Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (2nd)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

User:Nrcprm2026

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked)

Suspected sockpuppets

1of3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Done (blocked)
209.77.205.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.56.206.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Andy r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked, added by Crockspot)
Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked, added by Crockspot)
Starkrm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
John J. Bulten (added by Turtlescrubber -jjb)

Report submission by

John J. Bulten 03:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Evidence of 1of3 being sockpuppet of puppeteer Nrcprm2026 (James Salsman, recent puppet: BenB4)

  1. Hardly any edits to 1of3 talk page before 10/6/07, then immediate controversy per user's talk:
    1. changing another's text on John Stossel talk page (1)
    2. messing with Ron Paul photo after consensus (2)
    3. historical pederastic couples: considered unconstructive and libellous (3)
    4. reverting at cosmology (4)
    5. adding third-level pages to own user space, getting deleted and restored
    6. request for mediation party at Iraq War (5)
  2. Other edits for comparison: Larry Craig (6), sex positions, many other sex pages (7), terrestrial planet, common descent (4), Ann Coulter, electoral systems, cumulative voting (8), Al Gore, WP:RS (9), Knights Templar, We the People Act (2), Living persons noticeboard (Jason Leopold section) (10)
  3. 1of3 first edited 6/29/06, immediate and obscene use of edit summary
  4. On 7/29/06, as third edit, 1of3 redirected his user page to his talk page-- prevents easy contribution search?
  5. 1of3 active 6/29, 7/11, 7/29-8/1, 8/27-31, 9/11, 9/19/06; then 2/19/07, 8/28 (20:58)-8/29 (1:15), 9/29-present; BenB4 was blocked 9/28
  6. matches BenB4 who edited:
    1. Ron Paul and its WTP Act sections, Political positions of RP, Gold standard (2)
    2. Stossel (1)
    3. voting (instant-runoff voting, approval voting, preferential voting, alternative voting, Condorcet method) (8)
    4. Iraq War, Gulf War, Persian Gulf, Al-Qaeda in Iraq (5)
    5. Jason Leopold and biographies noticeboard (10)
    6. Methamphetamine and sex, The Meth Song, penis (7)
    7. WP:RS (9)
    8. evolution (origin belief, Big Bang) (4)
    9. Historical pederastic couples on 8/31 (3)
    10. Larry Craig on 8/29 (6)
  7. BenB4 active 7/14-23/06, 7/26, 9/27, 3/28, 4/2, 4/12-17, 5/27-6/8, 6/21-...-8/22, 8/29 (2:01)-9/28: perfect overlap of 1of3
  8. James user page likes instant-runoff voting (8), evolution (4)
  9. Abuse: BenB4 and 1of3 have both held the entire Ron Paul page "hostage" to a POV tag over a single sentence or two. 1of3 over 2 issues: "polls 4%" vs. "polls low", and whether all racist comments should appear in article or some in footnote. BenB4 POV-section 9/13 over phrasing of Paul's pro-life position. BenB4 also immediately affirmed POV added 9/20 by Photouploaded and BenB4 became the prime arguer for retaining POV while Photo assisted. BenB4 removed POV tag 9/25 because he had gotten his way over the article, and did not edit Ron Paul again, suggesting intent to switch to extant sock 1of3. In both cases the objection was made to the lead as an excuse for labeling whole article POV. Ben also added a POV tag per talk message 9/8 00:32. Add: Here Ben moves NPOV tag from section to whole article "as is clearly obvious". John J. Bulten 16:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Similar talk habits, both BenB4 and 1of3 spark discussion over controversial edits and then ignore responses solicited by the processes they invoke (i.e., POV dispute and WP:BRD). Consensus suggested that BenB4 was unhelpful and/or abusive.
  11. Diffs [1] and [2] (same edit summary: "correct") should be a sufficient smoking gun. John J. Bulten 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. For the (first) IP user, see:
    1. Paul supports regressive tax? [3], [4], [5]
    2. Paul would flat-out prohibit all abortions? [6], [7], [8]
    3. Paul's actions & words conflict? [9], [10], [11]
    4. User's interests include Ron Paul, Iraq War, speciation (evolution), Malloc (C programming like James).
  13. User:Turtlescrubber appears to be different from James because the two were engaged in two different edit series 10/13 16:58-17:02 (Turtle on Al Gore, 1of3 on FAs), Turtle had a heated conversation 9/19 16:27-16:40 with BenB4 that does not look contrived, and the interest clusters do not align neatly. If an effective checkuser tool exists with the power to see if Turtle is some other abusive editor, that might help. John J. Bulten 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one abusive editor here. Hey, John. How are things? :) Turtlescrubber 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Since 66.56.206.68 has only 6 edits I am pushing that user's evidence harder (probably not the best use of my time, but here goes).
    1. Appears just when James would be expected to be seeking new identities and IPs
    2. Jumped immediately to editing John Stossel and Talk:Ron Paul, two hot-buttons of James; similar protectivism over same articles
    3. Immediate acquaintance with hierarchical talk boards, links, and style
    4. Similar view that what should or should not be mentioned is obvious
      1. 66:*: "This should obviously be mentioned" (Romney's self-financing, with link, in a Paul article) [12]
      2. BenB4 "your obvious conflict of interest as evidenced by" (09/10 14:13 Talk:Ron Paul archive 7); "Including his statements about himself when they conflict with the legislation he has introduced is a gross violation" [13]; "any editor may remove unverifyable content per WP:V; the burden of showing verifiability is with those including" [14].
    5. Similar fixation on exact quotes from sources to the exclusion of paraphrases
      1. 66.*: "link to article saying this" [15]
      2. 1of3: "what the references actually say" [16], "what the ref actually says" [17]
      3. BenB4: "what the bill says from http://thomas..." [18], "source doesn't say this per main" [19], "article says date is 22nd" [20]
    6. Similar focus on adverting minor self-correction
      1. 66.*: "corrected self" [21]
