Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/June 2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- User has been unblocked. Andy Mabbett 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
[edit] User:05hepburn3
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
- OhFive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- 05hepburn3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 17:34, 21 June 2007 UTC)
- Evidence
User with a nearly indentical name - user:05hepburn2 - has been blocked under the same conditions of sockpuppetry. Also, both accounts have been used for almost the sole purpose of editing the Hepburn (surname) article, edits which have been reverted and re-applied. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 18:10, 21 June 2007 UTC)
- Comments
This is a big mess. The page Hepburn (surname) was recently protected, and now that protection has been lifted it's been attacked again by sockpuppets. I'm going to request that protection be put back in place, and User:05hepburn3 and User:Billibob49 should be indef-blocked as socks - no comment on the other alleged users involved. YechielMan 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sound comments and sound reasoning. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 21:49, 21 June 2007 UTC)
Comment: 05hepburn3 has been blocked because his name is too similar to 05hepburn2. Perhaps that should be added to the list. « ANIMUM » 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that his name and purpose are very similar to the user pointed out are already constitutional to the evidence in the sockpuppetry case. Thanks for blocking him though :) -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 22:09, 21 June 2007 UTC)
-
Note: I have actually unblocked 05hepburn3 (talk · contribs) per their unblock request. I was involved in detangling the mess on that article earlier today and noted that their single article edit was actually a vandalism revert. It's not immediately apparent, though, because of the mess of sock-puppets. I shall monitor the article and this user for a while just to be on the safe side. I suspect that some of the other sock-names may indeed be impostors of this user as their edits are quite different and more in-line with the OhFive editor - Alison ☺ 09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever my opnion counts for, I have to disagree. I think that there is more to be seen from this user now it is unblocked, and that it is yet another sock. Check out all of the socks for User:OhFive to see what I mean. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:07, 22 June 2007 UTC)
- Conclusions
While the username similarity is...striking, to say the least, I don't see any abusive edits from 05hepburn3, in stark contrast to OhFive, who was blatantly vandalizing. Given that, I don't believe they're socks, though perhaps friends or acquaintances who used similar usernames. Regardless, it doesn't appear that a block would serve to prevent any harm here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Blaaake
[edit] User:Vintagekits
Rockpocket 07:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That ties in Maplecelt quite well, whose editing pattern shows exactly that - a few edits on random and local items, before ploughing into the AfDs. EliminatorJR Talk 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- except that I've never been on Celticminded in my life.Maplecelt 13:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I should add that on those threads at celticminded, at least two other members indicated that they had contributed to the AfDs a manner that SB67 has requested. There are no obvious link between those individuals names at Celticminded and the individuals names listed here, but it would suggest that there were at least three meatpuppets recruited from celticminded... Rockpocket 17:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- except that I've never been on Celticminded in my life.Maplecelt 13:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- That ties in Maplecelt quite well, whose editing pattern shows exactly that - a few edits on random and local items, before ploughing into the AfDs. EliminatorJR Talk 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- One slight problem with that argument, where are the sock/meatpuppets on the Martin McCaughey AfD? That's actually a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer. Checkuser says El chulito, Jill Teed, Inthegloaming and Conrad Falk were all from the same person, who voted "delete". That plus the usual suspects who vote delete on any AfD about Irish republicans.... One Night In Hackney303 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- How is that a problem? I don't think there is much doubt that there was votestacking to delete the article also, are you suggesting that validates VK's votestacking as a measure of response? Rockpocket 17:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not in the slightest. Someone mentioned the McCaughey AfD as evidence of sockpuppetry, I was happy to provide evidence that was indeed the case. One Night In Hackney303 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Checkuser finds it is "likely" that Vintagekits is Sligobhoy67. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits. Rockpocket 01:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- TamB (talk · contribs) should probably be considered too per his/her history of AfD comments, I've added this user to the list of suspects. Rockpocket 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oddly enough TamB appears exclusively at the same AfD's as those mentioned above, but occasionally !votes against the other three. Strange. Perhaps this is simply coincidence, or else there is a meatpuppet who is a not quite towing the party line, or there is some seriously sophisticated sockpuppetry going on. Rockpocket 01:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
