Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LevenBoy/Archive

LevenBoy

LevenBoy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

22 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

Triton Rocker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Doc9871

Note - There does exist one edit overlap: at 16:30 on 27 Aug 2010. LevenBoy[1], Triton Rocker[2]. Aside from that, there are zero overlaps in the 2000 combined edits, where in many cases multiple edits were made by both accounts on the same day. Please note the timestamps on the diffs. This is a complicated case with a lot of behavioral evidence, and I will keep it as brief as possible. Wikistalk comparison is here[3].

. User:LevenBoy has demonstrably[4] been "hounding" the edits of User:HighKing since LB's creation (his sixth overall edit is a revert[5]): following and reverting (and HK reverting back) over the issue of HK's goal to change the term "British Isles" to "United Kingdom" across the wiki (in most cases). The results have included numerous AN/I reports, SPI reports, topic ban restrictions, blocks, etc. User:Triton Rocker was created on 21 March 2010, and for the most part peacefully edited mainly "biking-related" articles that neither LB nor HK had ever touched.

LevenBoy and HighKing were involved in their usual ongoing dispute at Talk:Ordnance Survey National Grid by 8 July, where HK[6] had been followed by LB[7]. LevenBoy pulls out of the argument[8], and things calm down. Triton Rocker (who is fresh off a rather nasty[9] debate that is quickly resolved[10] after having not edited since 25 June) comes into the picture out of absolutely nowhere on 11 July[11], to edit at the talk page of an article he had never edited. From this point forward, Triton Rocker becomes LevenBoy's obvious sock.

Triton Rocker's next suspicious move is to perform this[12] at an article where HighKing had been battling a pro-BI sock. After being reverted by another "opponent" of LevenBoy (User:Bjmullan), it is he who restores TR's edit[13]. Some edit-warring behavior, then LB backs out[14] (note Bjmullan's edit summary). HighKing reverts. From 12:59-13:17, LevenBoy starts reverting HighKing and Bjmullen at List of Mythological Places[15], Albert Guðmundsson[16] and Eric Cantona[17], all small articles edited previously by HK or .Bj: and then stops for the rest of the day. At 21:03, along comes TR with the reference requested of LevenBoy by Bjmullen earlier (and additional "masking" content)[18]. TR makes a BI change[19] - then reverts back to LevenBoy one[20] after the other[21] after the other[22].

Off to revert HK & co. some more, his very next move "clinches" the fact he is deliberately hounding HighKing. He makes this[23] revert of HK, then this "improvement"[24] (note the last contributor), then [25][26][27][28]. These are all either direct or indirect reverts of HighKing on small articles he followed him to. He makes another BI change[29] and stops editing in the dispute for the day.

12 July - HighKing reacts to the reverts[30] and proceeds to revert all of Triton Rocker's edits and informs him of it[31]. Back comes LevenBoy at 7:08[32] reverting all of HK's reverts, and then goes on a tear[33] of reverting HK's most recent changes to other articles. An AN/I report follows. LevenBoy makes this[34] comment at the AN/I, the last edit he'll make until the 16th.

15 July - Triton Rocker makes this[35] edit to Artemisia vulgaris, and then supports HighKing's topic ban[36]. The next day, LevenBoy curiously mentions Triton Rocker here[37] (the two have never "conversed").

19 July - Triton Rocker revisits Artemesia vulgaris[38] to revert User:Snowded. It gets reverted by Snowded: Triton Rocker leaves a "message"[39]. LevenBoy makes his third comment here[40] and proceeds to make this revert[41] to Artemisia vulgaris (which he had never edited before). He comments on the same section again[42]. Triton Rocker takes note here[43] and especially here[44]. Both accounts' last edit on this day are at the same section of the same article: LevenBoy[45], Triton Rocker[46].

20 July - Both accounts start their editing day by posting to User:Black Kite's page: Triton Rocker[47], LevenBoy[48].

21 July - Both accounts start their editing day by posting to the same section of the same AN/I discussion: LevenBoy[49], Triton Rocker[50]. LevenBoy takes a short "break" while Triton Rocker continues to battle with Snowded[51].

