Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DanielRigal/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets


Note: This may be sockpuppetry, it might be meatpuppetry, it might be a statistical anomaly. Given that the users in question have been attacking me, and then complaining that I am abusive towards them in turn, all while being personally involved in every aspect of the discussions surrounding the article in question, I wanted to go ahead and have the situation checked. (Somehow, this paragraph got clipped when Spitfire moved the page.) Ender78 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See below for context.

Evidence submitted by Ender78
Inclusive of the populations of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland, the United Kingdom has less than 14% of the world's primary-language English-speaking population.

On 14 February 2010, a lower-quality article on Color symbolism and psychology was deleted after an AfD that garnered only five votes, which included three different editors located in the United Kingdom, as confirmed by their own userboxes on their Talk pages. Each of them, plus the two IP addresses above, both of which originate in the UK, subsequently participated in either the RfD discussion on the same topic, in a few cases posting belligerent commentary, or by blanking the page in response to repeated efforts to rescue the article and address the complaints that resulted in the initial AfD.

Each commented to the RfD in intervals of just more than an hour's separation. Of the two IPs in question, both proved to be from the United Kingdom.

All three "named" users, plus one of the IPs, protest innocence.

Thus, we're expected to believe that:

1.) On a website with 3.6 million unique articles with a potential audience well in excess of 400 million people, three people from the United Kingdom just happened to constitute 60% of the voices in favor of deletion in the initial AfD on a relatively obscure article.

2.) In the same context, those same three voices just happened be joined in the subsequent RfD discussion by two IP editors also from the United Kingdom, in which they constitute at least five of the nine participants in that discussion, or 55%.

