits; WalterMitty, 3 edits [35]
• Peter Ebdon, Betty Logan, 6 edits; Melody Perkins, 4 edits [36]
• Matthew Stevens, Betty Logan, 14 edits; Melody Perkins, 4 edits; WalterMitty, 1 edit [37]
• Audrey Tautou, Betty Logan, 28 edits; Melody Perkins, 2 edits; WalterMitty, 2 edits [38]
• Don't Look Now, Betty Logan, 26 edits; Melody Perkins, 1 edit; WalterMitty, 9 edits [39]
• Paul Hunter, Betty Logan, 4 edits; WalterMitty, 12 edits [40]
• World Matchplay (snooker), Betty Logan, 1 edit; WalterMitty, 8 edits [41]
• List of world snooker champions, Betty Logan, 6 edits; WalterMitty, 7 edits [42]

Since both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins are blocked, if Betty Logan is, as it appears, a sock of the WalterMitty editor, all of Betty Logan's edits are in furtherance of avoiding a block. Note that the Betty Logan account was created on 7 November 2008, just 17 days after both WalterMitty and Melody Perkins were blocked on 20 Octobert 2008. [43][44] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This evidence shows that at least 479 edits were made by Betty Logan to 14 articles where Melody Perkins had previously made 72 edits and WalterMitty had made 76 edits, before they were indef blocked for abusive use of mltiple accounts.

Of course, the 14 articles listed above are not Betty Logan's only overlap with the two blocked accounts, WalterMitty and Melody Perkins. Betty Logan and WalterMitty have 26 articles in common, and with Melody Perkins (who was editing at the same time as WalterMitty), Betty Logan's overlap is 16 articles.

Below, Betty Logan suggests that the overlap between his or her edits and those of WalterMitty and Melody Perkins is a coincidence, and suggests that comparison between her edits and those of User:Armbrust will show a similar coincidence. Indeed, Betty Logan and Armbrust do indeed have a significant overlap, with 153 pages in common, but there is also a significant difference between this overlap between two snooker-oriented editors and the overlap between Betty Logan and the two blocked accounts: as far as I can determine, all of the articles involved in the Betty Logan/Armbrust overlap are snooker-related. In the case of WalterMitty/Melody Perkins/Betty Logan, it's the common interest in non-snooker related articles – Bikini waxing, Jenny Agutter (an Australian actress), Audrey Tautou (a French actress), Don't Look Now (an Italian horror film) and List of most expensive films – which is most telling. It's highly unlikely that three randomly selected snooker enthusiasts would have these very specific non-snooker interests in common.

The evidence presented here is compelling because of the totality of the pattern of editing, not just because of the common interest in snooker. This is not, as Betty Logan describes it "circumstantial evidence at best", such patterns are the essence of a behavioral case for sockpuppetry, in this instance to avoid two blocks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Responses to comments

Contrary to Betty Logan's contention below, that their editing behavior on Avatar (2009 film) was "exemplary", as a result of a conflict with User:Erik and User:Wildhartlivie, Betty Logan filed a complaint on AN/I, and joined in to expand what appears to be a frivolous and scattershot SPI complaint against Wildhartlivie and other editors who disagreed with her. These actions appear on their face to be retaliatory, and, if so, are not the behavior of an editor dedicated to consensus as Betty Logan wishes to protray her- or himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Compare Betty Logan's scattershot counter-accusations below to his or her behavior here, with the intent to muddy the waters and to use every possible means of deflecting yet another block. It would have been nice if Betty Logan had provided even one diff to support her allegation, but in any event, I state categorically that I am not User:Ethelh, who I am not familiar with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

After some investigation, I see that User:Ethelh was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Epeefleche. According to this and this, my account has no overlap whatsoever with Ethelh, and a trivial 3 overlaps with Epeefleche, 2 of them user talk pages. It doesn't seem on the face of it likely that I am them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone would ask Betty Logan to stop refactoring my edits. My understanding is as the person who brought this case, my remarks should go here, not in the "comment by other users" section. Betty Logan has moved them to that section a number of times now, and I don't wish to violate 3RR by continuing to move them back to where I believe they belong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, the investigating admin should take a look at this, where Betty Logan made the same unsupported accusations as he or she does below. The "common editing history" that is supposed to exist between Epeefleche and myself consists of a single edit I made on Erik's talk page to inform him, as an uninvolved editor, of the complaint that Betty Logan had posted on ANI. Erik is the lead coordinator of WikiProject Film, and therefore is known to many people who edit film articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, while for the convenience of the investigating admin I have commented above on Betty Logan's unsupported allegation concerning me, I am under no obligation to defend myself, as I am not the subject of this investigation, Betty Logan is. Rather than throwing around charges left and right, apparently with the intent of muddying the waters and deflecting attention from the evidence presented above, he or she would be better advised to provide any information they feel would mitigate against that evidence, as they did in their initial comment. That evidence shows that at least 479 edits made by Betty Logan to 14 articles where Melody Perkins had previously made 72 edits and WalterMitty had made 76 edits, before they were indef blocked for abusive use of mltiple accounts. If Betty Logan has nothing more to say on that subject, they should perhaps withdraw from the discussion and allow the process to continue without the further disruption of unfounded and unsupported accusations against others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The evidence shows that Betty Logan is a sockpuppet of WalterMitty and Melody Perkins, and since these accounts are blocked there is no need to show "disruption" by the editor, since all of his or her edits are in futherance of avoiding those blocks. (FWIW, I have no knowledge of the quality of Betty Logan's editing, as the case presented here is not in any way concerned with it.) If, as Betty Logan appears to be arguing below, this editor has had a change of heart and is now only interested in editing productively, perhaps his or her best course of action is to admit to their sockpuppetry and ask, on the basis of their newly adjusted behavior, for a second chance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully decline Betty Logan's offer, made below, to "mentor" me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to clerk comment below