25-26 July - TR hits the Tenant farmer page[52], LevenBoy reverts Snowded later[53]. Triton Rocker goes to another obscure article[54] to then face battle with Snowded's reverts. LevenBoy comes along and restores[55], but thinks better of it[56]. (Note: This is what I call a "tell") ;> Snowded's revert summary is interesting[57]. But then, TR comes along again to reinsert it with another "ref"[58]. Seeing a pattern yet? Revert by Snowded, reinsert[59]. LevenBoy takes another break while TR battles some more with Snowded.

"The Scapegoat" - The Triton Rocker account was designed to be the "scapegoat" from the beginning. Both accounts use the term liberally; but at least one crucial flaw sheds light onto the ruse. On 2 Aug, TR says, "What happened here is that I walk in on some nationalistic dispute which has been going on for years when a couple of the editors started to perform total revision of my work."[60] and, "I only got dragged into this issue a few weeks ago when some unnamed a-hole started reverting my work."[61], and mentions "scapegoat" again on his sole edit for 3 Aug[62] The evidence shows these statements about "reverting first" to be just the opposite in TR's case, though LB could attempt to make this claim. LevenBoy echoes the unfairness "...in this latest uncalled-for block on an editor who just by chance came across the diabolical situation regarding British Isles and tryed to do something about it. He is the latest victim..."[63] This is patently untrue, as the diffs provided above show. Statements by LB that confirm his "pre-account" conflict with HighKing include: his assertion that HighKing has been reverting "for two years now"[64] on 12 July, and "now lasting almost three years"[65] not even a month later: December 2008 (LevenBoy's creation) was six months shy of the two-year mark mentioned.

Okay,Okay - I could go on and on with more, like the history of Irish Traveller[66], or this template[67], or of the little article concerning James Kay (British inventor)[68]. It's basically: either LevenBoy or Triton Rocker reverts an article HighKing or Snowded was at, and the other comes right along. I'll add more later: there's still a lot of evidence to present...

CU is requested because of the disruptive nature of the accounts and the probability of undiscovered socks that continue to disrupt WP. LevenBoy has been named in previous SPI cases, and User:SpongerJack looks related (though I haven't listed him above), with no overlap and a very similar and revealing edit history. Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

So how can I defend myself without yet another admin finding the smallest excuse to ban me yet again or it being used against me?

I think if one looks closely, it would rather turn out to be the other way around from how it is being presented.

All of this is being provoked by Irish nationalist HighKing's campaign to remove all an any examples of the term "British Isles" from the Wikipedia. Self-declared Welsh nationalist Snowded, acts as a self-appointed policemen, provokes the issue by habitual, unnecessary and even erroneous reverting any corrections. They are supported by other minor Irish editors, such as Brendanjmullan who persistently "troll" to game the system unquestioned and unchallenged. Personally, I prefer to use the English word "snitching" to the more American "trolling", as my vocabulary pre-dates the internet. Please do not hold this against me.

I am merely a convenient scapegoat for them to distract from the nationalist agenda at play on the Wikipedia.

HighKing perceives me as a threat to their agenda not because I oppose them from a nationalist point of view but because I oppose nationalism being allowed to dominate non-political topics and oppose non-political topics being politicised. Hence they are seeking to exclude me from the discussion in any way possible.

If this accusation turns out to be wrong, what do I get to say to the accuser and how strongly can I say it? --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of talk about hounding here, and yes, I freely admit it. I hound POV warriors, of which there are currently a few working tirelessly to remove British Isles and other disliked terms from Wikipedia using a range of policy-shopping and stonewalling techniques. As for this current joke, inteested readers will note the "evidence" above is just a detailed analysis of two accounts with the same interest. There is nothing to suggest they are one and the same, so this really is just a fishing expedition. Nevertheless, fishing expedition that it so obviously is, it will go to checkuser, because admins and checkusers are always right. I commend the user who filed this. What tenacity! And what a lot of spare time you must have on your hands! I suspect you're a sockpuppet of HighKing, but I can't be bothered filing a report. Then again, I also suspect HighKing and FootyFanatic3000 of being one and the same, and BJmullan is an obvious sock (note the blank user page) but I'm not complaining. Of course let's not forget that HighKing actually IS a sock but he managed to sweet-talk a daft checkuser into letting him off. Isn't it amazing how the anti-BI brigade seem to think their cause is so righful that everyone supports them and there's only one real person, with many accounts, against them. How funny! Anyway, I digress. Carry on, you with nothing better to do, waste a load more of your and others' time in this pointless exercise. LevenBoy (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of conciseness, extraneous commentary collapsed

