Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek/Archive

28 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

DVMt Klocek has been recently blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, and has edited Acupuncture and Talk:Acupuncture as Klocek just before being blocked. Suddenly after DVMt Klocek got blocked (later edit: as DVMt's apparent sockpuppet), at Acupuncture another dormant account is revived after about five years of dormancy and shows up editing the article. At Onediscdrive self-identifies as a licensed acupuncturist, and DVMt self-identified as scientist and acupuncturist (later edit: having an interest in acupuncture) on his own user page. I have a strong suspicion that they are the same person. At User talk:Klocek the same argument about an account being revived after eight years of inactivity was made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"I'm the one that upgraded the block. I may have misidentified the sock master, but there's no way that this is anything but a sleeper account. 10 edits in a burst the day of account creation, an eight-year gap, and then leaping in to restore the edits of another account that I blocked doesn't lead to any other conclusions.&mdash;"

- Kww(talk) 13:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ricflairsbutt (blocked by User:Kww)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kshilts meatpuppet/sock account

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jayaguru-Shishya meatpuppet/sock account

Kshilts deleted pseudoscientific and other text from the chiropractic lede

Kshilts wrote on March 31, 2014 "I'll put together some references on efficacy and cost-effectiveness as you have asked."

Jayaguru-Shishya on April 1, 2014 put together some references and also deleted the word pseudoscientific from the chiropractic lede. Jayaguru-Shishya is strongly against including the word "pseudoscientific". See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_37. This kind of behavior to unilateral change the lede using meat/puppet accounts should not be tolerated. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Klocek is not a sockpuppet of any other user. I know him personally and can vouch for him. All he has done was to stop editing for 8 years, which he has explained on his talk page. He should be unblocked -- or do a checkuser first and you will see that the accounts are unrelated. HGilbert (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm disappointed in the fellow. Though he was not a sock of the user he had been accused of, it looks like he's been setting up his own little network. Good catch, all. The ban was obviously justified. HGilbert (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Klocek
 * Technically, meatpuppet is also a possibility to be considered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The odds that the accounts of two independent acupuncturists which were dormant for at least five years will be revived the same day week in order to help a fellow acupuncturist are astronomically low. So, this suggests at least meatpuppeting. What I wrote above about DVMt editing as Klocek was by assuming that Kww applied WP:Duck, as he stated it himself in the quote I have offered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the edit history; it appears to me that Klocek's edits have nothing whatsoever to do with DVMt's edits. Completely different material. Am I missing something? Furthermore, your assumption that Klocek is an acupuncturist seems to be based on as flimsy evidence as the rest of this. Or did you merely mean an editor of the acupuncture article? HGilbert (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem would not lie in trusting Klocek, the problem would lie in knowing that Klocek isn't the same person as DVMt, since this would imply that you know both persons, and therefore would give substance to the allegations of meatpuppetry. DVMt stated that he is a scientist and Klocek stated at Dennis Klocek that he does research, I don't know if Klocek is actually an acupuncturist or just an enthusiastic supporter of acupuncture. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * DVMt also stated on his talk page that he isn't an acupuncturist, but just has an interest in acupuncture. But, coming back to the checkuser issue, if DVMt agrees, it should be performed in order to clear his name. I have stated above why I suspected there was sockpuppetry going on, I might be wrong, but I was sincere in suspecting that it was going on. DVMt Klocek cannot deny that he got blocked due to the application of WP:Duck, whether it was a false positive or not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Just to point out that I think a CU is virtually automatic in the case of a user requesting unblocking after being blocked for sockpuppetry. I don't know many admins that will lift a sockpuppetry block without a checkuser being run.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As for Onediscdrive, I'll wait for this checkuser to go through before tagging, but the account is somebody's sock, so it's blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * - DVMt and Klocek were both blocked and are now requesting unblock, claiming that they are not involved in sockpuppetry. Diffs: DVMt, Onediscdrive, Klocek. Also it would help to identify the master of Onediscdrive, if they are indeed a sock. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I will reiterate that DVMt was not blocked for sockpuppeting, although he has done so in the past. He shouldn't be unblocked in the event that he is exonerated for socking when the problem is that he ignored a warning about edit warring. Klocek was blocked exclusively for socking, but you know what they say: checkuser isn't magic pixie dust.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * DVMt, Onediscdrive and Klocek are technically ❌ to one another. However...
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and blocked Bellowed. The behavioural evidence against Onediscdrive is too strong for me to unblock based on the negative checkuser result.
 * DVMt was not blocked for socking. Given the negative checkuser result, I would suggest that this be refiled, probably under Klocek. I've not tagged any of the confirmed socks because of the uncertainty about who to tag them to. Once the case is moved, the tags should be applied.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and blocked Bellowed. The behavioural evidence against Onediscdrive is too strong for me to unblock based on the negative checkuser result.
 * DVMt was not blocked for socking. Given the negative checkuser result, I would suggest that this be refiled, probably under Klocek. I've not tagged any of the confirmed socks because of the uncertainty about who to tag them to. Once the case is moved, the tags should be applied.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DVMt was not blocked for socking. Given the negative checkuser result, I would suggest that this be refiled, probably under Klocek. I've not tagged any of the confirmed socks because of the uncertainty about who to tag them to. Once the case is moved, the tags should be applied.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Moved to here from Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt. Tagged (in a minute), marking as closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