I will not speculate as to which user(s) is/are the one(s) actually socking/meating, or whether they're all in cooperation, but these numbers are fairly unlikely to have unfolded by accident.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Bad faith accusation stemming from this discussion. Snied (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I already mentioned the origin of the complaint. Some of you might not be connected to the others, but it's decidedly not bad faith. That's what I'm accusing the sock/meatpuppets of. Ender78 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad faith I guess is open to interpretation, paranoia perhaps nearer the mark, anyone who disagrees with me must be the same person(s). As for 2 IPs from the UK, 2 people from a population of about 60 million of a large English speaking nation commenting on the English wikipedia, whatever next? Perhaps the conspiracy will be in the USA. Geolocation of my IP gives a vicinity of Luton, Bedfordshire which I can confirm is correct. The other IP gives Hull (Which could have been guessed since a reverse IP lookup reveals kcom.com which we have a nice article on Kingston Communications a telecom's company which serves the Hull area. There's a few hundred miles between the two, this is of course all public information. As is my contribution history where you'll find various comments by me on my status as contributing as an IP and my various dips into WP:DRV which is of course the only place (other than this) you'll find any interaction with you. So no great shock really to see me in a place where I semi-regularly visit and comment. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're talking about 14% of the English-speaking world being represented in two different discussions to the tune of 60% and 55%, respectively. In any case, I don't really care whether it's sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry; and I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that one or two of the listed IPs is unaffiliated to the others. I don't care who you folks are, or what you do with Wikipedia, except when it is inexplicably getting in the way of a perfectly valid article with several perfectly valid citations in addition to the problematic ones, and where process and policy are being abused. Anyone who is not acting in a manner contrary to the underlying founding principles of the site has no enemy in me. Ender78 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not going to waste a lot of time replying to what is clearly a vexatious allegation. There was no sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry that I am aware of. Ender78 simply can't bring himself to believe that more than one person disagrees with him about the validity of his article. Feel free to run whatever checks you like on me. I will come out of this totally unconnected to the IPs, users and edits in question. (Note: I did used to be an NTL customer but that was a long time ago. I don't use them anymore.) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A few notes here: 1.) If you are not connected to wrong-doing, you have nothing to be worried about. 2.) It is not my article. It is not your article. I had NO prior association to the article prior to objecting to its overly-hasty removal. 3.) What conclusion would you advocate drawing from the fact that each of you participated in both discussions in close timeframe proximity, and in a few cases have followed me to other areas to issue further criticism, all while you could have been addressing your own criticisms? Ender78 (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You tell 'em Dan. Anyway, are we meeting up for dinner tonight? I thought we could discuss some articles to delete. Julie says hi by the way. Snied (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad people see the funny side of this nonsense but even so, speaking as somebody who cares about their reputation on Wikipedia, I don't particularly appreciate having my name splashed all over a completely spurious sockpuppet report. A flippant response like "If you are not connected to wrong-doing, you have nothing to be worried about" really is not acceptable. I hope to see this process brought to a speedy close due to the total lack of any plausible indication of a link between the various people listed. An apology would be nice too. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your evidence is flawed. I'm from The Netherlands as a quick google will easily tell you. The UK is not very far away from here, but as far as I know the British haven't invaded yet (God forbid). That brings your statistical power down from... let me calculate this quickly... extremely weak to patent nonsense. It just was an awful article. I admit that the new references are helping, but most of them are just different pages of the same sites. I'm on for dinner. The usual secret place? There is no cabal. Smocking (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears I included you by mistake. For that, I beg forgiveness to the extent that I've actually wronged you, which isn't a very great deal. All I can say is, when a large handful of people are coming out of the woodwork to flame you simultaneously, and a large number of them share the two common traits of nation-of-origin and deletionist ideology, it's easy to get usernames crossed up. Which means that there's somebody who does belong in my little list that isn't. Oh well: All I care about is that the quality content in the article in question doesn't get thrown out to spite the problem content. And most aren't actually pages of the same sites, they're the same pages. Something changed in the way refs populate in the bottom section since I last did a major article revision. I'm working on that. Ender78 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-reading the comments, yes, I conflated you with Mr. Snied. For that, again, I apologize. Ender78 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I suggest you show the other accused parties the same courtesy. The two IP addresses resolve to hosts on different (broadband) ISPs over 4 hours apart by car. 82.7.40.7 has been contributing for nearly a year now and DanielRigal for over three years. You cannot seriously expect anyone to believe that someone has been paying 50 quid per month or uses private jets to fly across the UK just so they can sockpuppet for months. I understand somewhat that you were angry, subsequently misunderstood the statistics and got a bit suspicious at first, but now it's just getting silly. Oh, by the way: anyone know where to get reasonably priced jet fuel these days? Smocking (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, while I am disengaging from this article, I will not be apologizing to parties other than Smocking, and even that only on the grounds of erroneous inclusion in this checkuser request. As to the rest, you were all rude to me from the very moment of our meeting, a few of you all at nearly the same time. As for the argument of "miles of separation"....are you using carrier pigeon to access the internet? It's really quite easy to coordinate actions via IM. That's what I was asserting --and still believe to have occurred to one degree or another. In any case, you're all acting as if I called up your government and accused you of terrorism. I did nothing which would have caused you permanent harm, even here on Wikipedia. I simply wanted to make sure the DRV was conducted on a one voter/one vote basis. So, as I said in that discussion: Congratulations. Wikipedia, a site that has thousands of low-quality articles, now has one less article that could have been quality, and one less editor, in this case, a dedicated wikitroll who'd been diligently mopping up other people's messes for five years, and even doing the occasional new-article or major-revision. But, that's not important, is it? What's important to you is that Deletionism Won! Ender78 (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Not in my clerk capacity, since I commented in the DRV, but I do not see a case here. While it may well be possible that is not a new user, I see almost no overlap in their edits outside the  pages related to Color symbolism and psychology&mdash;and each has quite a diverse editing focus. Now, of course, it is possible that I missed something, since I did not go over the contribs in detail, so I'm happy to be corrected. Tim Song (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this should probably be moved to show DanielRigal as the suspected sockmaster, per SPI convention. Tim Song (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not asserting any given username as being the "sockmaster", only providing three usernames and two IPs that all conducted mutually-supporting partisan edits and votes in close proximity to one another. It is certainly possible that one or more of the users are unrelated to the others, though I find that very unlikely both from a statistical and circumstantial perspective. Anything beyond that is not for either one of us to decide. Ender78 (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, TimSong, I think you should recuse yourself from either the RfD of the Color Symbolism article, my restoration of that article to conduct the requested edits, or this discussion. Any one of the three or all of the above, it's your choice, but your participation in all three is questionable at best, pal. Ender78 (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What part of "not in my clerk capacity" is unclear? I would not be using this section at all if I'm acting in my capacity as an SPI clerk. And AFAIK no policy, guideline, or established practice prevents me from commenting in the DRV, or commenting here in my editorial capacity, or reverting an out-of-process restoration while the DRV is in process. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In turn, I claim bad faith on that. I was very plainly conducting the edits to bring the article into compliance with the complaints in the original AfD. I do not see what is controversial about that, except that certain people's feathers are ruffled and they want to have the satisfaction of telling others how it's going to be. AFAIK, there's no policy preventing me from restoring the article, yet again. I've attempted to work within process, and have been working to address the article's perceived shortcomings. I don't know what more is expected of me. I've been fair and civil to all who have accorded me the same dignity. Ender78 (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for out-of-process, every action I've taken, including the RfD, I've notified the original deleting admin, JForget. He has made no responses in either direction. I continue to point out that I intend no disrespect. Ender78 (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency, another UK user here I'm afraid. I became aware of this issue as I have Daniel's talk page on my watchlist. It wasn't immediately obvious why I am watching that page but a look through his talk page archives suggests I probably watched the page after I left Daniel a message back in December 2008. I've only casually looked at this situation but on the face of it I would consider the statistical analysis somewhat questionable. I think the attempt to suggest some kind of sock puppetry is involved here is closely associated with Ender78's disappointment about how the AfD went went against him. That is completely understandable and I appreciate that would be frustrating but the correct course of action is to focus on arguing a strong case for the page to be restored, not to start looking for a conspiracy and making accusations which Ender78 himself accepts "might be a statistical anomaly". The number of users involved here is so small that it is inappropriate to try to interpret the statistics about their location. There is no real evidence here to suggest a link and so this very much looks like a fishing expedition with the hope that something of interest might be found. I would urge Ender78 to seriously consider the merits of persisting with this case and to instead focus on discussing the issues surrounding the article itself. Adambro (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Adambro, **the AfD did not "go against me". I was not a participant. I noticed the article had been deleted hours after the discussion ended, and I informed the deleting admin User:JForget that I was going to RfD because the AfD showed the participants did not understand the subject matter in context.** As to further evidence, i recommend checking some of the timestamps (all spaced roughly one hour apart in various places). Frankly, my real suspicion is meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry, though my initial titling which made that distinction got lost in the shuffle somewhere. I've re-added a blurb above to reflect this. Ender78 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, when I said that AfD went again you, I meant that you disagreed with the outcome. I didn't mean to suggest you had participate in that discussion, I am aware that wasn't the case. On the issue of timing, I note you've said that "Each commented to the RfD in intervals of just more than an hour's separation". Could you clarify exactly what you mean by that and, ideally if it isn't too much hassle, provide the relevent diffs? Adambro (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's two diffs of note: DRigal [] Snied [] Also, look at the AfD discussion. Snied's the guy that submitted the original AfD, and has been harassing me on the page over every failure to cite in the entire article as I try to rescue it. Additionally, I'd point out the 77.86.15.158 IP's single edit in particular. There were a couple other "funny coincidences" I noticed, but those are the main things that looked funny to me: just one too many coincidences piling up all at once. I'll try to collect the other things that smelled funny, if for no other reason than to confirm that I'm not just pursuing this out of a grudge. I'll do that later tonight/early tomorrow your-time. Thanks for the civil discourse and fair hearing. FTR, the only sanction I'd ask if in fact I'm right is that the guilty parties be removed from the discussions in question. Ender78 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For those two edits, for the benefit of anyone else interested, this and this are probably better links. What is particuarly significant about those edits though? makes a comment then  makes a comment an hour later (17:24, 16 February 2010). I note that Snied edited the DR before then at 14:18, 15 February 2010, as DanielRigal did at 21:20, 14 February 2010. I'm not sure about Snied's location but DanielRigal does state on his userpage that he is from the UK. Assuming both are from the UK then it would make sense that there editing pattens would generally align due the same timezone. Additionally, both users might have added the page to their watchlist after commenting earlier so DanielRigal's edit would be brought to Snied's attention meaning him editing soon after DanielRigal wouldn't be surprising. I therefore don't consider those edits to indicate any connection between these users.
 * Regarding, it probably isn't too unreasonable to assume that could be an established user who has forgotten to log in. I can't really conclude much from a single edit, even having looked at the contributions of some of the others involved around the same time.
 * I remain of the opinion that there isn't a lot to really support any theory of a conspiracy here. Adambro (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy" is a stronger word than I would advocate. I'm simply pointing out that: 1.) All participated in the original AfD; 2.) All participated in the RfD; 2.) Three have engaged in either disruptive edits to the resurrected page or have engaged in mildly harassing behavior surrounding the same. All who have accounts seem to proudly display "deletionist" badges. So, it just seems to me like they're trying to enforce their ideology, and abusing process to do it. If there's nothing to it, there's nothing to it; I don't even understand why it's such a contentious point that I would feel that it was a coincidence worth looking into. If I were on your side of the transaction, I'd simply glance at the logs, and if there was something funny there, I'd look into it. If not, not. If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't care one iota if I got "checkusered". In any case, thanks for the time and the fair shake; it's all I've asked, all along. Ender78 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is the evidence of your claim now? That three users from the UK have the same opinion about something that is in conflict to your own? 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snied (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't participate in the AfD nor any RfD, I've asked some questions on DRV (haven't expressed a bolded sentiment even). It's a contentious point because it's effectively accusing people of wrong doing based on effectively just not liking people disagreeing with you. If everytime I disagreed with someone I ran off to authority to try and have those people investigated in someway, well... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Decline this as a sock report without merit. There is no evidence here that any of the editors have been sockpuppeting. To the contrary, the editors have different editing styles and are clearly not abusing multiple accounts. Cunard (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Ender78 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