=Responses and various commentary=

I'm an American living in the US (a CU would confirm), with no opinion one way or the other on BI vs UK. I'm not "anti-BI", and I'm certainly not a sock of anyone (except myself). I know as well as you do that there are other socks out there on both sides of this considerable debate: this one "jumped out" at me. TR developed his "interest" rather quickly on 11 July, since he had never interacted with you or HighKing, nor edited any of the articles you two did. How did he go from editing Rocker articles... to systematically reverting HighKing's edits with you on the most obscure of articles with no prior exposure? I don't think he merely "stumbled" into it, and yet you two became rather "fast" friends. He's either a meat puppet recruited off-wiki or a sock, and I'm confident that he's a sock. Disparage me if you want, throw blame at others around, cloud the issue with rhetoric; that's fine. To Triton Rocker above: you do mean when the accusation turns out to be wrong, not if, I believe? You can say whatever you want to me as strongly as you want to, and I won't mind. I stand by the report, and if it's decided to be wrong, so be it. Doc9871 (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot remember which topic it was. I think it might have been one about a country house once owned by famous nudist which is another of my interests. Nudism, not country houses. I got 'involved' because I was messed about by these people on a couple of articles doing exactly what they seemingly do over all British Isles topics.

I followed their edits and saw they were doing it to others, that a lot of it was ridiculous nonsense and it needed to be questioned. It is an area that I actually know something about.

The remarkable thing about this continued one sided scapegoating, Doc, is how you have inverted the situation to distract away from HighKing's campaign without questioning it at all. --Triton Rocker (talk) 06:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You both bring up "scapegoat" a lot, and you both keep putting this report back onto HighKing and his campaign. It's like saying, "Yes, I'm socking: but it's the lesser of two evils, because look what HighKing is doing!". If he's socking disruptively as well, it can be proven. I don't care why you're socking, just that you are, and it's clearly been disruptive. You clearly weren't "messed about" with first, because the evidence shows that you started messing about on your own with BI reverts, something LevenBoy has done from the beginning. You didn't seem to object to, "Rockers, leather boys or ton-up boys are a biker subculture that originated in the United Kingdom during the 1950s..." by your last edit there[69], just 1 day before your BI reverts of HighKing, right? Why didn't you change this to "British Isles" just before your "call to arms" in the campaign? You worked enough on the article, and if you felt that strongly about it, why did you never change it? It's a hell of a quick conversion - overnight, really. It's more about harassing HighKing than British Isles, methinks... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I have never seen any references to suggest there was a Rocker scene in Ireland at all. The movement is well referenced to have started in the United Kingdom (Stanley Cohen).

If what you say is true, let us do a simple test. Topic ban HighKing from his ' Remove the British Isles' campaign and see what happens. --Triton Rocker (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And... back to HighKing, of course. In this statement accusing other editors of meat puppetry, you say, "You go around working as a little team. You did it before to me --- and I have the diffs to show anyone."[70] I'd like to see those diffs, especially as you started reverting with this[71], with your "teammate" backing you up here[72]. LevenBoy had it done to him before by the editors you speak of; but not you. Curious... Doc9871 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for convenience - non-material discussion

LevenBoy, I have been off Wikipedia for quite a while (as you can see from my contribs). It's only as a pure fluke that I came across this but I assure you this one thing: I am not HighKing, or any other user on this site but myself. HK's edits aren't even remotely like mine. My edits are centred around aviation articles. Not BI. In fact in the past year I've completely distanced myself from all this crap. I think that we all have better things to be doing here than arguing over a stupid term.