28 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I think the indef-blocked editor has returned. The behavioural evidence against this new single purpose account account is strong. Milliongoldcoinpoint is making a lot of poor edits and continues to edit war. He is well aware of the sanctions and was informed about 3RR and disruptive editing.

I believe the IP who made this edit is User:Klocek The IP 99.35.189.129 edited the comment made by User:Klocek. I discussed this on the talk page about the edit. See Talk:Acupuncture.

Milliongoldcoinpoint thinks ignoring me is a good idea. The word "some" is OR. The specific number 58 is OR and not a proper summary for the lede. The edit is extreme low level details to the lede when the lede should be a summary. The part "may be" is OR.

He repeatedly deleted sourced material but there was a compromise to use in-text attribution.

This edit claimed "rewording to better reflect on conclusions in citation" but the edit replaced sourced text with original research. See Talk:Acupuncture.

This edit and this edit added outdated information. The editing by Milliongoldcoinpoint is encouraging the editor User:Jayaguru-Shishya to restore the outdated information. There is a warning in red from the source. See Talk:Acupuncture.

He added duplication but on the talk page he thinks it is okay to have duplication in the article. See Talk:Acupuncture.

He is adding poor sources and other editors are cleaning up after him.

This edit added misleading text that was not specifically about acupuncture in general but it was about sham acupuncture only in Germany. See Talk:Acupuncture.

He made a silly mistake in mainspace. When the editor did restore the text with sources one was not a systematic review and the other source was a low impact factor. The low impact factor Medical Acupuncture was previously discussed. See Talk:Acupuncture for current discussion. Again, other editors are cleaning up after him. This is a huge waste of time dealing with Milliongoldcoinpoint.

I think per WP:DUCK the IP 99.35.189.129 and Milliongoldcoinpoint are sock/meat accounts. IMO Milliongoldcoinpoint should be topic banned regardless of the results of checkuser. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Yes User:Milliongoldcoinpoint only started June 22nd and appears to have a much greater grasp of policies than his short time and low number of edits would make one think should be the case.
 * They have become a single purpose account that is selectively picking sources from low impact journals that support a specific POV while not using the much higher impact factor sources available. This edit is an example when there was a Cochrane review available.
 * Not sure if they are a sock of Klocek as they are using another referencing style but agree that their is still a good chance. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Klocek is back, revealed by their IP. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The interleaved edit by that familiar IP took me off the fence. I've gone ahead and blocked Milliongoldcoinpoint. I wouldn't mind a checkuser to sweep for any more socks, so I'll leave this open with the CU request.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * - For a sleeper check per comments below Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus:
 * . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

3 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)
 * (possible sleeper account)


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

I think the indef-blocked editor has sleeper accounts and I think Klocek is only a sock account. The behavioural evidence against the IPs and other accounts is strong.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Acuhealth

The confirmed sock Ricflairsbutt wrote [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=609997734 To begin to work towards neutrality on this article, the introductory paragraphs should be as neutral as possible. I have attempted to make edits in this spirit and have been reverted by multiple by tag-team editors gaming the system, attempting to have me stumble into a three reverts first. I don't see how we can have a true encyclopedia-worthy article with edits such as these.]

The account Acuhealth wrote to back up the confirmed sock Ricflairsbutt when Acuhealth wrote I am concerned that the skeptic bias on the acupuncture page overlooks modern science.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Khawar.nehal

Khawar.nehal was editing health-related articles, and making charges of "Western bias" like this and this and this. The confirmed sock Ricflairsbutt claims there is a Cultural Bias in the acupuncture page and there is a bias towards using only modern, western scientific journals to cite claims made in an article on an ancient Eastern healing modality. Both Khawar.nehal and Ricflairsbutt share the same POV and make very similar comments.