      2. BenB4: "rv self" (added "A") [22], "revert self" (deleted "ing") [23], "self-revert: technically broke 3rr again" [24], 17 more examples searching on "self"
    7. Similar focus on minor punctuation mistakes
    8. 66.* comes from Road Runner Midsouth Herndon VA; 209.* comes from AT&T/SBC/PacBell Richardson TX; Nrc* has used 71.141.107.41 which has the same AT&T/SBC/PacBell Richardson TX provenance; several other IPs in same service were suspected of being Nrc*, such as 71.132.129.114; 69.228.65.174 was used by puppet (possible meatpuppet) Peter Cheung and is same service; 75.35.112.95, 75.18.207.177, 75.18.207.177 from AT&T/SBC were also possibles. Based on this and without better analysts chipping in, this is supplemental evidence for 209.* but not for 66.* (unless this jogs someone else's memory).
    9. WP:DUCK
  2. Here T.D. Cudgel points out that we should log James's every IP due to rampant abuse and ban evasion, which I support, and Cudgel indicates we have not been handling James well enough yet. The odds of 66.* being an innocuous user are not negligible, so there an SSP block might be better than a straight ban if no better evidence materializes; but there are not firm evidence standards here and I think open-source consensus generally should operate on preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt, so I would have no problem banning either. This is my considered opinion as a forum moderator elsewhere. John J. Bulten 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Add Starkrm whose evidence is obvious upon consulting contribution lists and dates, and who is now (10/18) the depleted uranium editor of choice. T.D. Cudgel also pegs JLeclerc and Pdilla as suspicious depleted uranium editors, but I'm not looking for diffs on those two unless they start editing the politics articles. However, don't let James feel free to abuse any account; please let's all keep an eye out. John J. Bulten 17:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of what is "obvious"? Now that I've read what a "sockpuppet" is, I think I understand a bit more. I'm not a sockpuppet. I've made contributions to radiological related articles and stuck in my 2 cents in a few other places. What is in question here? Starkrm 19:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See your user page. I'll grant it may not be so obvious as I thought at first glance. John J. Bulten 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite different from your statement "Add Starkrm whose evidence is obvious upon consulting contribution lists and dates..." which gives the impression you have done your fact checking when you didn't. I find Mr. Salsman annoying on Radsafe, but I would certain be certain of my facts before calling for someones banning. Starkrm 21:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All night I was concerned that I had made an inappropriate accusation on hasty review. However, on further review of the record, my gut feelings were vindicated in that there is enough evidence to request a checkuser. If it should come up clean I will be happy to apologize for the inconvenience:
This is truly unbelievable. A a famous scientist once said, "People (even some smart ones) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." I have NEVER in my life seen a more textbook example of bias. I really feel like I'm in Nazi Germany being asked for my "papers." Don't you have anything better to do than compare posting dates and times and imaginary connections through obviously frivolous coincidences? Did you not actually READ any of my contributions? James Salsman, who I am familiar with through the Radsafe list server, is a blatantly anti-nuclear advocate. I am not! I will attempt to give my explanations below but I say directly to you, Mr. Bulten, I have taken this as more than an inconvenience and your apology better be damned good, and public. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect overlap with 1of3 9/28-10/18 and almost perfect with BenB4 from SRM creation 3/22-9/28. That is, edit periods in one correspond with gaps in the other. Frequent close shifts from one account's activity periods to the other's, such as SRM first edit in a month being 9/28 2:18-2:28, corresponding to Ben gap between 1:09 and 14:36; BenB4 "au revoir" 9/28 14:45 and SRM editing Light 9/28 14:50-53 and following; SRM 10/1 18:32 after 1of3 18:26; SRM 10/15 20:45-46 after 1of3 10/15 19:46-20:07, ending there for the day; SRM 2:59-3:06 10/18 during 1of3 gap from 2:23 to 4:46. One exception 7/18 21:28 is easily explicable. Nonsock would statistically expect more than one exception and fewer close shifts.
I can't explain my editing times. I suppose I could selectively find those who edited at times other than you and attempt to accuse you of something similar, but I have better things to do with my time. I edit when I can. During breaks at work and time at home. I really liked the ideal of making an online encyclopedia that everyone can contribute too. Suddenly, I don't feel so welcome. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudden activity: SRM activity since BenB4 ban 9/28 has been 1/3 of SRM's total output since 3/22. (I'm partly responsible, of course, after accusing SRM.)
See above reply. I feel sometimes motivated to correct errors and grammar and sometimes I don't. If that makes me guilty of something then go ahead and assume most of the wikipedia editors guilty as well. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear interest in depleted uranium and radiation, as well as political issues such as GWB impeachment. If a sock, this account has been much more hermetic than the others.
I do have an interest in radiological issues since I am a Health Physicist. I wouldn't attempt to contribute to articles on Shakespeare, etc... I guess I could ask you to explain what you mean by saying I have been more "isolated" than the others. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits have only two overlap areas with James's instead of ten or more, which is actually in your favor. John J. Bulten 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First edits 3/22 were to user page and to Plutonium. User page immediately provided a single sentence of justification which permits uranium edits to appear reasonable. SRM's first edit to Plutonium changed "204.113.19.8" to "Starkrm", and that IP appears to be SRM at least for 3/21-22 (Helen Caldicott edits in common with SRM) and otherwise appears random. That IP goes to proxyout.utah.gov, which makes me suspicious but I don't know how much I should be.
