Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bread Ninja/Archive

Evidence submitted by Folken de Fanel
User Bread Ninja made a proposition in an article talk page. After weeks of debate, the proposition was rejected by consensus. For about a month, no one replied to the debate until a few days ago, when an anonymous IP (Special:Contributions/174.18.107.71) popped out from nowhere and supported Bread Ninja's proposition.

The problem is, Bread Ninja use sometimes a very awkward grammar, and has equally awkward choices of words. The anonymous IP appears to have the same awkward writing style.

Here's an example of Bread Ninja's style: "Explaining what specific areas where people have made there own interpretation is trivial" (emphasis is mine)

Now, a sentence from 174.18.107.71: "Also what would be the point of simply listing areas where people have made there own interpretation?" 

Bread Ninja uses the word "area" everywhere, and is the only person I've seen using this word in such a way. Now the new IP, who appears to back up Bread Ninja ("instead like what bread ninja said, we should [...]" ), talks exactly like her, and I find it highly suspicious.

That's why I'm requesting a checkuser, to be sure that Bread Ninja isn't trying to game the system by pretending to be someone else to fake a consensus.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
whether the IP and the user are the same. Block on behavior is the best I can say. ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No action taken. Looks more like editing while logged out to me, if this is the same person, the IP hasn't edited in about a week anyways. –MuZemike 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)