The edit Khawar.nehal by presents its opinion and Nature has not presented any scientific experiments in their article (Hard to swallow) before stating their opinion of TCM being pseudoscience. This is clearly unencyclopedic writing.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bexgro

Bexgro deleted the text "while this simply is because TCM is largely pseudoscience, without a rational mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments; advocates have argued that it is because research had missed some key features of TCM, such as the subtle interrelationships between ingredients" without an explanation and without discussion. This was the only edut made by Bexgro to Wikipedia. Obviously this is a sock account.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.33.125.166

The IP 72.33.125.166 added According to one editorial in Nature magazine and started a discussion on the talk page about the Nature source. Both the confirmed socks Ricflairsbutt and Milliongoldcoinpoint commented on the talk page to support the IP. See the discussion here.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.33.63.1

The IP 72.33.63.1 added According to one editorial in and add characterized to the Acupuncture page. The IP added According to one editorial in 2007 Traditional Chinese medicine page and added the same wording to the Chinese herbology page. The writing added too much weasel words to the text. Both the 72.33.125.166 72.33.63.1 are the same person with very similar IP numbers.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.105.112.33

The IP 128.105.112.33 was used for canvassing. Read this unsigned comment by the IP 128.105.112.33. The logged-in account Klocek who was eventually blocked for using multiple accounts came back to the same discussion on a talk page to say: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gandydancer&diff=next&oldid=609225698 Hi, I would be interested in your perspective regarding some of the edits being made on acupuncture. I had made some well referenced changes to the intro paragraph in hopes of resolving the neutral POV tag, and have seen those edits wholesale reverted without discussion. If you have a chance, I'd like to hear your perspective, because I like your work over at Chinese herbology!].


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Middle_8

Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions and is aware of the 3RR and disruptive editing for the acupuncture page.

Middle 8 was the person who was originally against using the 2007 editorial Nature source in the Traditional Chinese medicine page. Middle 8 wrote in part : "2007's a bit old for a source saying little or nothing's come of the field, isn't it?" Middle8 reiterated: "No idea. I think the source is good and you summarize it well; I'm just not sure it passes muster age-wise. But let's go ahead and leave it and see if it sticks." Middle 8 deleted part of a sentence that was from the 2007 source. The part Middle 8 deleted is well sourced and was not a misreading of the source. A suspected sock was used to delete the very same 2007 text and source from the Drug research section. A confirmed sock tried to delete the same 2007 source from the Acupuncture page.

On two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "extremely" but the source does not verify the claim.

Middle 8 added original research to the lede when he added the part "especially in developed countries" and "often" He removed the FV tag despite not fixings the original research. I explained at the talk page that the part "often" was original research. The current text say: "Many of the serious events were reported from developed countries and many were due to malpractice.[5]" This is accurate and according to the source.

Middle 8 added original research to the lede when he wrote ...and therefore preventable with proper training. The current text says: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently."

Misleading text to the lede again: "an average of one death every two years was reported internationally."

Misleading text to the lede about the numbers again. The current text says: "Between 2000 and 2009, at least ninety-five cases of serious adverse events including five deaths were reported to have resulted from acupuncture.[5]"

Middle 8 added to the lede "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." Middle 8 also rewrote the text to say but not in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists in the body of the article. Middle 8 ignored my concerns on the talk page but after User:Jmh649 commented on the talk page Middled 8 claimed he misread the source. See Talk:Acupuncture. Rather than take full responsibility for his poor edit he partially blamed me because he thought my objection was vague and unclear.

I think the IPs and other accounts are WP:QUACKing (sock/meat puppets). IMO these IPs and accounts were being disruptive. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also Backin72 (possible sleeper account) that has been disruptive in the past. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * This topic area does have significant issues with sock puppets. I am not involved enough to be a good judge if these are concerns. The first 4 are definately concerning. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is likely a sockmaster and the whole sock drawer needs to be emptied and the drawer nailed shut. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As to whether these individual accounts have been correctly identified, I remain uncertain. What I can say is that the level of socking we have going on in the traditional medicine area remains unacceptably high and we need to be proactive about clearing it out. I've blocked one IP that has been associated with Klocek in the past, and it probably behooves us to have a checkuser go ahead and be more than normally aggressive in blocking any other IPs associated with this sock farm.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, this is pretty complicated, but these accounts vary quite a lot. I would say that they're ❌, but given the ample behavioural evidence, I would appreciate another checkuser double-checking for me. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 21:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically, everything is ❌, except who is .  --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  00:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action per CU, the behavioural evidence isn't enough to convince me with that CU result. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

