Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bladesmulti/Archive

29 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Bladesmulti and OccultZone uses similar circular reasoning. They are equally incompetent in their English. (Talk:Sati_(practice)) Multiple editors have raised concern. This is also being discussed at WP:ANI. (ANI) -- Rahul (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence:


 * OccultZone on Talk:Sati_(practice) says that "Judith, Don't think there's anything wrong if i am digging for more sources, and i think there are enough sources by now. Are you thinking of inserting 100% similar information back to it now? Since they are sourced." similarly Bladesmulti says on Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Jainism "Don't think we ever cherry pick or wrongly present the reliable source." They use similar phrase to tell what others must "think".
 * On 7th January, 2014, a series of edits by Bladesmulti begins on 03:33 and ends on 03:46 OccultZone begins a series on 03:57 and ends on 05:09 Similarly after a small break, they both start editing after 12:00. Bladesmulti begins at 12:00 and ends at 12:39 OccultZone begins editing at 12:48 ends at 16:44 Bladesmulti begins at 17:01. A look at the their contribution history is strong enough for evidence that they both are being operated by the same person. --Rahul (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I suggest using checkuser here, because the behavioral evidence probably won't be conclusive. (I've been actively following the dispute at ANI.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As someone who has also monitored the dispute, and stepped in on a few of the pages for 3rr/other policy vio stuff, I agree. Behavioral evidence alone isn't enough to make a positive match between the two (but is enough to make it plausible.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to clarify what I meant. I am not very convinced by the behavioral evidence, and am a little bit skeptical of the accusations, but I believe that the accusations need to be put to rest. I believe that checkuser, if used, will provide a clearer answer, one way or the other. If, however, the consensus here is that the behavioral evidence is too weak to justify using checkuser, I would consider that to be a clear reason to put the accusations to rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Callanecc. Let us have a look, Tryptofish asked to pursue SPI if needed. But it is crucial that allegator would refrain from alleging, and withdrew allegation. after writing "Sorry for my explicit suspicions on sockpuppetry".


 * WP:ALLSOCKS explains, that sometimes when user face same reaction towards their edits, they go on alleging everyone to be Sock. But it is not enough evidence. Issue seems to have its stay at one noticeboard for long, from where both probably saw each other. Not possible to depict that how OccultZone or Bladesmulti are supporting each other either. In fact Occultzone seems to be rejecting edits of Bladesmulti. It is one single article, but they are totally different editors.,.