Frankly I'm insulted the EliminatorJR accused me of being a sock puppet i'm a real person currently living in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. I have a degree in History and Political Science from the UNiversity of Western Ontario so I think my opinions are as valid as anyone elses. I was born in Scotland of Irish Catholic background why would I not have an interest in these topics. Also since between December and April 30th I was in school its a little hard to have the time take part in this site. Maplecelt 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- What you mean the Falklands war as for me it was your edit there that smacks of sockpup[petry just because Vintage's belief is so unusual and so obviously politically motivated in an anti Brit way, SqueakBox 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see what the issue is with what I wrote about the name of the falklands war. I don't think its anti british I think to call it just the falklands is a pro-british view. I think you may be talking it to hard because you are a british. Maplecelt 03:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I wouldn't say any of these are sockpuppets, especially not Maplecelt. This is only looking at one half of the AfDs in question anyway. A group of British editors interested in the monarchy and peerage (that information needs updating with additional editors, AfDs and canvassing also) have been votestacking and attempting to subvert consensus in AfDs for months now including the use of glaringly obvious sock/meatpuppets such as Alastair Noble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), it stands to reason that accounts from "the other side" will appear to vote on the AfDs in question. I suggested a proposed solution to allow any contentious AfDs to be discussed by neutral parties which didn't happen for one reason or another, and have stayed almost totally clear of any such AfDs since because it's practically a waste of time trying to get any articles deleted with the votestacking and canvassing that goes on. One Night In Hackney303 03:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately concluding that Vintage's opponents use socks doesnt help his case one bit, indeed it could explain his motivations, SqueakBox 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, but considering you're one of the meatpuppets it explains your motivations for shouting "sockpuppet" without any evidence. One Night In Hackney303 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Meatpuppet? If you are being serious please stop making silly accusations, I have been on wikipedia longer than pretty much anyone else involved in this issue, SqueakBox 03:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- And your point is? It doesn't stop you being a meatpuppet in the AfDs in question. One Night In Hackney303 03:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
How so. You mean just expressing similar opinions to someonme else makes someone a meatpuppet? Like you and Vintage? Codex and I? Those who oppose thew Brandt article and those who support it (2 massive armies of meatpuppets). As I say please stop making silly suggestions, SqueakBox 03:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair I'm being accused of being a sockpuppet for having an opinionMaplecelt 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
For having several opinions that concur with Vintage's and expressed in a way that would help Vintage push his POV in afds and other disputes, its all quite convincing, SqueakBox 04:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
so two people can't share the same view on an issue if you don't their position? I'm tired of this some of us have a job to get up for.Maplecelt 04:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is that you had very few edits and the ones you did tended to help Vintage's POV in a number of cases, and its not as simple as just having agreed with him, SqueakBox 04:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- how is it not that simple? its amazing this site has as many people if when the want to start making contributions they are attacked because people don't like others points of view. sort of defeats the purpose. I'm going to bed before I say something I shouldn'tMaplecelt 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
More comments from nom A clarification - you don't get suspected as a sock/meatpuppet just for agreeing with someone's opinions, and I definitely try to assume good faith at all times. However, there is definitely an odd pattern here.
- Example: this AfD was opened by VK at 15:43, and Coeur-sang, who'd made 1 edit in the previous month, commented at 16.26, followed by Maplecelt, who hadn't edited for two weeks, an hour later. They then both immediately commented on this AfD.
However, to be fair, I did note this; Coeur-sang was welcomed to Wikipedia by Vintagekits [92]. However, looking more closely, this was well after Coeur-sang registered, but only 10 minutes after s/he had commented on an AfD Vintagekits was watching [93]. I would be tempted to look at that as vindication that Vintagekits did not know Coeur-sang before that, although I suppose you could argue it could be an extremely clever ruse. In the end, I see it like this, either
- a) none of the accounts have anything to do with each other (unlikely given the diffs)
- b) they are sock/meatpuppets of VK
- c) They are sock/meatpuppets of someone else
- d) the suspected sockpuppets are linked to each other with no puppetmaster, or
- e) they are different people but there is off-wiki communication, which means this is votestacking rather than meatpuppetry.
EliminatorJR Talk 08:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- If its not a vote how can it be vote stacking?. Second question I understand what a sockpuppet is now, but can I get a meatpuppet definition? Maplecelt 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you're quite right, it isn't a vote, but it's the phrase used for 'fixing' an AfD by getting a number of editors to !vote whose opinions on a subject are known - see WP:CANVASS#Votestacking. A meatpuppet is a real person who acts as a sockpuppet - see WP:MEAT#Meatpuppets. EliminatorJR Talk 13:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- As a relatively new member I have no idea what you are talking about re sockpuppets and meat puppets but not so dumb that I can't work out for myself the intended insult. I was not pre warned that I was only allowed to work in areas where there was no prior interest by other members! I DO NOT know these people to whom you refer. I also understand now that your attitude towards new members is designed to keep your numbers low and therefore your power high. Is it any wonder you are not increasing your membership? So when will you let me know the results of this witch hunt. After all thats exactly what it is. If I edit I'm a witch and if I don't... well burn her anywayCoeur-sang 13:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coeur-sang, can you confirm therefore, that you have not received a communication, on or off wiki, from another editor asking you to !vote in one of the AfD's you have commented on? Rockpocket 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- The first communication I recieved from a wiki person was this accusation. I don't know anyone who has any involvement here. I have no interest in getting into this as I feel it is a complete