moved from Sockpuppet investigations/77.86.15.158 to /DanielRigal, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

– the only thing they're all involved in is the Color symbolism and psychology article. That doesn't necessarily make them sock puppets, just because they're working together or agreeing with each other in a deletion discussion (see here and here for counterexamples and minor lulz). –MuZemike 00:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I believe was created by DanielRigal specifically to aggressively rewrite the Kendra Haste article and, anticipating edit warring, so as to avoid any fallout on his account. I also believe DanielRigal is a committed Wikipedian, with a history of defending Wikipedia from advertising, vandalism and other such nasties, that he views the Kendra Haste article as promotional and that I have essentially been spoon fed by Haste's agent. If I am wrong, if Daniel has no association with Tooth, I will readily and sincerely apologize, but I am certain Tooth_Dover is, in any case, a sock. Much of what Tooth/Daniel initially sought to do, (with hindsight) was well motivated. My objection is to the predjudiced, aggressive and surreptitious manner he went about it.

For context I should mention, as a gnome of almost ten years exp I have only created one article, the Chippendale Society. While I did not initially create the Kendra Haste article I all but, i.e. the substance Tooth chose to rewrite is mostly my (rather essayist) work. In both articles I referred directly to the subjects so as to ensure I had my facts right.


 * 1st ever edit by Tooth was on Kendra haste, 17 March at 11.40, (here), in which s/he stripped out "a number of"...(15 of 26) references I had applied, a very authoritative and skilled first edit for a novice. A more helpful, (and less drastic), alternative would have been to tag each ref, which has been the approach of Patar knight, who has also edited the article extensively.


 * 2nd edit, 11.59, nineteen minutes later, Tooth deleted an (entire section), describing it as "apparent influences...boring"; again, too self assured and proficient for a novice. Tooth's reason for deleting the whole section might well have been described by a term DanielRigal has used elsewhere - "Bigging up" the subject. In this edit s/he also added the "multiple issues / orphan / COI tags - Tooth clearly knows a lot about editing. While it is possible s/he may have been editing for a long time prior to registering as Tooth_Dover, it seems contrived that s/he chose to register for Kendra Haste particularly.


 * 3rd edit, 12.57, one hour later, Tooth adds a (comment) on the talk page, in which he uses authoritive language, particularly in his final sentence - A clear notion of commissioned sculptures, when and where etc, would be sufficient for this article without endless anecdote, hardly the language of a novice. DanielRigal is prone to using such pejoratives as "endless anecdote" in his edit summaries elsewhere, such as "less verbiage, less grandiosity, less drivel", and "trivial" and "drivel" (again) and bad content that was ripped out and "improperly referenced junk". From my first efforts to expand the Kendra Haste article I have had to contend with Patar Knight's assiduous attention to detail and not once has he resorted to pejoratives.
 * In my reply to Tooth's "concerns", (title provided by Patar), I first checked Tooth's contribs, this was the first, so I explained my connection to Haste, argued my case, said I would revert his edits but would accept his tags.
 * I then noted on talk that this was Tooth's first edit.
 * I then looked for links to justify removing the orphan tag and I discovered, in "what links here", a name I didn't recognize - User:DanielRigal. So I followed the link and found that Daniel is a professed deletionist. I then edited my reply to Tooth to affirm I had deorphaned the article, and also to give Tooth the idea that I thought maybe he and Daniel were the same person. I was not accusing, I was merely being - to use DanielRigal's own words of 17 September 2016 - "mildly sarcastic - probably a sock puppet".
 * Daniel's reply seemed like an admission. He has denied owning Tooth_Dover but I would like to independently verify that. Thanks Mark   Dask  04:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