Since you've "outed" me as living in Utah (and where I work) I don't know why you would use it as "evidence" that I am someone who does not live in Utah. Admins - is there some sort of privacy issue of someone revealing my IP, residence and place of work here? Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like Ben: [25] SRM: "Rewrite to NPOV and correct sentance structure." Ben loves to talk of NPOV and correctness. SRM refers to POV 3x in edit summaries.
Again - did you look at my edits. This particular article bothers me because it was so poorly written in the first place. I tried to clean it up and thought I would clean up more to show the lack of evidence behind the LLRC movement, but now I am not so sure. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Why not?" [26] Ben: "Paul considers it an essential element of his position, why not put it alongside his other positions?" [27] Ben: "why leave it open when the outcome is known? Why not explain reasoning on talk?" [28] 10/15 SRM: "Why not here. It is relevant to the science." (Also, Ben refers to relevance 7 times in edit summaries.)
My point is clearly stated in my summary - It is relevant to the science. I think pointing out that the Iraq government under Hussein may be responsible for some of the medical problems going on in Iraq was germane to the argument against DU being a cause. I was holding the EXACT OPPOSITE view that James Salsman would have on DU. Again, please actually read what my edits are. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that last edit, SRM reintroduces ref to potential Iraq fallout, deleted by P.B. Shearer. TDC re-deletes: "Come now James". SRM does not object to TDC's characterization of SRM as James on talk, edit summary, or CU page. SRM now acts like he has just learned what a sock puppet is, but he also expresses familiarity with "Mr. Salsman" from "Radsafe". There may be another explanation than puppetry, but there's enough evidence to justify my accusation and to leave it to the admins to decide. We'll know in 10 or fewer. John J. Bulten 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought when I saw that retraction was "There is clearly some history I don't understand going on here. I'll just stay out of it." I don't understand the connection you are making by saying I can be familiar with Mr. Salsman from Radsafe and therefore should know what a sock puppet is. Please explain the connection. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name relationship between "Starkrm" and "Starcare", and "Clerkbird" and "JLeclerc", is interesting but may be insignificant. Certainly relationship between "Acct4" and "1of3" (and perhaps "BenB4", been before) is granted. John J. Bulten 17:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the funniest "evidence" of all. Are you serious? OK - "Starkrm" has the letters "star" in them as does "Starcare" but what connection is there with "Clerkbird" and "JLeclerc"? Maybe a quote from one of your statements below will help you understand how I feel right now. "Admins, would you also mind letting me and Turtle know what is the penalty for making easily disproven false accusations without evidence?" I don't know who you are trying to impress, or why, but you have made this editor at Wikipedia feel harrassed and very unwelcome. If that was your intent, then good job. Starkrm 19:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, the admins will take everything into account and if you're not James you have nothing to worry about. No harm, no foul. My point is that there is credible evidence for requesting a checkuser. The checkuser may well be credible evidence that there is no sockpuppetry. Please recall a few points: you publicly associated yourself with the IP (just as I am publicly associated with sites familiar to Burzmali and "outed" by him). Also, your similarity with James was first noted by TDC, not me, so it's not personal; and since DU is not my interest, TDC would be more able to judge whether your and James's edits to DU are in alignment, so (please forgive me) I'm not involving myself in the subtleties of why your DU edits favor your innocence, as an admin can find out instead. Also, I didn't say you lived in Utah, nor do I know where Salsman lives, though IP evidence suggests somewhere more east. Also, I faced the same accusation of SSP (so I certainly understand your feelings of harassment, and shared them above), but my own accuser has not seen fit to move from vague similarity to credible particulars warranting further research. Also, "If it should come up clean I will be happy to apologize." Also, "Do not take it too personally." I've only been editing a month myself, and now I'm suddenly facing both sides of the question simultaneously, so I do understand your position, whether you are or are not a sock. Ultimately there really is no harm to me when various accusations are made once, tested, and dropped; same applies to you. In good faith I am changing my request here from block to CU. Our best approach right now is to laugh at the irony of the situation and continue to act normally. John J. Bulten 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Hardee, Ha Ha. The harm is that you come in with symbolic "guns-a-blazing" and act as if you are an authority figure here. You've only been editing here for a month? What sort of experience could you have? If you had done this to other people who aren't so interested in defending themselves as I am, then your actions might just drive them away. It is obvious to me that you first made a conclusion, and then searched for evidence to back it up. You could similarly accuse anyone who edits the article about "depleted uranium." Let me give you a little friendly advice - Think three times before making ANY authoritative comment about someone or something you are not sure about. Don't say it is "obvious" that someone should be banned. Don't call for someones banning without rigorous evidence. Don't ever "out" anyones private information even if you put it together from public sources. And don't forget to apologize. Starkrm 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