waste of my time to answer charges that I'm not even sure I know the meaning of!Coeur-sang 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Coeur-sang, can you confirm therefore, that you have not received a communication, on or off wiki, from another editor asking you to !vote in one of the AfD's you have commented on? Rockpocket 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Sir??? - I would advise caution as to gender - consider the phrase above "If I edit I'm a witch and if I don't... well burn her anyway" - people are jumping to too many conclusions here - I suspect that their style of writing is not the only diference between Vintagekits style and Coeur-sang. Giano 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Then I suggest you too read the further evidence. The difference between them is no longer in question. Rockpocket 06:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- You are rather missing the point - half of Wikipedia's business is conducted off wiki on IRC. Mailing another editor is not a wiki-crime. Why do you think the email facility is there, and for what reason - for editors to discuss the weather with each other? I think you need to be realistic. Coeur-sang like any other editor is to be credited with an independent brain, and also to be believed. If Coeur-sang says she had not been emailed that is fine - if she has been emailed that is equally fine. You are trying to build a case that you will never manage to prove. In fact you risk damaging the reputation of valuable editors without the grounds for doing so. Giano 08:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- No one is suggestion mailing another editor is a crime. However, recruiting meatpuppets for the purposes of votestacking is against policy. I asked Coeur-sang is she has received a communication asking her to do that and she said she hadn't. I believe the evidence above shows that is not true. If you choose not to believe that evidence it is your choice, but I personally find it compelling. Rockpocket 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My one and only comment, I have stayed off this attack page for a reason - that reason is that editors are putting 2&2 together and getting 55! I am not going to justify myself to the whrilling dervishes on here but if the closing admin wishes to contact me via email (for privacy reasons) I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are neither my sock or meatpuppets.--Vintagekits 16:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Er, hang on a second - attack page? If you look through my contribs you'll see that I've generally been on your side at AfD [94] [95] - indeed I've even started Arbuthnot AfDs myself (like this one). Can we assume good faith please? Vintagekits, you know quite well that if you'd seen evidence like this against an "opposition player" on AfD, you'd have come here too. EliminatorJR Talk 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- For my part, I have nothing against you and my !votes on AfD's you have taken part in tend to be 50/50 in support. I also find the behaviour of those in perpetual opposition to you abhorrant, so please don't paint this as some sort of partisan attack on you. The information above was provided to me as an admin, with a request for help in submitting it. After checking its validity, I provided it for the community to decide. To supress it would have been a serious abuse of the trust put in admin. If you can prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people are neither my sock or meatpuppets" then I suggest you do so publically and we can all go back to something more productive. Rockpocket 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
A few thoughts: TamB doesn't necessarily stand for "Tam Ball". Moreover, a "Tam Ball" is a legitimate product [96] and therefore it is possible that there are numerous people who use that term or a variation (e.g. TamBall20, TamBallBoy) as a username. In fact, that forum you link to lists that "Tam Ball" as being located in England [97] whereas here is a different "Tam Ball" located in Scotland.
It is also entirely possible that the "Sligobhoy67" on www.celticminded.com was simply taking credit for something he had nothing whatsoever to do with. People do occasionally lie on the internet :)
All that being said, the www.celticminded.com forum evidence is the strongest and it doesn't appear to bode well for Vintagekits. I do find it odd that while "Sligobhoy67" asked for voting assistance on www.celticminded.com the person with that username on Wikipedia hasn't voted on any AfDs. As I have only seen the screenshots provided, did "Sligobhoy67" ever declare himself "Vintagekits" on that forum? Did "Sligobhoy67" ever specify any particular AfDs for votestacking or was that a one time comment? IrishGuy talk 20:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you are absolutely correct with regards to TamB (and to a lesser extent, the evidence against maplecelt is also circumstantial). I mentioned the coincidence only in passing, and it would be wrong to read anything more into that. However, there is clear evidence that at least two other members of Celticminded responded to SB's request. I think that is stronger evidence that three meatpuppets were recruited, if you identify the possible meatpuppet accounts in those AfDs, you are left with the editors listed above. That said, I wouldn't endorse any movement to sanction these editors for past indiscretions, even if the evidence was stronger. Its the meatpuppeteer that is the problem, not really the meatpuppets, who may indeed turn into useful editors. However, it would be much better if they were upfront about their past circumstances, rather than peddling untruths.
- As for the Wikipedia Sligobhoy67 anomaly. I would suggest the reason this has never been used in AfDs is made clear in SB67's request at Celticminded, "REMEMBER - BEFORE you edit you have to register a name, NOT TOO FENIAN OR PROVO EITHER, I am called "VINTAGEKITS" on the site". I would propose that Sligobhoy67 realised that having an overtly "fenian" name does not always help his cause. SligoBhoy67 registered here first and made a few edits, the last being in July 2006 to Carmel Gunning, he then disappeared for a while. [98] On August 1st, Vintagekits registered, his first edit being to Carmel Gunning [99]
- Also, note this diff. Sligobhoy67 makes his next edit (indeed, his only edit in a 4 month window) to support an argument VK is having. I think taken together this strongly suggests Sligobhoy67 is a sock of Vintagekits, though I guess its possible that it is simply another meatpuppet. I might be worth requesting a checkuser to see if we can link SB67 with VK?