I am not aware of any specific disruption attached to Betty Logan's editing per se, aside from the ANI filing and his or her apparently retaliatory behavior on the other sockpuppet report linked above; however, it was my understanding that editing through a block was, by definition, disruptive, or I would never have filed this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here. If behavioral evidence tends to indicate that Betty Logan=WalterMitty and other accounts, that in itself is editing around a block and is disruptive in and of itself. Her conduct in regard to speciously expanding the sock puppet accusations to include anyone who responded was disruptive and non-warranted and her report to WP:AN/I has been boldly misrepresented here. If it quacks like a duck... Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I would strongly urge Betty Logan to stop moving this comment around the case page. This is a valid endorsement of the comment posted to the clerk comments and is thusly properly posted. Do not move my comments around. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

This has only just come to my attention through an investigation into another user, and I am perplexed I was not notified about this. If a checkuser is run on me it there will be no IP match since mine is static. In addition to that the cross-editing looks considerable but you have to take into account the area where most of this cross-editing takes place. I often edit the snooker articles and I often encountered edits by Melody Perkins. She seemed to be a good editor for the most part, but there aren't many snooker articles so two people who share an interest will often cross edit. The only other article we cross-edited was the bikini waxing article. The claim that the video was only on there for an hour is a lie, it was present for weeks if not months, so it was hard to miss if you were a regular vistor to the article, and it is one of the firt videos up if you google "bikini wax". The only reason I became involved in that article was because my boyfriend refused to perform oral sex on me unless I had a bikini wax. I tried shaving but it leaves stubble, so I came across that article while I was researching bikini waxing. I don't feel too comfortable revealing aspects of my sex life here on Wikipedia, but if it helps to clear this up then I will oblige.

When Melody Perkins stopped posting on the snooker articles I looked her up to see she was banned for being a sock. She had always been effective editor on the snooker articles, but since she admitted to being a sock I guess she left the admins with no choice. I bookmarked 3/4 of the articles outside of the snooker which she regularly edited and had been targetted for vandalism because I was worried there would be no-one around to protect them. I realise it looks like a pattern of cross-editing, but when you take the snooker out of the equation where the articles are not independent that only amounts to a handful of articles. I am sure there are plenty of articles in other areas which we have edited independently.

If I am going to go under 'behavioral analysis' I hope this take into account our MO on the articles we have in common, rather than just a judgment based on a small amount of circumstantial evidence. If you take the Jenny Agutter article for instance where it is suggested I argued for the same outcome as MelodyPerkins, this simply isn't true. Melody Perkins argued for a list of the nude scenes to be included. I argued for the mention of the scenes to be incorporated into the text and for their notability to be established through reliable sources. That resulted in the nude scenes only being mentioned in relation to Jenny Agutter's own comments about them. I resisted their total removal because I felt that would be censorship, but I also recognised that their inclusion had to be consistent with Wikipedia policy.

Another article Melody Perkins and I have in common beyond the snooker project is the List of most expensive films. I'm not sure what Melody did there apart from remove erroneously charted films, but I have personally proceeded to work through that article and source every entry. If you compare the article to how it was at the start of the year to how it is now you will notice it is a very well sourced article as opposed to being completely unsourced. In the next few days I will have it completely sourced.

Another article for you take a look at is the List of snooker player nicknames. At the start of the year completely unsourced with false entries, and now I have completely sourced it.

Similarly with List of vegetarians and Pescetarianism - both completely unsourced this time last year and now completely sourced! The Vegetarian list was some undertaking.

My main focus in these articles has to been provide complete verifiable and reliable sourcing for the claims within. I think you will find these articles inparticular are in a much better state due to my involvement. Although I've only looked through several of Melody's edits, it seemed she had no interest in sourcing. Our behavior on the common articles is completely different, and I doubt you will find any articles where the point of my edits have been to perpetuate her edits. Our functions and our MO on the common articles are different to such an extent that we look like separate editors - because we are!