 * In short, Irrelevant for SPI. Noteswork (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the list of speculations from the AN/I thread, which was originally opened against Bladesmulti by StuffandTruth (originally seeking generic 'disruptive user' sanctions unrelated to socking). With the exception of half a diff (pointing to OccultZone but not backed up by a diff pointing to Bladesmulti's identical behavior) these were all just speculations, that I could see.
 * ...I suspect a sock-puppet of User:Hkelkar. On Talk:Voltaire he has mentioned Helen Blavatsky as giving credence to a viewpoint.... &mdash; (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick look at User talk:Hkelkar left me with the impression that Hkelkar's command of English is better than that of Bladesmulti.... (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ....If I can recall User:Indiasummer95 was a lot like this user.... (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indiasummer was anti-Islamic. There the similarity ends. His/her style of writing was different. S/he appeared to be pro-Christian, not pro-Hindu.... (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User:OccultZone is now massively reverting in favour of User:BladesMulti on Sati (practice), REMOVING, for example, scholarly material....  (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Rjwilmsi's version, is what I had reverted to. But since you have mentioned here. I would like to add that neither your version is any good, neither Rjwilmsi, or bladesmulti.... (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidence: similar circular arguing and source removal.  (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose site-ban but may support block. Suggest that because at least two people are willing to mentor Bladesmulti... User_talk:74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ...And further, an IP commenting on this is rather strange, and so too is the quick response of Bladesmulti to your suggestion IP. I'm just sayin. (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Suggest that *if* the SPI does turn up other names/IPs that are the same human, we indef all but the "main" one, and transfer the mentorship to that "main" user-talkpage. ... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Kindly decide. I am a sock of User:Indiasummer95, or User:OccultZone or User:Hkelkar. Been alleged with about 3 by 3 different users. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As the fourth editor to be accused as a sockpuppet of Bladesmulti, I can also add to the count and make it 4/4, by saying that I'm not the same human. :-)     has declaimed their innocence above.  I believe  and  are both currently blocked, and thus unlikely to speak up, about whether they are innocent or guilty.
 * Bladesmulti is currently undergoing mentorvention by myself and a couple of other editors... they would most probably like their (user)name to be cleared of all four speculative sockpuppetry charges, now that this SPI has been opened, and advertised at the still-open-pending-how-well-the-mentorship-goes AN/I thread. Thanks for improving wikipedia, folks.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I commend Noteswork for his wonderful investigation and after going thru above links and probability they got involved in topic ( Sati (practice) ) at WT:INB. It now seems unlikely that they are one and same person. In any case let the investigations proceed as per norm. Jethwarp (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Jethwarp, Thanks, but WP:SPI can be made only if they same attitude, topic choice. Sadly, both are opposite, blades seems to be editor of religious articles, while OZ has edited science project. And You must provide this evidence in a clear way. - Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.- Where both users seems to be supporting each other opinion piece. Zero Diffs from start. Nothing has been presented till now. I was not capable either. Noteswork (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I WITHDRAW my suspicion relative to sockpuppetry OccultZone vs. Bladesmulti; my principal basis on that was that OccultZone's massive revert seemed to a) be "in tune with" some of the ideological elements common with Bladesmulti and b)Most importantly in my mind then that the revert seemed very much like a revenge action against me, due to my raising complaint about Bladesmulti on AN/I. I do not think they are the same person. Apologies to both have been issued.Arildnordby (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no need to comment about this amusement park, and I don't need any certification about my english from a ungrammatical user, "uses circular reasoning", who don't even know difference with 'use' and 'uses'. OccultZone (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Before I can request and endorse CheckUser could you please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence presented in this SPI which indicates that there has been an abuse of multiple account, in fact the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. I'll leave the SPI open for another 24 hours or so in case there is any more evidence to be submitted, but at the moment it looks like a mix of fishing for misbehaviour and casting aspersions. To clarify, what we need is diffs (and explanation if they aren't clear) of Bladesmulti showing a behaviour and diffs of another account or IP showing the same or very similar behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst there is some evidence which suggests that Bladesmulti and OccultZone are the same person this evidence can be explained as coincidence (such as editing times). There has not been enough evidence submitted or that I could find which is enough to block either user. If more evidence comes to light in the future then editors are free to re-report with that evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Summary: Bladesmulti was blocked as a sock after an ArbCom investigation. Both Bladesmulti and Lorstaking have the same topic interest, similar POV pushing using dubious sources, similar style of filing SPI complaints, similar proficiency in English and editors other than me have spotted problematic editing and disruption of the wikipedia project by Bladesmulti and Lorstaking. Evidence:

1. Same topic interests. Some of the pages they have both edited include: Aryan, Gautama Buddha in Hinduism, Harappan language, Historical Vedic religion, History of India, History of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, History of Pakistan, Horus, Illegal immigration to India, India, Indo-Aryan migration theory, Indus River, Indus Valley Civilisation, Indus script, Persecution of Hindus, South Asia, Vastu shastra, Vedic period, Vishva Hindu Parishad.

2. Bladesmulti added on 10 October 2013:
 * Quote (grammar preserved): "Historians such as James Ferguson, Sir Cunningham, Dr. Havell have suggest that Vastu Shastra developed between the period of 6000 BCE to 3000 BCE, adding that Harappa, Mohenjo-daro stands on the principles of Vastu Shashtra."

Bladesmulti restored the dubious text on 2 September 2014, claiming it is a reliable source in the edit summary.

Johnbod commented out this content calling it "highly dubious". Lorstaking who had never edited this article before, edited this obscure topic and article, and promptly restored the same dubious source and content. Lorstaking also claimed, just like Bladesmulti, that the dubious source and content was reliable when challenged on the talk page by Joshua Jonathan and I (for why it is dubious and how the sources were misrepresented, please see the discussion on the article's talk page). Like Bladesmulti, Lorstaking also alleged links of Vastu Shastra to Indus Valley Civilization. FWIW, Lorstaking additionally edited out and deleted an important part of Joshua Jonathan's talk page post, violating WP:TPNO guidelines, another evidence of their abusive behavior against other wikipedia editors.

3. Bladesmulti misrepresented a source and added the claim in December 2014 that "Hinduism condemns adultery" citing Wendy Doniger. Bladesmulti restores the same text. Lorstaking adds the exact same Bladesmulti POV and same Doniger source in a different article. Lorstaking edit warred with Pepperbeast to remove scholarly sources and kept restoring the Bladesmulti POV (see the article's talk page for more evidence of problematic edits and battleground TE by Lorstaking).