- The specific AfD's coeur-sang replied about were never publically mentioned, though SB67 said he would "contact" the people who volunteered to help with details. However the time and date of the posts makes it pretty obvious what they correspond to [100]. There are specific mentions of straw polls and debates on talkpages that SB urges others to votestack at, though. This includes, but is not limited to Martin McCaughey. Rockpocket 21:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK. I must have missed the screenshot of SB67 declaring that he was Vintagekits. That answers that question. Were any particular AfDs swayed one way or the other from these votes? IrishGuy talk 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its hard to say. There appears to have been votestacking going on in the opposite direction also. I don't know who was behind that, but User:One Night In Hackney/Temp gives you some idea. Its unfortunate for VK that his contribution to the debacle has been revealed so fully, when there are others that have behaved just as poorly. Rockpocket 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody is stopping anybody investigating, and if there is evidence of bad behaviour on both sides I would recommend taking the case to arbcom and I think there is a case for not taking furhter action against Vintage until the other side of the case is more fully investigated, SqueakBox 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have asked other admins to decide on what, if any, further action should be taken, as its not really fair for someone presenting the evidence to also act on it. The discussion is here, feel free to offer your opinion. My personal opinion is that I'm not particularly predisposed to cutting Vintagekits some slack while both he Coeur-sang appear to be continuing to deny any involvement in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If the editors were to come clean with the entire truth, and give their assurance this sort of thing wouldn't happen again, then I'm not sure any further action need be taken. Rockpocket 00:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody is stopping anybody investigating, and if there is evidence of bad behaviour on both sides I would recommend taking the case to arbcom and I think there is a case for not taking furhter action against Vintage until the other side of the case is more fully investigated, SqueakBox 22:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its hard to say. There appears to have been votestacking going on in the opposite direction also. I don't know who was behind that, but User:One Night In Hackney/Temp gives you some idea. Its unfortunate for VK that his contribution to the debacle has been revealed so fully, when there are others that have behaved just as poorly. Rockpocket 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I must have missed the screenshot of SB67 declaring that he was Vintagekits. That answers that question. Were any particular AfDs swayed one way or the other from these votes? IrishGuy talk 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I am mentioned on User:One Night In Hackney/Temp. For the record, I did not contact anyone else about any of the AFDs I participated in that are listed there, seeking support or otherwise; nor was I contacted by anyone. I have already indicated to ONiH that he left out any reference to keep votes I made on the republican pages listed there. (I also voted 'keep' when that particular page was nominated for deletion). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Given our history, I am not the proper person to close this, but I find the evidence compelling. I suggest that if we hear no more from Vintagekits about the matter in 24 hours or so, we consider his silence an admission of guilt. I have messaged him reminding him that this case isn't going to just go away. --John 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Likewise, I don't feel it is appropriate I close this, given I presented a significant amount of evidence. I am also left with little doubt about what went on here and have asked a few other admins to take a look, if they have to time, and form their own opinion. No takers yet. If we hear no more in the next 24hrs, I suggest we ask Will Beback (who commented at AN/I) if he would consider closing. Rockpocket 17:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, the two of ye have come up with no evidence - 1. If Sligobhoy67 was me on here what abuse of policy would have been carried out? NONE! 2. Like I said I can prove beyond a shoadow of a doubt that I am not Sligobhoy67 and i have never asked him to post on any forums for or on behalf of me, I do not deny that there is a link between but we are not the same person. I suppose you would be happy if I could show that we both had edited wiki from different countries on the same day, that would shut the two of ye up wouldnt it! I have already provide much of this information to an admin who emailed me some days ago but like I said earlier I am not perpared to divulge the information here for privacy reasons. If someone comes forward and nominates themselves as a closing admin then I will be prepared to provide them with the exact information.--Vintagekits 19:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Sligobhoy67 is you, then giving the appearance of two different users in the same argument is an abusive use of socks.[101][102] Do you have any explanation as to why someone calling themselves that name should say on a forum that he edits wikipedia as Vintagekits, rather than saying he edits by his own user name? Tyrenius 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said I am happy to provide the close admin with the full information.--Vintagekits 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its not difficult to edit from two different countries on the same day. There are things called airplanes that facilitate this. The checkuser compared the editing from both you and SB67, and came to the conclusion that it is "likely" that you and SB67 is the the same person. That means there is nothing about your editing pattern that could prove "beyond a shoadow of a doubt" that you are different people. Combine that with the fact that SB67 has twice said he is you, and that he was stacking votes for you, and I think there is a little more than "no evidence" he is your sock. However, lets for a moment say you are different people. If you can provide us with information about SB67's edit history and location, then you clearly have a relationship with him. Perhaps you could ask him to come online and tell us why he said he was you, and chose to stack votes for you without your knowledge? Rockpocket 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that I would edit wiki in one country - fly to another and immediately edit wiki in another country just a year later I could make some point on wiki then you are deluded!--Vintagekits 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are other ways of editing in 2 different countries. Windows XP allows one user to control another's with the permission of the latter, and there are also free and pay softwares that do the same, SqueakBox 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, then, so if you are simply going to ignore my request that you ask SB67 to log on and explain his motivations (and, of course, It doesn't take a genius to work out why you might rather than not happen), then perhaps you could tell us which admin you provided your irrefutable evidence to. I'll ask him or her to close the case. Rockpocket 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have provided you with all the information I am prepared provide you with for privacy reason - I am not prepared to provide you with personal details just to satisfy your bloodthirst. The admin I have revealed information to is watching this discussion - if he wishes to be the closing admin on this then that is fine - but he may not wish to be the closing admin. This is my last comment to anyone who is not the closing admin because we are going around in circles, if you wish to "convict" me based purely on cirmcumstantial unverified evidence that can be explained away relavtively easily to a closing admin just satisfy your campaign then crack on - I am prepared to facilitate the closing admin with phonecalls, emails and any other proofs which they wish but I am not prepared to reveal private information on here for anyone.