Even if I haven't quite convinced you here then at least look at the articles I have highlighted and ask if I have ever vandalised an article as Betty Logan, and consider the improvements these articles have undergone with my involvement. It is very obvious that the bulk of my editing is in sourcing articles, so the question is am I good for Wikipedia or not? I have never been blocked, and while I have been involved in the odd dispute they have always been resolved usually through my own edits by reasoning with the other editor. With the American-British debate on Avatar (2009 film) I deferred to consensus and no edit-warring took place apart from the odd revert in establishing the ground. I would very much like to be able to stay on Wikipedia and continue with my main function of adding sources to poorly sourced articles. Even if you ultimately decide to suspend my account I would appreciate it if you could give me 48 hours notice so I can wrap up the sourcing on List of most expensive films since it is almost complete, although I would very much prefer to stay.

Obviously I can't prove I am not Melody Perkins, so I hope my record as a good editor will at leats earn me the benefit of the doubt. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look in to that complaint (re Beyond My Ken below in respect to the Avatar/ANI) you will see that that my conduct on "Avatar" was exemplary. There was a disagreement between myself and User:Erik, which was ultimately resolved (see talk page). There was a small dispute between Erik and myself in how the dispute was listed after he removed some of my comments in respons eto his on anothe rtalk page which I restored but that was resolved once he reworded his own comments. User:Wildhartlivie left extremely unpleasant comments on my talk page which I complained about at ANI. An administrator pointed out in that dispute that Erik 'canvassed' and Wildhartlivie should not have left the comments he did. The upshot was I did not edit-war as Wilhartlivie accused me of doing so I was justfified in filing a complaint about it.Betty Logan (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have suspicions that User: Beyond My Ken is a sock of User:Epeefleche who has made similar allegations in the past. I was involved in a dispute with User:Erik at Avatar (2009 film). The dispute was eventually resolved amicably, but User:Wildhartlivie left some unpleasant messages on my User talk page: [45]. I felt they were completely unwarranted so reported them at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice. The admin agreed that Wildhartlivie was out of order: [46]. Editor User:Beyond My Ken who had been on Wikipedia less than a month who is very informed about Wikipedia protocol and is already instigating sock investigations launches a sock investigation into me. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history on the talk page of User:Erik (the aforementioned editor above) with User:Epeefleche:[47] User:Epeefleche was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh: [48]. User:Ethelh conducted a campaign of harrassment against me after I removed an unsourced contribution. She accused me of creating socks (seeing a pattern?) and waging a campaign of harrassment against her: User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. This came to nothing in the end because User:Ethelh was blocked for being a sock. I find it very suspicious that User:Beyond My Ken and User:Epeefleche have a common editing history on the talk page of a user I was in a dispute with, and now here is an editor with less than a month's experience on Wikipedia already filing sock invetsigations. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the refactoring comment above, I moved the comments to the section below because User:Beyond My Ken's defence that he is not a sock are hardly evidence in the case against me. The above section is for evidence, not for his own personal comments about who he is or isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to these 14 common articles ken cites above, you can run my name against any number of editors and you will get a similar match level. Yes, we have a lot of common edits, but I also have a lot of common edits with User:Armbrust. If User:Beyond My Ken can't provide anything beyond circumstantial evidence I don't really see that there is a case to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I see that I made a mistake when I said the video had been up for less than an hour. It was added to the article on 23 July 2008 [49] and removed and deleted on 21 August 2008 [50]. On 23 July it was moved rather than deleted. I guess the longer timeframe makes it possible that she would have seen and remembered it. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your main beef with me seems to be in regards to the Jenny Agutter article. Do you not think the article reads a lot better now the material is integrated into the text and sourced through Jenny Agutter's own comments? Instead of reeling off a list of nude scenes, we now have a textual commentary by Jenny Agutter from an interview with a respected journalist about their impact on audiences. Would you not say my edits were constructive and positive? Do you think I adopted the same uncompromising approach as Melody Perkins? Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

When you proposed adding the information to the Jenny Agutter article I was concerned about how it was going to play out, mainly because of the trouble I had during my previous involvement in that particular debate. But I have to agree that it does read better. I can't really comment on any of the other stuff, but if you have been making constructive edits and you're not WalterMitty/Melody Perkins I guess there shouldn't be a problem. TheRetroGuy (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So I think these are the main points:

• I have lots of snooker edits in common with Melody Perkins and I liked her as an editor. I also knew her from the Bikini Waxing article too.
• After she was banned for admitting she was a sock, I took on some of her articles beyond the snooker project that were regularly targetted for vandalism because I worried about them. This just amounts to circumstantial evidence at best, the question is has melody used a secondary account to perpetuate her edits?
• The most controversial one, the Jenny Agutter article, the opposing editor agreed that that by integrating some of the material and sourcing it I have improved it. A completely different MO to Melody Perkins.
• Another article we have in common was List of most expensive films. Melody just removed the odd erroneous entry, I have systematically worked through the list sourcing every film. This is also the case with List of snooker player nicknames.
• With the Audrey Tautou article there was a debate over the birth date. Melody Perkins favoured the earlier once. Many times I have restored the later date to the article following its removal, primarily because while both dates are sourced neither should be removed.
• With respect to the comments below by User:Wildhartlivie. I was involved in a dispute on the talkpage of another article with User:Erik. We were attempting to resolve an issue, which is the opposite of edit-warring. Erik invited input at WT:FILM which I felt was more than just a notification because it summarised his half of the argument and not mine:[51] I responded to this, he removed my comments so I restored them. Erik then adapted his comments to address my concerns [52], but following this User:Wildhartlivie violate WP:AGF and left rude messages on my talk page:[53]. I tried resolving this with user:Wildhartlivie but he removed my comments: [54]. I felt his comments were inappropriate so I took them to ANI were an administrator found that Erik had canvassed, and that Wildhartlivie should not have left the messages on my talk page: ===>[55] <===. When another editor launched a separate official investigation into the conduct of Wildhartlivie, I dropped a note informing her of the current ongoing one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This really is quite simple. Is it implausible that Melody Perkins and I edited snooker articles and the Bikini waxing articles independently? No. Is it implausible that I took over 3/4 of her articles beyond the scope of the snooker project after she was blocked because I was worried about potential vanadalism whil she was no longer there? No. Neither of these scenarios are implausible. So if your intention is to prove I am sock then you need to present evidence that we edited to the same agenda. If you check the List of most expensive films you will see that mine and Melody's editing styles are completely different and my main objective has been to source all the estimates. If working through an article and sourcing it in its entirety is proof of me being a sock then you have a strange understanding of the term. User:Beyond My Ken keeps talking about editing patterns, but has failed to produce any edits that endeavoured to create any disruption on the articles in question. All my edits on the common articles have been to add sources or revert unsourced additions. I just hope the investigating admin takes a look at those articles and sees the amount of work I've put into them, because I am actually quite proud of how far they've come on. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Beyond My Ken is a beginner on Wikipedia I am willing to offer my services as a mentor to him. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say I've put a strike through the evidence regarding the video since it was there for a month, would have been seen by any number of people in that time and therefore shouldn't be considered in this report. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Retroguy. I will reiterate to User:Beyond My Ken that according to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims "cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only". As yet he has presented no evidence of misuse. An examination of the articles I edit will prove I am a conscientious editor whose priority is making sure that the information is well sourced on the articles I edit. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, Nathan. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect to User:Wildhartlivie's most recent comment, I am sure he would advocate throwing me into the river and burning me at the stake if I didn't drown. For the record I do appreciate the objective consideration of the "evidence" that I seem to be receiving from the clerks. Anyway Happy New Year Wikipedia! Betty Logan (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

I want to respond to the misrepresentations made by Betty Logan regarding her silly complaint to WP:AN/I. I posted to her talk page that the actions by Erik were the same as what any other editor would do and I mentioned that edit warring wasn't acceptable. In fact, she did revert the movement of her post to the WT:FILM page more than one time, which I did mention to her. She responded to me by making veiled threats to take it to WP:AN/I, which she proceeded to do, lamenting at one point that I don't seem to accept that my behavior was at fault. My comments to her at that time were in no way "extremely unpleasant", even when she removed my comments from her page as "vandalism". At least until she threatened to go to WP:AN/I, after which I told her not to post to my talk page. She was taken to task for soliciting the response of another editor, who filed a baseless and unwarranted sock puppet investigation complaint against me, telling her "There is an investigation into [my] conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice if you would you like to bring your probelsm with this editor to the attention of the administrators". Betty Logan trotted over to that sock investigation to add, unwarranted, names of persons with whom she has a beef, claiming they are socks of mine, too. This user has no basic understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies and sees nothing wrong with dropping unfounded accusations against other editors in a manner which serves to stir up problems. The admininstrator at WP:AN/I did not "agree" I was out of order, the adminstrator said that if I dropped edit war notices on her talk page, I would be wrong. I did not leave a warning template for her, so the comments were pointless. I have no doubt whatsoever that an editor who has participated in this level of disruption in my life would violate sock puppet guidelines. She should be banned if she is not yet. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest the evidence presented here is far more compelling than your knee-jerk additions of Beyond My Ken to the specious sock puppet case against me in which you commented, inanely, and added every name of every editor that came across your bow. As for "rude", that is your interpretation only, no one supported your assertion nor backed you up. The administrator comment was that dropping an edit warring template wasn't appropriate, but you continue to ignore the fact that no edit warring template was "dropped". Please stop misrepresenting the comments of the administrator on WP:AN/I, when it is obvious he didn't bother to go look at what was said and did not bother to follow up his comments. You seriously need to learn what these forums are for and how to operate on them, because they do not represent "official investigations" into anyone's conduct. Well, except for filing sock puppet cases. Your whiny complaint to WP:AN/I was basically ignored. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder why you would purport that the evidence submitted does not tend to implicate you nor does it support your contention when it was a matter of "I think" when you added various other names to the specious sock case against me on which you commented. You started add names of anyone with whom you disagree. Why would this case require something more? Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how you could act as a mentor to someone who clearly knows more about Wikipedia than you do. You've yet to respond in any coherent manner. Don't insult him. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Clerk note: It's plausible, given the overlap, that Betty Logan = WalterMitty/Melody Perkins. I'd like to see some evidence of disruptive effect, though, given that its been a year since WM/MP were blocked. If none can be found, aside from the disagreement above about an ANI filing, then there would seem to be nothing gained by blocking Betty Logan at this point over the potential connection to WM/MP. Nathan ^T 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

