Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashton 29/Archive

8 March 2010
(The following was taken from Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse/Archive)


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (Oregon IP)
 * (Oregon IP)
 * (Oregon IP)
 * (Oregon IP)

Evidence submitted by Ucucha
See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts for discussion of these editors and User:Laser brain/Sandbox for an in-progress overview of Mattisse's socking. The first four accounts are partly very new, but involved themselves in FAC (Featured article candidates/Chloë Sevigny/archive1), a familiar Mattisse theme. The second two are also relatively new and have been involved with, a recent target of Mattisse socks. Ucucha 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Comment: Involvement with the above accounts has been vehemently denied by Mattisse, who is indefinitely blocked and now without the ability to edit her Talk page. However, she has selectively admitted to various socks, and denied other socks that were conclusively proven to be her. This should proceed so we have a complete record of her socks. If these are not her, the first three seem interrelated and we should have that information as well. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  02:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ and  are socks, but not of Mattisse. Recommend that one of these accounts be indefinitely blocked, and the other blocked for a period with a very stern warning about trying to influence FAC.

❌, and  are unrelated to each other and to the other socks, and are not socks of Mattisse. No comment on the IP. Risker (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the check. I have indefinitely blocked Chaelee and blocked Ashton 29 (the main account) for a week. Ucucha 05:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

11 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

History of uploading photographs on to en Wiki as own work (including as .png format), have the same interests such as locations/places (including Sydney, SE QLD and New Zealand related articles), programs/films and actors/actresses. I also think that the OTRS ticket for File:Anna-Victoria-Wood-95.png should be reviewed closely to make sure it is genuine. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Blocked (non-CU block). Elockid  ( Talk ) 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

25 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editing behaviour is the same and editing in the very same topic areas (Australian cities and related article such as Tourism in Melbourne, actors such as Winona Ryder). It does that they have improved on the copyright aspect (not claiming photographs as own work) but still has no understanding of restrictive (CC licenses other than BY and BY-SA) licensing. Bidgee (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Bidgee (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Very ducky. Besides the identical behavior concerning images and article interests, Ashton 29 and Rfkzsaok7 both change the lead image on this little article as well as this one, and Alishakitty's only contribution to Port Arthur massacre (Australia) is later complimented by Rfkzsaok7's only contribution. Ashton 29=Alishakitty=Rfkzsaok7, IMHO. It's also worth noting, who leapt right in with their second edit to this project (along with Rfkzsaok7 and Alishakitty) and has extensively edited Blue Velvet (film) (along with Alishakitty and Ashton 29). Doc  talk  19:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have also added who has some identical behavior and a very interesting stalker report. Compare Alishakitty to Daledavey. Doc   talk  21:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: Ashton 29 was accused of being a sock of on October 8, 2011 and did not bother to remove the tag until May 27, 2012.  Doc   talk  22:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - This being the second case, it's worth taking a quick look to get an idea of how many accounts we're dealing with. Adding Jennyjupiter to the list of suspected accounts per Doc. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 20:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * is as the geolocation data is not specific enough.
 * is also.
 * The master is . I would recommend that maybe Hersfold (or another CU) run this over with a second check, as I might be being a bit too cautious in drawing connections for this case. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  07:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Lucky me. :-P Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

My conclusions are below. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the same as the above
 * I have blocked and tagged all accounts except for Alishakitty who was already blocked during the first investigation in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the same as the above
 * I have blocked and tagged all accounts except for Alishakitty who was already blocked during the first investigation in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the same as the above
 * I have blocked and tagged all accounts except for Alishakitty who was already blocked during the first investigation in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked and tagged all accounts except for Alishakitty who was already blocked during the first investigation in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked and tagged all accounts except for Alishakitty who was already blocked during the first investigation in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked and tagged all accounts except for Alishakitty who was already blocked during the first investigation in August 2012. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

02 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Using the WP:DUCK case, editor and IP has very much the same interests as the master and past socks and the behaviour is very much the same, though it does seem they have got an understanding on copyright this time. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looks like is /✅ to be  NW ( Talk ) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon a request from another CU to take a second look, this is ✅ with Rfkzsaok7. I have blocked the user and tagged it. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

10 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Very much a duck, has the same editing interests and pattern as Ashton 29. Bidgee (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Before a CU can be endorsed, you need to include some diffs to demonstrate the link between the two editors. We can't investigate without evidence being presented. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 14:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and looked into the contribution history myself. Willing to mark as ✅ based on a combination of behavioral and checkuser evidence. NW ( Talk ) 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on CU findings, indef blocked and tagged. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 18:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

17 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Yet another clear duck case, behaviour is the same and editing interests are the same. Also uploading Flickr photographs on Commons, like the previous accounts which add more weight that these are the same socking editor. CU maybe needed to check for sleepers. Bidgee (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - New accounts tagged and blocked as obvious socks. Endorsing checkuser to look for more accounts. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

✅ the following are related to the accounts listed above: --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Newly uncovered accounts also behaviorally match previous accounts. Tagged and blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