--Vintagekits 11:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, then, so if you are simply going to ignore my request that you ask SB67 to log on and explain his motivations (and, of course, It doesn't take a genius to work out why you might rather than not happen), then perhaps you could tell us which admin you provided your irrefutable evidence to. I'll ask him or her to close the case. Rockpocket 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- There are other ways of editing in 2 different countries. Windows XP allows one user to control another's with the permission of the latter, and there are also free and pay softwares that do the same, SqueakBox 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you think that I would edit wiki in one country - fly to another and immediately edit wiki in another country just a year later I could make some point on wiki then you are deluded!--Vintagekits 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its not difficult to edit from two different countries on the same day. There are things called airplanes that facilitate this. The checkuser compared the editing from both you and SB67, and came to the conclusion that it is "likely" that you and SB67 is the the same person. That means there is nothing about your editing pattern that could prove "beyond a shoadow of a doubt" that you are different people. Combine that with the fact that SB67 has twice said he is you, and that he was stacking votes for you, and I think there is a little more than "no evidence" he is your sock. However, lets for a moment say you are different people. If you can provide us with information about SB67's edit history and location, then you clearly have a relationship with him. Perhaps you could ask him to come online and tell us why he said he was you, and chose to stack votes for you without your knowledge? Rockpocket 21:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said I am happy to provide the close admin with the full information.--Vintagekits 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Sligobhoy67 is you, then giving the appearance of two different users in the same argument is an abusive use of socks.[101][102] Do you have any explanation as to why someone calling themselves that name should say on a forum that he edits wikipedia as Vintagekits, rather than saying he edits by his own user name? Tyrenius 20:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- I have corresponded with Vintagekits who gave me additional information which did not, in my opinion, alter the evidence. Due to the pattern of editing, as well as off-Wiki forum postings, it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him. I will block these accounts indefinitely. VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts. The disposition of that account is best handled on AN/I. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
[edit] User:Tecmobowl
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Blacksoxfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
El redactor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.56.117.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.56.127.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
IrishGuy talk 00:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Evidence
71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.
Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles: [111] [112] [113] etc.
Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [114]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [115] [116] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [117] as well as just add it himself [118] [119] [120]
Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.
The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.
While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet [121]
Tecmobowl later left an edit summary which stated: here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.[122]
Checkuser came back 
Unrelated for User:El redactor and User:Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk 06:41, June 14 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
There is further discussion about El redactor's similarities to Tecmobowl at this checkuser request page: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl and its talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl. Baseball Bugs 13:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have some experience in dealing with sockpuppets, and this one fits the bill. They usually do wait a little while after their main account is blocked, and then make a point of pretending to be new, yet zeroing in on a particular item they are passionate about. The longer they stay on, the more their normal editing attitude comes to the fore. El redactor became contentious and defensive very quickly, and used similar editing rationales, so to speak. Also, as with other sockpuppets, he seemed to know his way around very well for a "newbie". These are not just my thoughts, they are telltale signs as pointed out in the wikipedia sockpuppetry guideline. Baseball Bugs 00:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Tecmobowl decided to warn El redactor...unfortunately, he warned El Redactor not El redactor (note the caps). Magically, El redactor came to my talk page will the full knowledge of a conversation he shouldn't have any knowledge of. El redactor is an obvious sock of Tecmobowl. I have blocked him accordingly. IrishGuy talk 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment from Miss Mondegreen I'm copying over some of my comments from the request for checkuser talk page and replying to some stuff as well:
<text removed> Miss Mondegreen talk 09:58, June 12 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, I'm sorry--someone thinks that Tecmo is using a sock puppet and chose the name "El redactor" when he was busy chopping ELs? Sorry, but the irony there is dreadful.
- Also, I just can't swallow this one--while El redactor doesn't have a lot of comments, they sound nothing like Tecmo's. The language style and everything is completely different, his edits appear to be of the gnomish variety, and he sounds new.
- This is a copy of a comment El redactor made at WP:ANI:
"WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor"
- these are two of his edit summaries:
- 00:57, 12 June 2007 edit to Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)
- 00:58, 12 June 2007 edit to Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)
- Baseball Bugs is following me around in edit summaries? You guys are the sockpuppets? Maybe you should have that removed (like being an admin is a failed organ)? He sounds like a newbie through and through and he probably wouldn't even be getting to pages like ANI or here etc... is because Irishguy and Baseball Bugs and Epeefleche are all commenting on each others talk pages and ANI on the wikiproject page providing each other with diffs on anything that pops into their heads. half a dozen diffs are exchanged every time someone sneezed, and because El redactor's first edit was on Shoeless Joe, he's been dragged into this whole thing.