User "Photouploaded" also acts suspiciously similar but I have not regarded his edits as particularly abusive like I did Ben and 1of3. If you could user-check for similar patterns 'twould be useful. Am not compiling evidence for Photo today. When JLMadrigal (a helpful editor) removed the POV temporarily, Photo immediately replaced it. Also Photo did the initial POV tag, with the water immediately carried by BenB4.

BenB4 and 1of3 have perfect-overlap edit histories (including a 46-minute apparent account switch on 8/29), have edited 10 of the same article families, and perform the same abusive activity (frivolous use of POV). Photouploaded appears complicit but I have not worked on his evidence. Please ban 1of3 and review Photouploaded for banning blocking if similar sockpuppet evidence arises.

Add: BSbuster should be watched for sudden activity. I noted that BSbuster links here, perhaps because someone else made a "(2nd)" SSP report which vanished before I made my "(2nd)" report.

To James, I would add that I appreciate your clarifying your POV at [29], suggesting that you believe your continued rulebreaking improves WP. The answer to "Why follow rules (arbitrator probation) when it won't improve WP?" is this: Why should the admins follow the rules when they could ban you preemptively instead of according to what constitutes WP due process? Even if "improvement" trumps everything, we still have different POVs about what constitutes improvement, and a vast consensus is growing for the proposition that banning you indefinitely would be an improvement over permitting you any leeway, even to make community-agreed improvements. The reason for this community view is that, as I've hinted, permitting one hardened anarchist to remain unpunished encourages others to anarchy (including the admins who are charged with fair and just administration of policy), and anarchy is regarded as self-evidently not an improvement. If you want to go all the way back philosophically, "improvement" simply means what each person regards as "better" or "good", one's values; each person's values differ and can be adjusted situationally; and therefore no protestation that "improvement" is accomplished can stand unless there is some way of describing, not just what one thinks is good, but what is truly good in itself. Either nothing is truly good in itself, or something is. If nothing is good, then all claims of "improvement" are phony and you have no reason for being here. If something is good in itself, then we should be able to reach consensus about what it is, and to recognize when we are the small minority. If you are truly convicted that you should fight this consensus, more power to you-- but you can only fight it by arguing that some other consensus of right and wrong should be preferred, you cannot fight existing consensus by abandoning all rules and retaining improvement as a rule. By the way, in meatspace, that consensus is called "God". He who considers consensus must believe that it exists and that it rewards those who seek it. Since you will not have another opportunity to hear from me, I suggest you take this data to heart before you meet the indefinite ban IRL. John J. Bulten 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added user John J. Bulten to this list. Short edit history with similar edit patterns. I have watched this page for awhile and have always assumed that John J. Bulten was BenB4 (Nrcprm2026). Turtlescrubber 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admins, would you also mind letting me and Turtle know what is the penalty for making easily disproven false accusations without evidence? Thanks. [30] and [31] might help. Adding 209.77.205.2 to list (with evidence); pardon me if I don't add the templates this second.