20 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

User has the very same interests, editing pattern and behaviour as past blocked accounts, which makes it yet again another duck. Since the last SPI showed sleepers, I'm also requesting a CU for sleepers. Bidgee (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - New sock blocked and tagged. Requesting CU to look for sleepers and/or block the underlying IP(s), if feasible. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking purely on a technical basis, it's in between and, because the geolocation is crappy, but they are using the exact same UA. ✅  to Mashall4qwedfss. I'd use the behavoir as your first line of defense though instead of the technical result. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged. Closing, AGK  [•] 13:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

22 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Very new account by the serial sock puppeteer, this is based on editing style, behaviour, interests on Wikipedia and Commons. Also have other evidence which I'm not going to publish as it could be a breach of Wiki policy if I do so (WP:OUTTING). Again like the last SPI, I'm requesting CU for sleepers which have been positive (sleepers found). Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Bidgee (talk) 10:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * For the confidential data (as a functionary, you can drop me an email and I'll review it. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  10:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Very that the following group (hell I could call it confirmed really with the behavior) to be related to socks in the archive. ✅:
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

29 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Behaviour, editing style and interests are the same as past sock accounts, this is a clear duck case. Like the past cases, CU has uncovered sleepers and further sock puppets. Bidgee (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ plus Marciellor11. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

9 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Duck SPI case, since the editor has the same behaviour, editing style and interests (DeltaQuad knows about an offline connection to this socking editor, which I informed them about), like as always with the past sock accounts, this is a clear. CU has uncovered sleepers and further sock puppets in the past, therefore I'm requesting a CU for this SPI. Bidgee (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Spryser is ✅. No sleepers at the moment. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Tag applied, marking for close. Jafeluv (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

10 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Ashton and socks are known to use Telstra as an IP but also the IP's keep undoing my edits related to the last sock blocked (Spryser) [Melbourne General Post Office and Tourism in New Zealand]. Not to sure what the best course of action is, the IPs are dynamic, so blocking the IP itself would see them change it to by pass the block and range blocking can cause major problems (collateral damage). Bidgee (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is unfortunately little that SPI can do here, and nothing I think that would be helped by blocking. The range Ashton operates on is a small but very active range. Suggestions would be to request protection on heavily affected articles, or perhaps request edit filter that prevents people on this range from modifying images on Australian topics. (I would only pursue the edit filter if it becomes a very serious problem.) Someguy1221 (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

04 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Last used in January 2013
 * Last used in January 2013


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The editing behavior and topics edited are the same or similar as past accounts (also see the archive on the number of accounts used, as the toolserver tool can't list them all) and IPs (Special:Contributions/101.103.162.65, Special:Contributions/101.103.195.74, Special:Contributions/101.103.29.58, Special:Contributions/101.103.154.114) used by this editor (adding diffs would be too time consuming but just looking at the contribs and behavior is enough). The editor also uploads Flickr photographs onto Commons, something past accounts have done but early accounts used to upload them onto English Wikipedia. Past SPIs and CUs has shown that the user creates sleepers.

Classic example of the editor's behavior is the use of an account or IP to insert an photograph they've uploaded and will revert (again under either an IP or account) anyone whom undoes the edit. is also a possible now disused sock. Bidgee (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP, has edited a photo which was originally uploaded by one of the past socks (though it was move to Commons and back onto Wikipedia), also the editor's socks have also have an interest in editing the Anna Wood article in the past. The IP also admitted to logging out on my talk page. Most articles edited by both accounts and IPs are the same areas and behavior (Example: In the Architecture of Melbourne article, sock accounts and IPs of the blocked user kept adding photographs from September 2012 onwards).


 * Another connection can be made in the Auckland article. Mashall4qwedfss changes/adds the photographs in the article (including one uploaded by once of the socks), Crukemewed does the same again by changing images on the article, including with one uploaded by them. Bidgee (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - A check would be good, plus the possibility of sleepers. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - Brandy89 is . For Crukemewed, can I get some actual diffs, or at least an article that can link an account to an account. The mass list of "similair edited pages" doesn't really help. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  13:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP, don't need CU for that as it was self-admitted. Rschen7754 07:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Very Crukemewed is a sock of Ashton 29.  --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Crukemewed blocked as confirmed, Brandy89 blocked per WP:DUCK, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

19 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

A duck case with the very same behaviour and similar editing areas (Crukemewed vs Lisabesh and 101.103.154.114 vs 121.220.222.63). They create account to upload Flickr photographs on Commons, change the photographs in articles with the account and/or just the IP they are using. In some cases will redo the edit they made, if it is undone (example South Melbourne and Architecture of Melbourne). They're also known to create sleepers (see the SPI archive). Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Support. I.P has made a large number of image edits, often replacing images without discussion including Melbourne, Architecture of Melbourne, City of Adelaide, Adelaide city centre‎ and New Zealand cuisine. Edit style matches User:Ashton 29 and User:Lisabesh (see Block Arcade, Melbourne ) ''' Flat Out  Let's discuss it  13:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Lisabesh is possible to likely technically, no comment on the IP, and no sleepers that I see. Courcelles 17:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at content, style and methods, all appear to be the same. That CU finding the registered editor plausible reinforces this.  Blocked, tagged, closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 18:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