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


 * I am at work now and will comment in more detail later if this ridiculous case is still open. For now I will just say that this case is utterly without merit. I am not operating any sockpuppets and I am willing to be Checkusered to prove it. I would also like to ask for a boomerang on this. The report does not specify anything that creates a plausible suspicion against me. markdask has been badmouthing me on other people's talk pages (without notifying me!) for more than a week and has only filed this SPI because I told him, in effect, to put up or shut up. He has taken the less wise of the two options and what he has put up is, frankly, gibberish. Being a deletionist does not make one a sockmaster. Noticing that I am being talked about on the talk page of an article that is on my watchlist is not suspicious. The little bell icon at the top of the page exists precisely to do this. As for the supposed "admission", I am utterly unable to understand how it could be parsed in that way. Were this report not filed by a longstanding user I would suggest bad faith here. It really is that shoddy. There is nothing here that any rational person would see as suspicious and the Checkuser will prove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to add that:
 * I am pretty much uninvolved in the Kendra Haste article. It is just one of over 8000 on my watchlist. I had made a note on a very old todo list that I might want to create it or work on it but obviously I never created it and somebody else did. I am glad to see that it exists and is more than a stub. I have no interest in gutting it out. I have not looked at Tooth Dover's edits in any detail so I am not going to express any opinion beyond saying that I have not noticed anything obviously alarming. I have not seen anything that would make me suspect a sockpuppet.
 * My only interaction with Tooth Dover has been on his/her talkpage and was mostly to address the unjustified allegations being made against us although I did also try to offer a little moral support to a new user who would be well within their right be be feeling a bit bullied by this.
 * The fact that I am willing to dive into many bad articles and remove drivel under my own name surely counts against the absurd suggestion that I would make a sock to do so on this one. I mean, why would I do something so idiotic?
 * MarkDask has already been warned to pack it in and apologise by User:Patar_knight on User_talk:Tooth_Dover and User_talk:Patar_knight so his persistence in this after having had plenty of time to think seems egregious and boomerangworthy.
 * --DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh and also I'd like to point out that I wasn't notified of this SPI case on my User Talk page. I found it from the red bell Alerts icon at the top of the page and also because I was more than half expecting it. (I don't normally check Wikipedia while at work.) Even though I found it, that doesn't seem to meet the requirement for formal notification. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * BTW, Tooth Dover also wasn't notified. I have done so.
 * I am concerned more and more about MarkDask's behaviour. He has avoided SPI as long as he could while badmouthing Tooth Dover and myself on multiple inappropriate pages. He has only come here when told to by Patar_knight and myself. Having come here he has avoided notifying the people accused. This is exceptionally sloppy at best. His WP:OWN attitude to the Kendra Haste article combined with his direct involvement with Haste and her agent suggests that this goes beyond a normal WP:OR problem and makes me feel that that a topic ban might be the least sanction appropriate. (Ironically, I wasn't paying attention to the Kendra Haste article enough to be aware of that issue until he drew it to my attention on this very page.) --DanielRigal (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This obviously meritless report has been open for two days now. Is there any investigation ongoing or can we bring this to a speedy close as obvious nonsense? I am not keen to have a spurious allegation, even one as daft as this, just sitting here unresolved. I am happy to take my request for a boomerang elsewhere if that is what is holding this up. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As I've said in multiple other places, including at my talk page, I don't think this is a sock situation, and I think that MarkDask is getting caught up in something he's put a lot of work in to improve. I would support this being closed ASAP. As for the notifications, it's not mentioned in the instructions on the main SPI page, but is mentioned in the guide. Maybe it should be added to the main SPI page? Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering what Patar has just said and, knowing how patient he has been throughout our interaction re Kendra Haste, I guess "I got my mind right boss", (Cool Hand Luke). My apologies Daniel - I am devoutly 'pedian but I lost it entirely re Haste - I tried to create something that would be at the very least a "good" article, about a wonderful subject; I guess my ego got the better of me. Mark   Dask  17:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (and can't be used to prove a negative in any case, sorry DanielRigal). Yunshui 雲 水 11:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have looked at this carefully and do not believe Daniel and Tooth Dover are the same. It would have been sufficient to close this as insufficient evidence but if it should allay concerns, I don't believe it is him. With the apology noted above, I would suggest that all of the participants continue on that line of thought on their talk pages. If further admin actions are requested concerning behavior then it will need to be taken up at another venue. The evidence that attempts to connect Daniel to Tooth Dover is faulty.