ILoveRobEvans

ILoveRobEvans (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 29 2009, 19:39 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• MillieBarton (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• ConnorJensen (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• DaisyBurrocks (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• RobertBarton(DownBakerStreet) (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Wexcan  Talk 

User seems to have created multiple accounts for the purpose of using their talk pages to create articles. I apologise if this doesn't count as sockpuppetry, but this does seem like the best place to report this. Wexcan  Talk  19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Ktr101  Talk 

MillieBarton seems to also acknowledge being a sock when they removed the SPI notification from their page. They do edit a lot on each other's page though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

I think that all the articles that have been created in these talk pages are bogus. One is a non-existent singer, the others are characters from a non-existent soap opera. This tends to suggest a hoax in the making? Rhomb (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

HCIE.author

HCIE.author (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 29 2009, 15:21 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• IEauthor (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by ArcAngel (talk)

Both have made contributions to the same article currently in userspace, which to me screams advertisement. I believe this is a violation as it appears that both accounts are being used for advertising and promotion.

Article history ArcAngel (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User has admitted to owning both accounts here ArcAngel (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I created two similar accounts only because I wanted to create a password without personal information. I would like one account deleted--since I already created draft article with IE.author, can someone deleted HCIE.author account?

65.166.54.44 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)IEauthor

Comments by other users

• I see no evidence of disruption or deception here. The account names are possibly unacceptable, but that would be for WP:UAA. This looks rather WP:BITEy to me. Rhomb (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

TomPhan

TomPhan (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan/Archive.

[edit] Report date December 29 2009, 07:52 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Textpro (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 74.50.125.97 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 66.146.186.12 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 173.88.38.20 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by BQZip01

Fits the usual pattern to a "T": disrupt a targeted individual with multiple accounts and a few minimal edits to other pages to deflect blame. Note the clear understanding of WP policy, edit summary usage, "undo" usage, etc: [56] [57] [58]

Other related edits by the same person: [59] [60] [61]

All I am asking for is a finding that this user is the same as the others so his/her inflamatory/unhelpful comments can be appropriately removed (de facto banned users are not allowed to contribute) and IP talk pages appropriately annotated as a source of sockpuppeteering, but any blocks of the IPs are worthless and I would oppose them as they could impact legit users; an indef block of Textpro would be appropriate. A checkuser is a waste of time as this person clearly appears to be hopping IPs (another trait). — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Picolotto

Picolotto (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 29 2009, 04:58 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• 189.30.72.16 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 189.30.115.244 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 189.30.102.132 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 189.73.105.238 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 187.7.49.8 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 189.72.67.220 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Bocafan76

These user has used several IPs to try and impose his will about using the name Barcelona B over Barcelona Atlètic on the infobox of the current players of the Barcelona Atlètic football club, even after a consensus was reached on WP:Footy.--Bocafan76 (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

CosmicLegg

CosmicLegg (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicLegg/Archive.

[edit] Report date December 16 2009, 20:00 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• 98.113.216.32 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare

From my talk page:

This user 98.113.216.32 (talk) is probably associated with CosmicLegg, as far as his edits go. In addition to adding excessive POV on The Who-related articles and vandalizing Led Zeppelin-related articles, he's also using excessive profanities, including my talk page. I've posted warning to his talk page thrice, but he does not seem to listen. Would you please block this IP. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

NW (Talk) 20:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Clerk note: The IP hasn't edited in over a day. It's possible that the IP may have moved on. Report again if the same IP or another one pops up. MuZemike 17:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Report date December 20 2009, 04:36 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mr. "insert name here" (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by  GSK (talk ● evidence)