21 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Following blocks to User:Ashton_29 and sockpuppets User:121.220.222.63 and User:Lisabesh, User:49.176.37.17 has emerged at Melbourne and other pages to take up the same edit wars as Ashton_29. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ashton_29/Archive#19_May_2013 ''' Flat Out  Let's discuss it  10:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While the ISP is different (Optus, rather then Telstra), the geolocation and the edit, clearly point to being the same editor. Bidgee (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. Checkuser tries to avoid confirming links between IPs and named accounts. In this case, the duck test is pretty much sufficient, so CU isn't necessary anyway. Blocked the IP for 24hrs, closing. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

22 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

After User:49.176.37.17 was blocked for socket-puppetry yesterday   User:49.178.33.7 and User:49.176.7.125 ‎restarted an image edit war at Melbourne and Gentrification in the same style as User:Ashton_29 and other sockpuppets. ''' Flat Out  Let's discuss it  08:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Quack. Both IPs blocked for 24hrs. Closing. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

22 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same root I.P as previous sockpuppets 49.17.*.* disruptive editing/edit warring at Melbourne and Gentrification. Is it possible to block more broadly? ''' Flat Out  Let's discuss it  09:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
As above; blocked 24hrs, closing. The range looks too large for a rangeblock to be appropriate - I have, however, semi-protected the user's principal targets to prevent continued disruption. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  09:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

05 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Continuing with image warring, using edit summaries to attack editors, attacking editors via talk pages See: 1, 2, 3, 4. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   13:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

And again at University of Melbourne see 5. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone! I am retaliating to some very rude people, including yourself and Bidgee. My edits are not unconstructive, they only are to you people who are very resistant to change because you think you control every article. Anyone is free to edit, and I have currently got a case open about you, Bidgee and another user regarding social stratification. There are people above you three editors that can have a better say in this. "There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who do occasionally affect us), should be implemented on the model of strict scrutiny". I am not a vandal, and Wikipedia is the Free Encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Bidgee blocked me years ago for uploading copyright images of which I did not know the status! I did not know anything about commons back then and know a lot now. So my block should have expired or been lifted. Bidgee is known to be uncompromising and rude and seems to be very controlling and was even referred to as a "control freak editor" by another user. I strongly agree. There would be no "edit warring" if you did not revert every.single.edit. 121.220.140.49 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment :Changing names, I.P to avoid a block is the issue I have reported here. In regards to editing images, all that is asked is that editing is you achieve consensus rather than making a unilateral decision to change images to those you prefer. I'm not interested in which images are used, I am interested in your following a process that is there to prevent disputes from arising. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   02:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've blocked on Commons (who uploaded File:Old Arts-2.jpg on Commons and was added by the above IP to University of Melbourne) but doesn't appear to be active on English Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IP blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

26 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The behaviour is the same as past accounts, editing style is the same (adding images uploaded by the newly created sock account and past blocked accounts) and the fact they admitted it on my talkpage. Bidgee (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Bidgee (talk) 05:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The IPs are from the same ISP, the same Geo region (South Australia). Ashton has used a number of accounts in the past to upload files and used IPs to add them to articles.


 * File:Christchurch Cathedral at night.jpg was uploaded by [a block Ashton sock] after nevercallitquits requested the photographer license it under a CC-BY-SA license


 * File:Gold Coast skyline 2012.jpg and File:George Street, Sydney 2011.jpg and again nevercallitquits requested the photographer license it under a CC-BY-SA license.


 * changed the Gold Coast infobox image with the photo uploaded by Perfectbarbie86thatsme. Again the same on the George St, Sydney article. Bidgee (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I've gone ahead and blocked 60.231.212.97 as I find it behaviourally obvious. I'm not quite so clear on Perfectbarbie86thatsme and 58.170.122.143.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * For our purposes, either by CU or behavoir you can consider everyone here Ashton 29 -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

08 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Similar interests, style and behavior, engaged in edit warring over same images on the Melbourne page, attempted to add using the same caption months apart (one of Ashton 29's attempts). Ashton 29 has a history of disruptive editing on the Melbourne page, and when forced to argue his case, he invariably fails (see talk page). HappyWaldo (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (response to Bbb23) It's the first time I've reported socking so the process is new to me. I considered informing Bidgee, who exposed Ashton 29 as a serial sockpuppeter throughout 2013, but he seems to have retired from Wikipedia. It's also worth noting that Dain488 hasn't made any edits since being warned on 6 July of an impending sockpuppet investigation. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * You've presented almost no evidence of socking other than reporting an edit war in which you were involved and in which the other two users disagreed with you. That's hardly sufficient to justify any action here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * for lack of evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)