27 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * See this edit by the Klocek sock account deleting sourced text from the Nature source against consensus.
 * See this edit by Technophant deleting sourced text from the Quackwatch source against consensus. Technophant was against using the Quackwatch source. The confirmed sock Ricflairsbutt was also against using the Quackwatch source.
 * Technophant deleted text on July 17, 2014 but previously on September 12, 2012 Stillwaterising deleted the same sentence (Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians.). I asked Technophant if he deleted the sentence accidentally but rather than collaborate he banned me from his talk page.
 * Technophant reported User:Jmh649 to 3RR. The confirmed sock Milliongoldcoinpoint also reported User:Jmh649 to 3RR. Both reports were not a 3RR violation.
 * Technophant violated 3RR at acupuncture. See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive251. Klocek also violated 3RR at acupuncture. See Administrators%27 noticeboard/3RRArchive246.
 * Technophant added the POV tag to the acupuncture article. Ricflairsbutt also added the POV tag to the acupuncture article.
 * The topic ban was on July 21. Stillwaterising deleted the connection to the account Technophant and he rejoined the WikiProject Medicine on July 23. He then unjoined the project with the account Technophant on July 24.
 * Although Technophant admitted he is Stillwaterising (only after I discovered there was a connection to Stillwaterising) I still think we should check for socking because there is evidence of quacking. See the additional evidence I recently connected together below with the IP socks from Texas.
 * Stillwaterising is from San Antonio, Texas according to this edit. The previous IP sock who made an interleaving edit is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129
 * The edit by the IP appears to be IP socking. The IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/71.40.3.92
 * The IP 71.40.3.92 calls User:BullRangifer a "pit bulldog" at a talk page.
 * It was odd the IP 71.40.3.92 said "I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern."
 * Technophant calls BullRangifer "The Pit Bull".
 * A mysterious IP 75.92.62.0 makes a very feeble attempt to seem foreign on the same talk page and the IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/75.92.62.0
 * Technophant claimed "I made my initial contribution to Acupuncture," among other things. That was not his initial contribution. We now know he was previously editing acupuncture with the account Stillwaterising as far back as 2010.

Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the edit more closely. Stillwaterising rejoined the WikiProject Medicine on July 23, 2014 while his other account was topic banned earlier on July 21, 2014. There is no evidence he made it clear that it was a clean start account from the beginning. I remember reading his user page as follows. According to this edit in late July, Technophant had a previous or another account. It was removed right after he was banned and then he requested speedy deletion of his user page. (The diffs I presented for his user page are no longer visible.) We are not asking CU to check if he is connected to the IP edits. He originally denied he was evading a topic ban but that is not the point. We are merely asking CU to check if he is connected to Klocek and to check for sleeper accounts. The evidence I presented here is incontrovertible that Technophant and Klocek are one in the same person and there is apparently no harm with running a CU. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I would like this investigation to be closed. I've disclosed all accounts that I've used. Checks have been made. There's no need to keep this open any longer. ~Technophant (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * According to this comment it is possible you and Klocek are the same person. Administrators can review the behavioral evidence I submitted above for a duckblock. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I endorse QG's thorough report. There is pretty clear evidence of disruption, uncollaborative spirit, and deceptive sockpuppetry.

Technophant has just been indefinitely blocked for using IPs to evade his topic ban, but this SPI still needs attention, especially to look for sleepers, since we can't trust this user at all; at the same time as he was protesting that he had never used socks, he was logging out to make nasty comments! That's pretty audacious. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that the topic ban was made on July 21, and the IP socking ban violation took place on July 24. While this pathetic attempt to sound foreign and comment on exactly THAT (?!!) thread may not say anything about the subject of the topic ban, it still demonstrates an attempt to edit while not logged in, in the area (that thread) of the topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This whole thing seems overkill to me. It is patently obvious that he was the San Antonio IPs, and if there is any doubt about it, he admitted it here in his unblock request. That Technophant had a previous account is also not controversial... he made it clear that it was a clean start account from the beginning, and aside from what appears to have been a recent sloppy but temporary re-activation of the account with a really sloppy edit here there hasn't been a problem that I can see. The other part of the case (trying to connect Technophant to Klocek) seems weak to me. If I had a nickel for everyone who edit warred on Acupuncture, removed sourced material, or didn't like QuackWatch as a source... Anyway, it looks like Technophant has requested a CU himself to clear his name, but the CU won't connect him to any IPs on principle, which is why this seems to be much ado about nothing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Adjwilley is 100% correct here. I made the IP edits and I'm definitely not Klocek. I've already been blocked for using the IP edits to evade topic ban. Case solved. Nothing to see here. ~Technophant (talk) 04:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Actually, the IP addresses aren't just from Texas, they geolocate to San Antonio. I feel comfortable in the blocks based on that. Given the consistent and persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppeting in the alternative medicine articles, I think a sweep looking for other accounts with a similar patter of pro-alt medicine cheerleading editing from San Antonio is warranted.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * - For confirmation and a sleeper check and possibly an IP block. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No sleepers, I do not think an IP block is needed; at least in one case it is a shared machine. There is nothing from CU to definitely confirm the link between Klocek and the named accounts, but it's quite tied with contributions. This should be handled primarily by behavior. Keegan (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing more to do here. Per the comments by Adjwilley. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)