Recent edits include own user page "I'm back after that sock puppet incident," and two edits to old user pages who were previously blocked for sockpuppetry.  GSK (talk ● evidence) 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Next time, please submit the case with the person behind all the socks (in this case, CosmicLegg). Thank you, MuZemike 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

Administrator note: Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Report date December 25 2009, 16:47 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Ducky610 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare

• Opening case for an IP who posted on my talk page. NW (Talk) 16:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Edit by Ducky610 here matches IP edit by by 58.164.113.119. Wikipedia administrator blocked that IP range/ISP [62] on November 30 as a range frequented by permanently blocked user CosmicLegg. 142.167.165.203 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by NW (Talk) 16:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk endorsed. NW (Talk) 04:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Endorse this check. Also, CosmicLegg is one of our serial sockpuppeteers that needs frequent attention from checkusers. Enigma^msg 04:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely. Same ISP, same location, same type of edits. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

• Administrator note: Blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 19:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 17:38 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Epica124 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by NuclearWarfare

• Listing for an IP who posted on my talk page. NW (Talk) 17:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

• I'm sorry, but this Epica user appears to be upholding every policy point CosmicLegg disagrees with- lambasting people for removing cited information, deferring to experts and RS... I guess we'll see. --King Öomie 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• On second thought, I'll refrain from judgment at this time. I'm seeing the pattern now. --King Öomie 18:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by NW (Talk) 17:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Assuming that NW intentionally did not endorse this himself. Three points: (1) No evidence given. (2) A checkuser was performed 4 days ago, and Epica124 has been editing regularly for awhile (3) There is editing overlap in terms of pages, but not necessarily point of view (which isn't conclusive, as arguing against themselves is a common sock tactic). So, Clerk declined until more evidence is available to justify a new checkuser. This case can stay open for a bit in case the IPer on Nuke's talkpage wants to add more detail. Nathan ^T 22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Knoblauch129

Knoblauch129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 22:52 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Knoblauch129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Schoenberg129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Larrymuzik (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shir aharon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shlomo99 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Shlomo909 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Rivkalle (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• SHLOMO.L (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Greenpath129 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Deskford

Each of these users has been involved mainly or exclusively in editing the article Kobi Arad or in adding inappropriate links to this article from other pages. Only one of the above accounts seems to be active at any one time.

See for example:

• Revision history of 21st-century classical music
• Revision history of Polystylism
• Revision history of Electronic music

--Deskford (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Kobi Arad's ID on Twitter is kobiarad129 — that number 129 again. Is this significant? --Deskford (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...and on YouTube he appears to be greenpath129. --Deskford (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that User:Greenpath129 got blocked and Kobi arad got speedily deleted on 10 August 2009, then User:Knoblauch129 came into existence on the following day, re-creating the current Kobi arad article (which someone later renamed Kobi Arad). The promotional editing continued under various anonymous IP addresses before continuing as User:Schoenberg129 from 12 November 2009. --Deskford (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Jubileeclipman

Please look at the edit window of this revision and notice the weird line breaks. Possible evidence of Copyvio lifting from other websites. Also click on the links: few of them lead to any English website. Also notice the vain attempt to make this an FA-class article.

• Kobi Arad Revision as of 00:18, 31 December 2009

Also notice the edit/revert cycles in the history. Well-respected editors are already tiring of the process:

• Revision history of "Kobi Arad"

--Jubilee♫clipman 02:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I already said I used a previous username Knoblauch - the other above usernames I'm not familiar with - I personally stayed away from editting for a week (pl see you logs),

similar grammatical mistakes, language - as u claim, is not conclusive evidence, overlaps in IP #s are conclusive - have there been overlaps?!

I would ask to keep the page, and help improve it, since I feel Kobi Arad is a notable musician although I may have done a lousy work as an editor,

Pl. take this into consideration,

J.--Schoenberg129 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition - in case the sock - puppetry is proven - this does not detract / affect the article's standing. I suggest you block users - and relate towards article in and of itself.--Schoenberg129 (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the accusation of several accounts. I openned Shlomo99 and 909 - and dont know about the other editors, and never made any edit in Kobi Arad article. apologize for harm done by wanting to push Arad's name into other articles,

Shlomo--Shlomo909 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

one of the editors mentioned all acused parties are in new york - that's where Arad is active, they may have gone to the same shows I went Shlomo--Shlomo909 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by other users