Anyway I ask you not to make an accusation like that again when you don't even have the slightest bit of evidence to back your point. Doing so is a clear breach of AGF. With all due respect, Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

It's best to quell any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy does seem to jump to the defence of TR regularly (see my talkpage for just such a defence). TR has admitted a long time ago that he is a return of a previous editor - I assume that it might have been a WP:RTV situation, but perhaps not - his aggressive stance towards "stool pigeons" from the very beginning more than suggests that he had been here before. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for convenience - non-material discussion

I see the witch hunt continues. Who will have accusation made against them next? This is becoming pathetic. All the above shows is two editors interested in taking on the clear crusade on wikipedia to remove the term British Isles by certain editors. A crusade which has been going on for many years and some editors rightly feel strongly about. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for this discussion. Do you wish to add anything relevant to the report? Doc9871 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. The evidence above shows two editors interested in the same topic area. It does not mean they are the same person. Some people focus their time on taking on the crusade which aims to remove British Isles from wikipedia in the same way people use to burn books. I think it is very noble of them for dedicating their time to this endless issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to let the SPI run its course. If both accounts are innocent? then they've nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a witch hunt, a couple of days ago the SPI against Lemon finally closed. Now this one is open. After this one is closed who will be the next victim? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the next one is innocent, he/she's got nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I think LemonMonday is a clear sock of Irvine22 and we know from prior history that editor knows how to use alternative IP to avoid a technical checkuser. The behaviour evidence is overwhelming on that one. LevenBoy is an SPA and can be guaranteed to take a position for the use of British Isles, or Londonderry or whatever, regardless of the argument (BW has has similar position, but is open to reason and will reach agreement based on evidence)/ Given the amount of Unionist socks and the ingenuity they have shown I would run a check on anything with this sort of pattern. However I would also look at the behaviour evidence as well. Overall all editors engaged on these issues might well be checked - I'm happy for someone check me! As GoodDay says, clear things up --Snowded ^TALK 15:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@BWilkins "TR has admitted a long time ago that he is a return of a previous editor".

Did I really? I am confused who I am supposed to be now.

Can you please show me where and what I said exactly? --Triton Rocker (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This diff, after claiming to be a completely new editor a couple of posts before actually. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling your bluff on this. It means nothing of the sort.

I was referring to the two month gap between 9 May and 11 July, during which time I only spent 13 minutes in total [73].

I returned in July 11 and started editing broader spectrum of British topics after which I experienced the "hail of shit". --Triton Rocker (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "bluff" on which to call - I was holding 3 Aces. The phrasing used (based on the behaviour and previous posts) led to the immediate reading of your statement in a certain manner. There was, based on those things, no other way to read it. Whether you meant it that way or not is nothing I could control at the time - I did not type it, I merely added 1+1+1 and came up with a very large value of 3. If you meant it otherwise, you will need to be more careful about the statements you make, especially taking into account their proximity to other posts and related context. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to poin out. While LB posted here today at 17:25; TR posted at Isle of Man, also at 17:25. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for Good Day's assertion: Leven Boy [74], Triton Rocker [75] Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for convenience - non-material discussion