Pretend these are both sockpuppets. Tecmo is blatant with blacksoxfan and then leaves himself notes? And then, waits over a day to get said note and then upon logging in, makes three other edits, two with the edit summaries "Baseball bugs is following me around" and then goes to Irishguy's page...only to comment on the Shoeless Joe section first and then comment on the section that has his sockpuppet's name? How quickly Tecmo has learned and yet he still left the message for the wrong person. If he was trying so hard to be subtle wouldn't he have realized that he'd left the message for the wrong person when he logged in and he had no new messages? Perhaps, just perhaps, El redactor noticed Irishguy at the Shoeless Joe talk page or got sick of baseball bugs "following him around" and went to his contributions and noticed he'd commented on a section called "shoeless joe jackson" on irishguy's page and went to comment there too and then noticed a section about himself. I'm sorry, but this El redactor thing is a serious stretch. Pretend for a second that there was a new editor who started out on that page. Might not the edits that he has look a lot like the ones that he has now? Miss Mondegreen talk 22:43, June 12 2007 (UTC)
- The first edit yesterday from El redactor was to the Shoeless Joe talk page and somehow he already knew about me and my edit history in removing that link from articles. Please tell me how he knew to look exactly 100 edits deep into my contribution history to find evidence that I removed those links from other articles. Tecmobowl knew I removed them, but why would El redactor have known to look for it if they are different people? Odd, no? Additionally, the only two days that editor has edited were when Tecmo was under a block. That's one hell of a coincidence. Why does he only appear when Tecmobowl is blocked? Like I said, he either magically knew to go 100 edits deep into my edit history to find where I removed the link from other articles...or he just happened to go to those articles and look in the edit history...which isn't likely since he has never edited those articles. And the only two days he has edited are when Tecmo was blocked. El redactor first edited when Tecmo was blocked. His first edit was to add that link back into the article...then he made a series of pointless edits and promptly disappeared. Tecmo pointed to those same pointless edits as an alibi that it wasn't him using a sock. Convenient. Then Tecmo gets blocked again and magcially El redactor becomes active again. IrishGuy talk 23:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- As you yourself keep pointing out, he edited the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. While your edits to article may have been waaay down in YOUR contributions, there weren't way down in the article history, a place he probably would have gone to revert things. You also commented on the talk page, as did he. The simplest answer is often the best. While I'm not saying that there aren't things that aren't suspect, I see nothing that damning, and the fact that you and Epeefleche etc. keep pointing to things that are either wrong or that are too convoluted for words aren't very convincing. You want to look at the times...ok, let's look:
-
- June 6
- 21:38, 6 June 2007 - Tecmo's last article edit that day
- 21:43 - Tecmo was blocked
- 23:16, 6 June 2007 - Tecmo's last edit of the day (talk page, after block)
- June 7
- 22:00, 7 June 2007 Tecmo blanks his talk page
- 22:22 - El redactor's account is created
- 22:26 - El redactor edits shoeless joe
- 22:30 - El redactor edits will ferrell
- 23:54 - tecmo blanks a talk page message that he got at 23:52
- June 6
-
- June 8 and 9
- 07:52 - 08:12 - El redactor has five edits
- 21:51 - Tecmo's block expires
- 22:57, 8 June - 11:24, 9 June - Tecmo has 47 edits
- June 8 and 9
-
- June 10
- 07:09 - Tecmo starts editing and goes until....
- 17:32 - Tecmo's last edit before being blocked
- 17:39 - Tecmo gets blocked
- 20:16 - Tecmo's last edit of the day (talk page, post block)
- June 10
-
- June 12
- 00:54 - 01:44 - El redactor makes eight edits
- 05:52 - 07:32 - El redactor makes nine edits
- 12:04 - El redactor gets blocked
- 12:08 - Tecmo gets blocked
- 16:14 - Tecmo replied to 12:07 block notice posted on his talk page the block notice is the first edit to his talk page since his blanking of it on the 10th
- June 12
-
- Comments on timeline
- While it does look suspicious that El redactor has only edits from periods of time when Tecmo has been blocked, if you look at them individually, they both show real signs of normal editing patterns. When Tecmo is blocked, he quickly responds to something on his talk page, but if nothing happens, nothing happens. But he knows when his block expires and is ready to come back.
-
- El redactor doesn't have a lot of edits, but his edits have all been in a ten hour timeframe 22:22 - 8:12.
-
- I just don't look at the timeframe and see sockpuppet. I look at those edits and say--"that should probably be looked at". But I don't see much evidence that this really has been looked at--I keep hearing how obvious this is and that bothers me. Miss Mondegreen talk 01:12, June 14 2007 (UTC)
- Not to stick my nose where it doesn't belong, but
the issue of the links alone make it obvious sockpuppetry. If that's not obvious enough, though, take a look at all of the edit summaries made by User:El redactor:
-
- 10:32, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (getting pointless citation out again and added a note, baseball bugs - please leave me alone.)