Appears to be an attempt at self-promotion, or at best WP:COI, pretending to be lots of people, but it's obviously one (note, for example, the characteristic and identical misspellings and ungrammatical formations used by all accounts, and the habitual use of "edit" or "editing" as an edit summary.) Antandrus (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Call me a dupe, but I'm inclined to trust Schoenberg129's statement that he's only been one other editor. It's possible more than one person is involved, here. Sockpuppet accounts? Hmm. Perhaps meatpuppets. A group of associates playing fast-and-loose with the Wikipedia rules? One person giving up, and their good friend taking up the crusade? Unusual, but not quite implausible. However, whether we're catching the lizard, or the tail of the lizard, this abusive editing needs to stop. Deskford has listed accounts working toward the same end, but I'd add other editors on Kobi Arad... 67.243.147.245, 68.161.94.64, 74.72.122.244, 24.39.156.23, and 208.125.2.58. Where are they? All in New York. A coincidence? In my experience with thousands of vandals? Never happens. This is a concerted effort to abuse Wikipedia. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Deleted contributions of Greenpath129 are extremely interesting indeed. They are all massive promotion of Kobi arad (lower case), with all of the creations speedy deleted. Non-admins can see the links on his talk page -- and he got blocked for persistent inappropriate page creation. Folks, don't kid yourselves, this is one extremely persistent self-promoter on an astroturfing campaign, and there's no way it's more than one person. Antandrus (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My vision may have been clouded by the realization that an (unrelated) editor I struggled with for ages changed over the last months and has become an exceptional, model editor. The editing on Kobi Arad *has* changed in quality, but again, whether it's one or two people acting in consort (on alternate days, whatever), the nub is the same. Not only does the activity on Kobi Arad need to stop, but Wikipedia needs to find a reasonable way to identify and stop other editors using this same technique. I read somewhere that 1-in-10 people in jail is actually innocent of the crime for which they are accused. In the same light, we don't need to absolutely prove that an editor is guilty of all perceived misdeeds. There comes a time when "society" just "needs them off the streets". If a few rough diamonds get lost in the process, well, Wikipedia isn't (solely) a gentle and kind mechanism for socialization. We are trying to create a usable, reputable encyclopedia; that is the stated goal. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note: Just purely looking at the contributions, User:Knoblauch129 only made one edit on 11 August 2009 here. User:Schoenberg129's first edit was on 12 November 2009, as shown here. Just looking at those two accounts, it's possible that the former was abandoned and the newer one created, and I don't see any "good hand, bad hand" activity with these two. –MuZemike 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Wikid77

Wikid77 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 30 2009, 18:44 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Wikid77 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Wz777 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 12.78.83.133 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 12.78.83.144 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 12.78.83.200 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by LeadSongDog

• The entries I list above have been engaged in editing the controversial article Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and/or coaching/coaxing User:PilgrimRose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) in editing it. Today xhe crossed a line [here].
• Full disclosure: I have been engaged over the past weeks in informal efforts to calm the dialog on that article's talkpage by both sides. I have not been engaged in editing the article or advocating for any edits.LeadSongDog come howl 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• It appears that the coaxing has been read here and 18 minutes later was followed by the registration of User:Darryl98 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) who then proceeded to edit the same article. LeadSongDog come howl 21:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Please observe that account Wikid77 and sock Wz777 continue today editing at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher. LeadSongDog come howl 14:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by LeadSongDog come howl 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from the username similarity, the edit summary usage seems unusual and similar and both userpages identify the same range of tenure. Clerk endorsed for CU attention. Nathan ^T 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

This is a bit of a mess. Confirmed Wikid77 = Wz777. But also Confirmed that Darryl98 = PilgrimRose. Dominic·t 07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does seem to me that Wz777 needs to be blocked and Wikid77 stripped of IPBE. Note that, just for fun, this guys has been coming through a Bambifan-blocked range. I don't quite get what Wikid77 is up to. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts say they started in 2005. It is possible that Wz777 is an undisclosed WP:SOCK#LEGIT of Wikid77? If so, should we make him declare that? –MuZemike 20:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, User:Wz777 was created yesterday afternoon. Someone needs to inform this guy that you can't "libel" a pseudonym, and that people saying things you might not like about your pseudonym is not a justification for creating a second account, especially not if that account is going to be used in the same discussion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. I overlooked that important fact. –MuZemike 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Bigtimepeace and Tedder if they have any advice on what admin actions to take, since they have had some previous experience with the Kercher article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just leaving a quick note her per request from EdJohnston. I was only briefly involved with the article that spawned this report after picking up on an ANI thread and then leaving a general note here to basically all editors since the editing environment had deteriorated severely. I was concerned about the behavior of PilgrimRose (among others) but primarily in terms of communicating with other editors, not socking. Wikid77 seemed to be engaged in a lot of speculation on the article talk page (sort of thinking out loud about the case but not explaining what that would mean for the article or providing sources to back up their arguments), but this did not seem to me to be a major issue at the time, rather just an example of not-so-great talk page etiquette. I haven't checked in on the article talk page since the second week of December and I'm afraid I don't have any thoughts about appropriate admin actions and/or block lengths, though given the difficulty of the editing environment over there I would think any socking should be dealt with rather harshly. Sounds like we might need some more information (including replies from those accused) before making any firm decisions though. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really complicated. Wz777 should be indefinitely blocked, and Wikid77 should be given either a short block or a stern warning that the next block may be indefinite. Nathan ^T 22:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For consistency with PilgrimRose, how about a one month block for Wikid77, plus an indef for Wz777. The IPBE permission for Wikid77 would be lifted, since that privilege is based on good behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. –MuZemike 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Nathan ^T 23:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