It has been very obvious for a long time now that pro Republican elements are using Wikipedia for their own ends. Users like O Fenian, NorthernCounties, Bjmullan and Asarlai to name but a few. In fact, I have been suspicious for some time that one or more of them are actually sock puppets. Digest that if you can! --Blue is better (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and congrats for finding an SPI for your very first edits on Wikipedia! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and sarcasm too, whatever next. I didn't think there was a rule against editing without registering. Maybe that has changed over the years too since the whole project is infected with bigotry. --Blue is better (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be sticking around now you have decided to register? Welcome by the way, fresh faces always make for interesting times in this never ending story here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been around, whether I stay as I am is another matter. lol --Blue is better (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol, i wonder how many Sock reports are being prepared as we speak! BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, let's just checkuser everyone on this page and get it over and done with ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can we start with the list of users identified by my mate Blue? LevenBoy (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A newly created account, going straight to an SPI? this doesn't look very good. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lets have a checkuser on those identified by me above. Remember Music in the House another sock impersonator? lol --Blue is better (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he was Wikipeire wasn't he? I'll bet anything you like one of those named above is also User:Wikipéire. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between filing a SPI report, and trying to turn one into a circus with extraneous sock accusations unaccompanied by evidence. Why don't we create a talk section on the SPI page devoted to these other accusations, and everyone can keep speculating on who is NOT named in this report as committing sock puppetry? Sound fair? This is about LevenBoy and Triton Rocker - stop trying to cloud the issue... Doc9871 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, move what's needed to talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such a page where we are all able to make endless accusations against each other would be a blood bath. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be like Valhalla, I'm sure. Further responses from any editor here need to focus on the evidence in the report, not the "crusade" or on speculations on who else is a sock of whom that is not named at the top. SPA "appearances" here are not constructive. Yes, you Blue is better. If you don't have anything to add but soapboxing and "lol"'s, please run along. There's a war out there, you know... Doc9871 (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, when i bring up the past in this setting or on ANI, it is simply because i believe things should be put into context of the wider dispute. Two editors taking the same position and making the same changes to the same articles may seem highly suspicious when taken in isolation, but when put into context of a dispute that has lasted years and involved many editors it seems less out of place. I mention the past not to be disruptive, but because i dont want actions to be taken out of context, especially when as with the previous SPI that closed a couple of days ago, even if there is no technical evidence, people call for someone to be indef blocked for editing patterns. That worries me, because many of us could fall victim to it and not just over the BI issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your concerns, and they are quite valid in the overall scheme of things. I can't speak to the previous SPI, as I just learned of it the other day. This one is not related to that one. It's a case-by-case thing, and this particular one is not a case of two editors tag-teaming. That happens a lot on WP and in the BI debate: editing patterns can be used to clear up accusations of socking as well. If I had found any significant overlap, or any clear evidence that LB and TR weren't related, I would not have filed this. The vast majority of SPI's do not include nearly this level of "side issuing". At the top of the SPI page: "Most SPI cases are decided based upon behavioral evidence, that is, the behavior of the accounts or IPs concerned. This evidence needs to be explicit; that is, use verifiable evidence in the form of diffs, links to the pages in which the sock puppetry is occurring, and reasonable deductions and impressions drawn from said evidence. Evidence solely consisting of vague beliefs or assumptions will be rejected." So again, from now on, please everyone focus on the behavioral evidence in this case. Technical evidence is for the CU... Doc9871 (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you admit it doc, you messed up. LevenBoy and Triton Rocker have little in common except an interest in the BI. By the same token it is most obvious that BritishWatcher has a political viewpoint contrary to NPOV and is trying to cover his back. --87.113.26.186 (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. I have strong views, i declare those views on my userpage and do not hide them. NPOV is about article content, i am allowed to have strong views as long as i do not go around inserting clearly biased material into articles because of my views. Something i have never done. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your views are strongly politicised and certainly contrary to NPOV. --87.113.26.186 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not put my views into articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, 87.113.26.186 . You can't just go around insulting peoples personal views unless they force them on articles. As I'm sure BW doesn't do that, I think you're being very unfair as he's allowed to state his views on his userpage. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey doc, it's collapsing time. GoodDay (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Triton is a sock of LevenBoy. That's said I'm not certain of this. Anyway, why is that user "Blue is better" still not blocked? It's not a matter of if he's a sock, but rather, who is he a sock of? Possibly MBM? --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note - As the filer, I have collapsed the discussions among editors that do not apply directly to the evidence presented. All editors are greatly encouraged to comment on the specifics of the report, and to present any evidence pertaining to this case. Larger debates and unfounded sock accusations against other editors not only do not belong in this report, but cannot and will not sway the evidence one way or the other. Thank you. Doc9871 (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is ground for suspicion, however Triton Rocker could simply be just stalking LevenBoys contributions and wades in giving him support. He doesn't have to converse with him to back him up. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you only read the original case together with the response by LevenBoy. I have put in a new subsection heading under that Everything else is discussion, mostly off topic about motivation of editors --Snowded^TALK 06:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The extraneous comments have been rolled up. I believe it should be possible to review this now, but if not, I suggest this should be closed and a new SPI filed. --HighKing(talk) 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point in another SPI being filed, they have both responded. If there is no technical evidence this case should be closed. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How shocking, they were not the same editor after all (if only we could place bets on these things). As there is no technical evidence, both accounts have been active during this process (until their separate blocks) and they are quite clearly different editors that are just involved in the same dispute, this SPI should be closed. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editing history shows that (at the very least) this is a disruptive tag team/meat association, even if the CU showed no technical relation to the accounts. There should be no further pattern of reverting/restoring edits of one for the other after the blocks are expired, I should think. The SPI will be closed in due time, as all usually are. The behavior of the two accounts in relation to each other is "suspect", IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, this has been resolved. TR & LB, are free. GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Clerk note: I'm not reading this. Short summary, please. T. Canens (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk endorsed - T. Canens (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two accounts are pretty conclusively

Unrelated. TN X Man 00:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and mark for close. TN X Man 13:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]