FWIW, the Doniger source does not state anywhere that "Hinduism condemns adultery". It just makes a passing remark on page 7, "Pāpa in the Rig Veda often has a moral sense: people are evil minded, adultery is evil, incest is evil." It is OR:Synthesis to jump from what the Doniger source remarks about the Rig Veda to conclusions about Hinduism's position on adultery. The views in the Hindu texts vary by the text. Bladesmulti POV on "Hinduism condemns..." reflects source misrepresentation.

This is not an isolated case of WP:TE by Bladesmulti and Lorstaking. Both have a habit of pushing the same dubious POV elsewhere about Indus Valley Civilization, about 6000 BCE dates or "older" for Vastu Shastra, edit warring with dubious sources, and on other topics (see the Vastu Shastra article; also this addition by Lorstaking to allege Indus Valley Civilization sites in Iran, which LouisAragon reverted stating in the edit summary that it was a "deliberate misrepresentation" of the source by Lorstaking, as additional evidence of problematic edits by Lorstaking).
 * Lorstaking: you added this, which is what LouisAragon correctly called as "deliberate misrepresentation". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

4. Both Bladesmulti and Lorstaking have confronted and edit warred with Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan and Vanamonde93 with incomprehensible claims (see LouisAragon's analysis link below for older links). Same disruptive POV-pushing by the Bladesmulti and Lorstaking, similar allegations against others, similar behavior such as "being deliberately obtuse" in Vanamonde's words: see links above and , ,

5. Both Bladesmulti and Lorstaking have filed very similar lengthy SPI requests with 100+ links or diffs, based on numerous one word, two words or few word matches such as "why not..." and "please see talk page" and such phrases, alleging this is abuse. The SPI cases style by Bladesmulti and Lorstaking is the same, the digging out stale account is similar, the matching of numerous "few words or phrases" is similar, falsely alleging "same views, same approach, same style, same fighting with others", the linking method by Bladesmulti and Lorstaking is the same, the phrasing is similar. Bladesmulti filed it against Joshua Jonathan, while Lorstaking has filed it against me. In my read, nothing in the Bladesmulti's SPI request against JJ in 2015 showed any abuse or disruption by JJ: using phrases such as "please see talk page" or "more neutral" or "oops" or mentioning "NPOV" or adding sourced content in Hatha Yoga or Bhagavad Gita sentences is not abuse, nor is exactly quoting sentences or parts of the wikipedia policy such as NPOV.

In both cases, it seems the disruptive motivation of Bladesmulti and Lorstaking wasn't driven by showing of any abuse. They just want to remove editors such as JJ that challenge attempts to push their dubious content and their misrepresentation of sources. JJ, thankfully, is still with us and a valued constructive contributor to the wikipedia project.

6. Both make similar grammatical mistakes and exhibit a similar level of proficiency in English (once again, see LouisAragon's analysis link below for older links):

Lorstaking, , , etc

Bladesmulti , , , etc

7. For additional evidence, please see LouisAragon's submission on 6 July 2016 which noted many behavioral overlaps between Bladesmulti incarnations and Lorstaking.

DoRD, in the last investigation of Lorstaking, remarked that the alleged Lorstaking's sock accounts (OZ etc) are stale and therefore there is no way to be sure about Lorstaking. Though Lorstaking registered before Bladesmulti was banned by ArbCom, Lorstaking had a relatively short edit history at the time of DoRD's comment. Lorstaking's total edits on wikipedia as of 18 January 2018: 862, Lorstaking number of edits as of 1 January 2018 = 478, Lorstaking with about 250 wikipedia space edits became dormant for a year after LouisAragon filed the case, Lorstaking editing history.