- 10:30, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl (→Tecmobowl)
- 10:27, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Will Ferrell (→Date of Birth)
- 10:25, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roy Lichtenstein (→citations)
- 09:05, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule (Help Requested)
- 08:59, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
- 08:58, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Will Ferrell (Date of Birth)
- 08:57, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (can someone address this? the editor is simply reverting my edits to create a problem.)
- 08:52, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (putting back in the link - how does one stop this type of behavior? please help)
- 04:44, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Roy Lichtenstein (citations)
- 04:38, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
- 04:30, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl
- 04:25, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry)
- 04:18, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Baseball Bugs (→Note)
- 04:13, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→User:El redactor - forgot my signature)
- 04:13, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→User:El redactor)
- 04:11, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Irishguy (→Shoeless Joe Jackson)
- 03:58, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - second time - Baseball Bugs is following me around - link is good)
- 03:57, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (removed reference to his birthday, Baseball bugs is following me around)
- 03:54, 12 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson (comments)
- 11:12, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Bravo's The 100 Funniest Movies (wiki links - will do more later)
- 11:05, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (Quotes)
- 11:01, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Top Chef (passive to active change)
- 10:56, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Nirvana (band) (changed passive voice)
- 10:52, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - Sorry about that, still learning the format - replaced my format with old format for link.)
- 01:30, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Will Ferrell (why source a birthday???)
- 01:26, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Shoeless Joe Jackson (→External links - - my first edit!!!!! I read discussion on the talk page. This looks like a good site to me.)
You'll notice that I bolded several of the edit summaries. Now check out User:Tecmobowl's surprisingly similar edit summaries (note that all of these were made over a two day span):
- 1. Style of edit summaries (e.g., hyphen-speak, discussion style, argumentativeness):
-
- 23:16, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (just in case your watching IrishGuy - here's some info for you "sockpuppetry" claim - most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh.)
- 23:04, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (blanked again - I'm gonna wait it out and give you a few days to let all your pretty evidence "build up" - great job of bettering the content btw!!!!)
- 22:56, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tecmobowl (get some sense and stop instigating things - your are the poorest admin i have ever come across - don't worry, I'll address your sockpuppetry bs soon enough.)
- 15:05, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (→Major League career - removed versatility comment - a batter isn't versatile simply b/c of batting position and there was no context given with the link.)
- 15:03, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (expunged Mel Gibson info - it's not relevant to the article, reworked section, removed rank information - doesn't seem practical to include, removed bogus link)
- 13:19, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Babe Ruth's called shot (removed - this has already been discussed) (top)
- 10:14, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m 1919 World Series (template use - see talk page discussion)
- 09:46, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Rickey Henderson (shortened infobox information - it's a summary not a massive list.)
- 03:44, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) USA Today All-USA high school baseball team (created article - going to add the players table next.)
- 03:33, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Kevin Youkilis (removed a statement that just didn't seem to fit - his ethnicity/religion don't really have anything to do with his nickname, alpha sort links, removed links (ask on the article page if need be))
-
- 2. "Passive voice" concerns:
-
- 20:24, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Lewis Hamilton (rewrote intro, added sources, links, removed passive voice)
- 10:36, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Homer Bailey (incorporated content into the introductory as it is more appropriate there. removed passive voice and made it encyclopedic.)
-
- 3. "wiki links"
-
- 10:10, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) 1919 World Series (wiki link fix)
- 05:04, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Chris Marrero (wiki link & USA today team) (top)
- 04:54, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) USA Today All-USA high school baseball team (wiki linked the high schools)
-
- 4. Oh, and this one is cute:
-
- 16:20, 10 June 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Miss Mondegreen (Nom for Admin)
-
Regarding the issue of the checkuser: this guy is a serial sockpuppeter who has proven that he knows how to use proxies [123] [124]. Running a checkuser is a waste of time.