Turtle, I have nothing to fear from you. John J. Bulten 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you? It's more for my peace of mind than anything else. Don't take it personally. Turtlescrubber 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All, Turtle has not formed a proper evidence page and I reserve my rights as such. However, I think Turtle is ticked that Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't make FAC this week and suspect retaliation. I originally considered listing Turtle in this report, but decided there was no need to clutter it with everyone who acted like Ben (Turtle apparently feels differently). But because I'm a Ron Paul kinda guy I don't know whether I'll exert process against Turtle yet. Anyone want to run checkuser on the two of us? John J. Bulten 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since one of my statements has been dragged into this ... 1) the Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC was already headed for failure before User:John J. Bulten showed up at it, so a retaliation motive seems unlikely; 2) I have no idea who's a sock of whom, if anyone; all I ever said at [32] was that User:John J. Bulten's edit history as a purportedly new user seems suspicious — how many users within their first month in Wikipedia are nominating high-profile articles for FAC, posting notices on administrator boards, trying to get other users banned as socks, etc.? — but that if he is a legitimate editor, I am willing to deal with his sometimes uncivilly-delivered content views. Wasted Time R 00:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarrely, in Bulten's defense, based on my observations of him on another website, he is exactly the type of person that would jump in and pseudo-wikiLawyer up a storm. In regards to Wikipedia, I won't judge if that is good or bad behavior, but it reduces the likelihood of him being a sock. Burzmali 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that article that says "Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims"? And what website do you mean? If it's the one with the "pirates", surely you know that behavior in a legal-oriented community like that is different from behavior in an open-source community? And what is the casuistry you invent to distinguish pseudo and regular WL? All I do here procedurally is read the policies and repeat the spirit of what I read-- like that section about outing other users. Guys, now I am starting to get concerned about WP, because they're really creeping from the woodwork of a sudden. On other sites people admit they're hostile but don't complain to admins about it, and here it's the reverse. I'm now up to three attackers. I mean, I'm helpfully compiling significant evidence for evasion of a known indefinite ban, and I get this kind of flip criticism from Turtle and "Michael". Perhaps someone reputable can advise when and whether I should start taking it personally?
Wasted, thank you for your olive branch, I never thought my quick ramp-up skills would be a liability. John J. Bulten 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Reset indent

John, I'm not attacking you, I apologize if I came off sounding harsh above. I just pointed out that from my observations of your behavior other places we have crossed paths, you aren't likely to be a sock. I don't think your quick move to quote chapter and verse of wiki policy or the "sock-like" behavior that Wasted mentioned should, in and of itself, result in sanctions against you. Using those tactics to negatively affect the content of WP will get you in trouble quick, but I'm not touching a politics-related content dispute. For the record, I don't disagree with your suspicions that User:1of3 is a sock of User:Nrcprm2026. Burzmali 17:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • 1of3 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by Morven
  • 209.77.205.2 ...
  • 66.56.206.68 ...
  • Acct4 was indefinitely blocked 10/3 by Tariqabjotu
  • Andy r2 was indefinitely blocked 10/18 by EliminatorJR
  • BenB4 was indefinitely blocked 9/28 by Moreschi
  • BSbuster ...
  • JLeclerc ...
  • John J. Bulten ... (proforma --jjb)
  • Kevster2 was indefinitely blocked 9/28 by Moreschi
  • Pdilla ...
  • Starkrm ...
  • Question - is there a fuller discussion/RFCU/etc somewhere about this sock farm or is it being judged by behavior here? Not a criticism, just a question: my experience has been that both methods can be accurate, and both can be wrong. This page, though, is not like most SSPs that I've seen, so I'm wondering if there's more somewhere else that I missed. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tvoz, this is my first try. I'm also working from User:TDC's request here. John J. Bulten 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, the named accounts are already blocked, except for Starkrm, who I do feel is not a sock of Nrcprm2026 and John J Bulten, who is obviously not a sock. Rlevse 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Nrcprm2026_(2nd)&oldid=166544231"