• Per WP:AN3#User:Darryl98 reported by User:FormerIP (Result: Three editors blocked), as well as the above checkuser finding that Darryl98 and PilgrimRose are the same person, and since PilgrimRose and Darryl98 have both edited Murder of Meredith Kercher, I have blocked Darryl98 indef, and PilgrimRose for one month. Other admins may adjust as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Wikid77 has been blocked one month for sockpuppetry, and his IPBE permission has been removed. Wz777 has been indeffed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Movietips

Movietips (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 31 2009, 19:11 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Amandagates (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

Evidence submitted by Blueboy96

This user has made numerous attempts, by way of the main account, sock account Amandagates, and several IPs in Kosovo (range 91.187.103.40/30) to insert numerous copyvio links in movie articles. Both users are already blocked, but according to Hu12, s/he's been at it for some time. See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#watchitfree.net. Requesting a sweep to find any other socks. Blueboy96 19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Editor has used ips, as noted, one being blocked from a discussion here and sock Amandagates was blocked for edit warring, reported here. Wikipedia:ANI/3RR#User:Amandagates_reported_by_BOVINEBOY2008_:.29_.28Result:_Blocked.29 BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Blueboy96 19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Confirmed. Also;

• MyFavoriteMovie (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

- Alison ^❤ 23:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

• All three indefinitely blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This case has been marked as closed. It will shortly be archived automatically.

姫宮玲子

姫宮玲子 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Report date December 22 2009, 07:27 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• ネコミ (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 美奈 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 210.237.109.10 (talk • contribs • filter log • WHOIS · RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Ryulong

Remember when I brought up the "AZLUCKY" individual? Well, it appears that the user is indeed disrupting this project in the same fashion that he was disrupting the Japanese Wikipedia. For unknown reasons, he has abandoned the 姫宮玲子 (talk · contribs) account and moved onto ネコミ (talk · contribs) and on that account has created a bunch of esoteric categories (some on the old account). It also appears the user was in control of the 美奈 (talk · contribs) account (edits to include Western animation in Category:Anime spin-offs) and may have used the also abandoned Sailorsaurus (talk · contribs) account. I may have also found his IP: 210.237.109.10 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) (which is blocked at ja.wiki as seen here). Ultragarrison (talk · contribs) is also a possible sock account. All have edits relating to creating superfluous/esoteric categories, the Ultra Series, and Godzilla.

Now, can we show this user the boot just as they have done at the Japanese Wikipedia? And yes, I have not bothered to contact the individual because he does not respond to talk page messages anyway and will simply move onto another account.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved from ANI ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status - Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk endorsed ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• All Confirmed:
  • 姫宮玲子 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • スーパーレックス (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • 美奈 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • Sailorsaurus (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • Godmoon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • マリーネ (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • ネコミ (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • スシジロウ (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • マイケリオン (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
  • Rackydog (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)
• IP blocked. Brandon (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

All blocked, tagged. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Could the range be searched for other similar accounts? This guy is definitely a serial sockpuppeteer at his home project (and maybe this page could be moved to the more common name for the banned user "AZLUCKY" to make for ease in typing in the future).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Convention is to make the case name that of the master account (the templates in fact require it). I believe that the range was searched by the CU; that is how the other accounts were found. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Report date December 31 2009, 12:43 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Kabuto555 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Ryulong

Based on the account's sole contributions to the Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy Legend The Movie page, I believe this account belongs to the AZLUCKY individual who has been banned from the Japanese Wikipedia. He may or may not actually be a sockpuppet of Japanhero, but I figured this one was a safe bet to begin with due to the established interest in Ultraman from the AZLUCKY individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions

Brexx

Brexx (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

This page's archived case(s) are at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive.

[edit] Report date January 1 2010, 07:17 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppets

• Tsadaqbmein (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • checkuser)

[edit] Evidence submitted by Siawase

Typical Brexx edit pattern of small incremental edits.[63] same area of pop music related articles Beyonce, Lindsay Lohan, etc.[64] The usual overuse of ellipses.[65][66] Restored the same information to the Lindsay Lohan article, using the same sources as another Brexx sock did back in August.[67][68] In addition to this his edits have already gotten disruptive enough that he was reported to ANI within a week of the first edit on this account.[69] Requesting checkuser to check for additional socks or sleepers, and to block the underlying proxy/IP(s) if appropriate. Siawase (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

[edit] Comments by other users

[edit] CheckUser requests

Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )

Current status - Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Siawase (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

[edit] Conclusions