Frankly, I'm annoyed that anyone has to justify taking action against what is obviously a highly disruptive editor. And FYI, my opinion is coming from the peanut gallery here. Caeculus 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Of course, upon his return from his block, he spammed his website back into numerous articles [125] [126] [127] [128]...and then blanked a warning not to continue. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Except for Shoeless Joe Jackson, which he can't yet because it's protected. A millisecond after it's unprotected, his spamlink will go back there, too. Baseball Bugs 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Conclusions
- I'm not sure what remains to be done here. The evidence above makes it clear that the named accounts and IPs are being used by the same person, and some of the accounts have already been blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Blacksoxfan hasn't been used in ages, so doesn't need to be blocked. The IPs haven't been used in awhile, so they don't seem worth blocking. Given the arguments above and on WP:ANI, I suppose it's worth having an independent assessment that 1) this is a clear case of sockpuppetry and 2) further disruption from User:Tecmobowl or any sockpuppet should result in a lengthy block. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The two accounts were in full and independent operation since before the Miriam Shear conflict even started. Thus the accusation based as it is on Yisraeldov being a replacement for Yisraelasper is groundless.Yisraelasper Note the following before the discussion:===The falsified report of User:Italiavivi=== "Report submission by Italiavivi 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Evidence User:Yisraelasper was a single-purpose account who blanked, page-moved, and deleted information pertaining to Miriam Shear and Egged Bus Cooperative's Mehadrin (gender-segregated) bus routes in Israel. Yisraelasper's contributions cease altogether on May 2, 2007 [1] (after trying repeatedly to delete vandalism warnings from his User_talk page"
My contributions started on science so I did not have a single purposed account. If anything my single purpose has been about science and the Miriam Shear issue was a distraction. I removed biased language and made it clear that there were allegations. Italivivi deleted information that I posted. Italivivi did it and added biased phrasesology but when he did it he didn't call it bias. Any information deleted assuming I did delete it would have only been after Italivivi deleted my corrections on that information. Also deletion in and of itself doesn't mean you are eliminating information. There are controversies about whether something is true. The page move I did as a last resort and did not realize that I had done anything objectionable assuming I did. I had been unaware about there being an Egged Bus article. Right now I do not know what it says so I could not have contributed to it.
"[2]) and Yisraeldov's contributions begin a month later"
Wrong Yisraeldov's contributions I now see from his home page stated in June 2006 which was even before the Miriam Shear incident.
"[3]. Yisraeldov has since appeared at Egged Bus Cooperative objecting to the section on Egged's gender-segregated bus lines and defending Chareidi support for gender-segregated lines. Italiavivi 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)"
Assuming that's true, fine. I don't feel the need for seperate seating. I don't know what Yisraeldov's opinion on it is. I never read it. I never knew there was a person called Yisraeldov. I don't know his email address. My Hebrew name is (Yisrael) (Dov) (Shmuel). No one has called me Yisrael Dov. They can but it hasn't been done yet.
A simple checking into the facts could have been done. Italivivi falsified the evidence and on his Userpage he took Yisraeldov's protest and titled it as User:Yisraelasper and User:Yisraeldov. This is seen from the history section. Where Yisraeldov's original posting on Italivivi's page is I don't know.User:Yisraelasper
Bold text
The Mehadrin bus line was not my cause. You are making canards. The Miriam Shear story I contributed to but it also was not my only one on Wikipedia. Also you continually censored out what I added on the Miriam Shear story. I have no account other one. Worry about your own cases of being blocked and condemned by people rather than starting up again with me. I am not identical with any other user other than myselfself. It so happens my full name includes the name Dov as my second name but I have no other Wikipedia account other than Yisraelasper. If you continue to make trouble I will urge you be banned again as you hinder rather than help. Yisraelasper
Italiavivi I contributed to more than just one article. You claim above that I was a one agenda user and yet you fail to say that my last post on May 2 was on something else a topic I returned to yet. I posted on
May 2 "Talk:Extrasolar moon (The Petition no longer exists)."
I am not identical to Yisraeldov. I also don't live in Israel. I don't have an agenda for separate bus seating. I don't feel there is a need for separate bus seating. The Miriam Shear dispute has been over for months. You kept on though reposting warnings on my user page including on June 12 the date of your posting above after not posting on my site for at least over a month if not longer. No one asked you to. I am going to complain about this attack on me to Wikipedia to have this page removed or otherwise have you banned. What kind of a system is this where the evidence is not reviewed? Anyone with an agenda like Italiavivi can defame someone and that someone is not informed of the charges to be able to make a defense?User:Yisraelasper
Italiavivi I didn't know until now that there was an Egged article. You just make accusations and this you submit as evidence! Yisraelasper
Italiavivi you say that Yisraeldov started contributing in 2007? He was around in June 2006* and I've seen now that the first of his many contributions as far back as I was able to see started in July 2006**. All this was before even the Miriam Shear controversy. How could he be sock puppet for what wasn't yet?
"*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YisraeldovUser talk:Yisraeldov From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Welcome!
Hello, Yisraeldov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mak (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your view of RZ is verry limited. Yes there is a MO comunity in Israel, and yes most of them tend to be RZ, but those are not the only or even the majority of Religious Zionists here. --yisraeldov 19:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)" Yisraelasper
You were supposed to notify me of the charge "Notify the suspected puppetmaster." Instead you just reposted on June 12th 2007 old Miriam Shear article warnings though no one asked you too. Yisraelasper
![[2]](http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1094/garneauab4.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1513/garneau1iv1.png){kind=link}
![[65]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:PN_Chalmers_300.JPG&diff=139185016&oldid=139106318){kind=link}
![[66]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:PN_Chalmers_300.JPG&diff=139185438&oldid=139185016){kind=link}
![[80]](http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1922/dcytguvyjcm9.png){kind=link}
![[81]](http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/162/bfrskgezw1.png){kind=link}
![[82]](http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7497/dryfcgutvihbkhc9.png){kind=link}
![[85]](http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/4850/vugihkbjkqd8.png){kind=link}
![[91]](http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8227/sb1ut0.jpg){kind=link}