Later, while Lorstaking account was dormant, Lankiveil noted the "suspicious similarities" but not enough to justify a behavioral evidence-based block at the time. New evidence is presented above. Concerned with repetitive tendentious POV-y edits and misrepresentations by Lorstaking just like that of Bladesmulti, I submit we take another look at Bladesmulti and Lorstaking's problematic edits and SP-behavior. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional comments
 * 1) All Bladesmulti-OccultZone's socks were not found during the ArbCom review. DoRD filed a new case for Delibzr, which was later confirmed to be Bladesmulti-OccultZone's sock.
 * 2) Bladesmulti-OccultZone have been sophisticated in their socking / meatpuppetry. Though suspected in 2014, early SPI filings were unsuccessful. ArbCom review in mid-2015 discovered it. Bladesmulti continued to deny socking after ArbCom-SPI team had found evidence and concluded that Bladesmulti was one of OccultZone's many socks, just like Lorstaking is denying below. Lorstaking has few edits, less than 1000 as of 19 January 2018, less than 500 at the start of this month before Lorstaking deployed what seems like OccultZone style script driven rapid edits in wikipedia. Yet, Lorstaking seems to know all the intricate wikipedia tools and details, so many policy links (WP:RFC/U/A !!!), and checkuser mechanism too!
 * 3) Bladesmulti was apparently an admin, who unblocked himself after being blocked by Drmies; Bladesmulti then battled with other admins, months before being found to be a sock and banned by ArbCom. Bladesmulti's access to admin tools and experience would explain Lorstaking's familiarity with the system and Bladesmulti-style disruption and abuse described above. The behavioral overlap between the two is significant. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bbb23: Thanks for the clarification. I have struck that part off. The 2+ year time gap and a relocation by Bladesmulti-Lorstaking may explain the technical finding that Bladesmulti and Lorstaking are in same the country. FWIW, I have limited my quick review to Bladesmulti and Lorstaking, and I have not checked the editing behavior and experience of Bladesmulti-related OccultZone, AmritasyaPutra, etc and that of Lorstaking. As DoRD noted previously, OccultZone's "high-rate, high-volume editing makes it somewhat difficult to analyze his editing". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional Comments 2
 * 1) It is suspicious that the OccultZone incarnation of Bladesmulti, after he returned and edited for a while, went dormant again in July 2017, while in the same month the previously dormant Lorstaking became re-active again.
 * 2) Counterintuitive as it may sound, we must ask how can Lorstaking know where Bladesmulti lives and that a checkuser will find they are distant? The only person who would be certain of “checkuser results” would either be sock accounts who have relocated, or one involved in offline meatpuppetry (evidence of meatpuppetry intent thru email is in Bladesmulti's last unblock request). I, for one, cannot guess if someone in my neighborhood or my country is wikipedia account Lorstaking-Bladesmulti, Thigle, Joshua Jonathan, etc (on misleading time zone analysis, see the time card difference for confirmed socks AmritasyaPutra and Bladesmulti). So, what drives Lorstaking's eager presumptiveness about checkuser results, and Lorstaking's confidence about where Bladesmulti is or has been in past?
 * 3) Please note that Lorskating has ignored responding to all the behavioral evidence above, the "one word, two words, phrase" matching, the dubious content and fringe source restoration, etc! But so much mockery and "good laugh" they get from checkuser.
 * 4) Lorstaking cannot be a newbie. Have you ever seen a newbie who has never initiated/completed an RFC nor participated in RFCs, but mocks "malformed RFC/U/A" (see Lorstaking's comment below)? Have you ever seen a newbie who does not predominantly focus initially on the content space or article talk pages? Have you ever seen a newbie who is so clueless about dubious content and reliability of sources, yet presumptively behaves as if they are an expert on checkuser working/meaning? Have you ever seen a newbie whose largest fraction of first 850 edits is high speed, high volume OccultZone-style script driven editing?
 * 5) Both Bladesmulti and Lorstaking ignore timeline as well as evidence of JJ's and my habit of checking article history and talk page archives. ( (this talk page note is time stamped before I ever made substantial contributions to the article),, , , , , etc.)
 * 6) Just like Bladesmulti, Lorstaking ignores exculpatory evidence. Bladesmulti in their huge case file falsely accusing Joshua Jonathan of being an incarnation of banned Thigle ignored all the evidence that showed JJ was never selective nor ever abusive (see the links above for the case file and JJ’s detailed response therein). We see the same behavior in Lorstaking case file against me. Lorstaking accuses me of abusive behavior because I edited Nāradasmṛti. So what! I have edited many articles on major Smritis and Sutra texts, in dozens of Buddhist / Hindu / Jain space articles, adding content along with citing reliable sources. See for example, Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti, Gautama Dharmasutra, Apastamba Dharmasutra, Dharmaśāstra, etc. Sometimes in consultation with admins. Just like Bladesmulti accused JJ, Lorstaking accuses me of restoring some scholarly sources or text and alleges it as abuse. Both Bladesmulti and Lostaking wrongly believe that the only reason to restore scholarly sources or content is abusive socking! I disagree. The reason to restore scholarly sources or content is that the old version was better, the sources are mainstream WP:RS and the contents reasonably reflect those sources.
 * 7) It is suspicious that editor Lorstaking with so few edits, even fewer substantial edits, so dormant-reactivated style of contributions, has their largest substantial contributions only on SPI space! That too mirroring Bladesmulti’s allegations on JJ, and in the same mocking style, the same format of Bladesmulti! The rare articles where Lorstaking has made content contribution are all around very old dubious content of Bladesmulti, both of whom allege the fringe source to be reliable! Plus, my attempts to discuss the dubious content on the talk page has seen no reply from Lorstaking (e.g., ), but Lorstaking promptly replies on SPI space threads!!
 * 8) Lorstaking alleges below, I am retaliating. Not really. Others state “Lorstaking is Bladesmulti” as a likely to a strong possibility. In the case filed against Lorstaking sometime ago, LouisAragon and others too found the behavioral evidence of Bladesmulti-Lorstaking to be SP-like and disruptive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are grounds to believe the reverse: that Lorstaking-Bladesmulti is retaliating. Just like Bladesmulti attacked Joshua Jonathan for his constructive contributions and adding WP:RS to South Asia space articles with an SPI case, the new incarnation of Bladesmulti retaliated for my constructive contributions and WP:RS to Kalki article with an SPI case. The case was filed when Kalki article dispute was being discussed on its talk page. Bladesmulti did edit Kalki article before their block. It is suspicious that the same editors such as Raymond3023 who were making tendentious arguments on Talk:Kalki, were the ones Lorstaking invited to Vastu Shastra talk page (for why Raymond's behavior was WP:TE, see the recent ArbCom case against them and the sanctions imposed as a result). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Is this really an SPI or a malformed WP:RFC/U/A? Still very spurious and retaliatory! Each of "the pages they have both edited" have been edited by you too and you have edited at least 5 times more same articles as Bladesmulti. Nothing stopped Bladesmulti (or many of his socks) from removing this poor OR that I removed this week after I suspected this small account to be your sock but Bladesmulti never even edited the article, and probably agreed with that poor OR. To highlight some more fallacies of this SPI, I would note that your diffs are not supporting your false claim that I edit warred with Vanamonde93 and in fact I never even interacted this user in these diffs, and your obnoxious  misrepresentation of this accidental revert by LouisAragon on Shahr-e Sukhteh shows how incompetent you are,  the edit changed nothing but only WP:ERAs, and Doug Weller restored the era changes I had made, hence your evidence sounds more like, throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick. I was pinged on the earlier SPI when it was closed hence I can recall what I had found then and mention my findings since you have you have deliberately omitted important facts.
 * I had been editing when OccultZone and his all blocked socks (including Bladesmulti) were also editing and OccultZone's sockpuppetry was exposed during Arbcom case where checkusers discovered his sockfarm. I had also edited same article and talk page as OccultZone and his arbcom blocked sock and soon he got blocked, which would further mean that I had to be blocked already if I am his sock since I could be easily detected by any of the Arbcom member at the time. That's why your SPI is just laughable and spurious, you even misrepresented an edit conflict as "abusive behavior" which shows that you are assuming bad faith and just wants to cause mischief. The recent contributions of OccultZone also came at the same time when I was actively editing. Why would Arbcom unban OccultZone if he was socking after his ban? You have completely ignored WP:SENSE because you find more sense in your disruptive WP:BATTLEs. You are just trying to distract from the fact that you are socking for over 5 years.  can you run a checkuser on me please? Lorstaking (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking Bearen Hunter that I am not socking.
 * MSW, I was already sure that you are showing how incompetent you are, and with comments like "Bladesmulti was apparently an admin", "who unblocked himself", "2+ year time gap", you have left me in no doubt. Thanks for the laughs though! Lorstaking (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This is becoming more laughable now! I am hearing that I have never "participated in RFCs". For starters, see, what about them? I have contributed with D4ina4 and Capitals00 for years, read Articles for deletion/Intersex rights in India, where D4ina4, Capitals00, Raymond3023 and I had frequently contributed. I pinged these three editors and assumed they would be aware of the scholarly views I was supporting, because you were wikihounding me and canvassing editors of your choice. Are you still upset that your fringe views were curbed? This appeal looks like an "ArbCom case" to you? It's nothing more than Raymond appealing his topic ban which was lifted with modifications. I think many editors are checking your contributions when they pop up on their watchlist and they find problems with your editing, but that's really not my concern. Your comments mostly show that you are gobsmacked that I know more than you about policies. Do you think it is bad? Or you think that it should take decades to understand these simple policies? I can understand because you still don't even know simple stuff like what is a clean start, purpose of WP:SPI, Arbcom case, and what is an admin. Lorstaking (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No apparent socking visible from a technical standpoint. The IPs for one are in a different region from the other but in the same country.
 * Sigh. Bladesmulti was never an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing without taking any action. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)