Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Matthead/Archive

Report date September 29 2009, 22:01 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

There is very strong behavioral evidence linking this new account, created Sep. 26, to Matthead. Its pattern and style of contributions are not those of a new user. Flroian River edit-warred jointly with Matthead on (e.g. ), and also reverted to Matthead's preferred version on. Flroian River also edit-warred to remove Hebrew language text from the Local Embassy header, and was supported in this by Matthead. Flroian River stopped editing as soon as Matthead was blocked on Sep. 27.
 * Evidence submitted by Sandstein

Before I block Matthead for this sockpuppetry, I would appreciate checkuser evaluation.  Sandstein  22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I do not operate the account User:Flroian River, nor do I know who operates it. Having just saved my recent IP addresses, I am willing to send them to a Checkuser, if that is helpful.

Here is a chronology which hopefully helps to understand what had happened, according to my investigation: New user edits the article on the East German Lothar Bisky, quoting from a book by Hubertus Knabe and creating an article on Knabe's book. He also goes to the Local Embassy page, and dares to remove/criticize Hebrew as last edit of his day/night. A few minutes later, notices the removal, and then goes after Flroian's contribs, reverting at Bisky with rv POV and WP:UNDUE, then nominating the book article for deletion. Apparently, during his investigation of German matters, Seb comes across the article West Germany and decides to revert there, which is then countered by me, and re-reverted by, a Polish user about whom Sandstein and Arbcom probably have something to say, if asked.

In the evening (in Germany, where I reside), Flroian returns and undoes the edits of Seb. The rest is, as they say, (edit) history, with both going after each other. In the meantime, noticing the mess at West Germany, I'm looking around, too, wondering who is doing what and where and why, making no less than 14 edits on talk pages in the process. In between these talk edits, I made only one article edit: another revert at West Germany, for which I all of a sudden got blocked, for editwarring, by who, after gotten tipped off by Jacurek falsely claiming that I cannot revert more than once, erroneously assumed that I had violated a 1RR restriction issued by Sandstein months ago for Eastern Europe related pages - which obviously does not extend to West Germany. With neither Rjanag nor Sandstein being helpful, it took over 34 hours before I eventually got unblocked by a third admin.

Sandstein is false in stating "Flroian River stopped editing as soon as Matthead was blocked on Sep. 27" as he had stopped hours earlier. His last edit was on "22:04, 27 September 2009" (as displayed for me, in CEST) at Elisabeth Hevelius. My edits, in that context, started at 21:27, 27 September 2009, when I edited Talk:West Germany, then, after some edits conflicts as new sections had been added by others, 21:59, 27 September 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Local Embassy. I made 15 more edits in the 3 hours after Flroian's last edit, with the block being logged as beginning at 01:24, 28 September 2009.

After I noticed that Seb az86556 had edited Germany-related articles (Bisky, the book and its the deletion nomination, West Germany) in a manner I perceived as less than constructive, I noticed that from 5 languages remaining at Local Embassy, he singled out German in the section about the inclusion of Hebrew added by Flroian. That's I when I decided to step in to put things in perspective, adding facts rather than opinion (which I did in the new RfC section ). For example, when the inclusion of German was questioned, I pointed out that even Alemannic German has more speakers than Hebrew. BTW, both me and Sandstein self-identify on the user pages as native speakers of (different) Alemannic German subdialects (plus Standard German). Sandstein, in English, claims "Flroian River also edit-warred to remove Hebrew language text from the Wikipedia:Local Embassy header ([3]), and was supported in this by Matthead (4)". While "this" could be understood as referring to "edit-warred" or "remove Hebrew", in fact neither meaning is backed up with the diff. Another false claim by Sandstein.

As of the time of the first of Flroian's (in total three) reverts at West Germany, at 21:02, 27 September 2009, I had not done anything in his interest other than reverting his foe Seb, more than 12 hours earlier. In his next two reverts, he added summaries, stating "a consensus that this info box shall not be included". In fact, after I had removed the infobox in early September, this was not challenged by several editors within more than three weeks, which can be considered consensus.

The only thing which is somewhat inexplicable to me is why Flroian picked Elisabeth Hevelius for a single revert at an unrelated article. Maybe he noticed my new talk edits, approved of them, and looked up my contribs? Anyway, as Sandstein has "very strong behavioral evidence", he may tell us before he blocks somebody.

Could you please get off me?! I did not "tip" anyone. You were the one you started to shop around and complain about me[] I only pointed out the fact that you are not a problem free editor in my own defense, not even asking to block you or anything. The administrator who unblocked you (Fut.Perf.) is not a neutral administrator because he is involved as a party in a EE mailing list and made highly biased acusations against be in your defense. He already threatened me with lengthy block and I'm afraid to even comment on his behavior. Also Germany is related to Eastern Europe since was divided into EAST and WEST for over 4 decades. Half of Germany was a member of the Eastern Bloc and is related to E.E. Now please live me alone.--Jacurek (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Let's drop it for now; this is not the appropriate place to continue this dispute, it's just a place to file and enact a CheckUser request. Since the request has already been accepted, there's little for you to discuss here; more importantly, your comment above is totally unrelated to the sockpuppetting accusations, and is more a behavioral concern, which would be better addressed at a different forum if it needs to be addressed at all. Unless you have a comment about whether or not Matthead and Flroian are the same person, there's no need to comment at all. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me Rjanag, I want to drop it very much. He just keeps bringing my name over and over everywhere. I'm responding only in me defense. I don't want to have anything to do with this anymore.--Jacurek (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to respond. You can just ignore him. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K. done. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Before I go I would like to point out that both editors, Matthead & User:Flroian River are using (rv) for example in the edit summaries (there is more similarities) which suggests that both accounts are operated by the same person. Please see example:

Matthead:[]

Flroian River:[]

--Jacurek (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thousands upon thousands of editors use (rv)... r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ya,ya I know. It just looked strange to me that a new editor right away acts like an experienced one, even using (rv) or (new section) in edit summaries the same way as Matthead does. Ah..whatever...I'm out of here.--Jacurek (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: for checking time patterns, it's important to note that both Flroian and Matthead also have (obviously identical) accounts on de-wiki: de:Benutzer:Matthead (contribs) and de:Benutzer:Flroian River (contribs). I don't find the time patterns sock-typical. Flroian edited on 26 September from 21:03 to 21:33 on en-wiki and from 21:43 to 21:44 on de-wiki; during the same time, Matthead made a substantial talk page contribution at 21:38 on de-wiki (20:38) (possible, sure, but tight.) On 27 September, Flroian edited without interruption from 18:53 to 20:04; during the same period, Matthead made three substantial edits at 19:14, 19:27 and 19:59. That would have to be a very fast-working sockpuppeter indeed. Not a sockoform time pattern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * F.P. wrote: Matthead made a substantial talk page contribution at 21:38 on de-wiki (possible, sure, but tight.) - actually (follow the link ) it was 22:38 not 21:38  so he would have an extra hour to write it.  Just pointing out F.T.'s mistakes.--Jacurek (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we both misread. de-wiki has its display set to Central European (Summer) Time by default. It was 22:38 local German time, = 20:38 UTC. Sorry, I got the time zone settings in my de-wiki preferences wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the checkuser. Even though it makes sockpuppetry less likely, I believe that the edit pattern is indicative of meatpuppetry, but would appreciate the input of others.  Sandstein  19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested by  Sandstein   22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

❌ J.delanoy gabs adds  19:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * NW ( Talk ) 22:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Closing. NW ( Talk ) 11:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fut.Perf.
Varsovian appeared in late September pretending to be a new user, but with all the signs of experience and with an obvious agenda of stirring the shit in Eastern-Europe conflict areas and picking fights with certain Polish users (especially User:Jacurek and User:Loosmark). He was immediately suspected as a sock, and identified as a likely Matthead sock by his opponents on grounds of his behaviour, choice of topics and choice of opponents. Having reviewed their editing, I now find this identification likely on the basis of sockoform time patterns (can provide evidence to checkusers in private for beans reasons).

If Varsovian is Matthead, he has been evading Matthead's DIGWUREN topic ban from eastern Europe articles, and additionally Matthead was evading a 24-hrs block incurred by Varsovian yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I fully support this checkuser request. I hereby state my support for each and every checkuser request made any time anybody accuses me of being a sock puppet, a meatpuppet, a banned user avoiding a ban, whatever. I would like to request that the three users who have accused me of being somebody other than I say I am list here ALL the users (past & present) they think I could possibly be and that checkuser is then used for each of those and me. Once the three users have exhausted their imaginations, I would like them to apologize to me. I will probably then leave wikipedia: a place where constant streams of insults, accusations, allegations and vitriol are directed at people and tolerated by the community is not a project I wish to be involved in. Varsovian (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear checkuser, please go ahead - and slap the wrists of all those who make cheap accusations of sock puppetry: Sky Attacker, Loosmark, and Jacurek (who since pedaled back, though, and forth). Also, admins Sandstein (for the previous, archived case) and now/soon Future Perfect at Sunrise (for stirring the shit) have well-earned egg on their faces. -- Matthead Discuß   16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthead:

Even though it has been declined here by now, it seems an informal CU on me and/or Varsovian was already performed a week ago, at the request of User:EdJohnston, by User:Nishkid64: "Nothing on the CU end". It's astonishing what's going on behind the scenes. So much about Assume good faith. -- Matthead Discuß   12:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I love the comment about how I "seem to be following Jacurek arround"! In reality Jacurek and I have both edited a grand total of three articles: London Victory Parade of 1946 (Jacurek's repeated reverts of my edits were what prompted me to register my account); Anti-Polish sentiment, into which Jacurek followed me and reverted my edit ; and No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron, an article he had edited just once before, on 13 Feb 2009 but within one hour of me posting there he had reverted my edit!Varsovian (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Checking edit days, times, and subjects (WikiChecker) I do not see sufficient evidence for a checkuser run to be done and made public. -- Avi (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Radeksz
User Matthead is currently banned from editing articles related to Poland and Poles. The topic ban arose out of disputes at the Johann-Jan Dzierzon article, where Matthead was heavily involved. There was a naming vote before Matthead got topic banned and he voted there. There is now a new requested move and obviously Matthead is not allowed to vote in it (though he violated his topic ban recently by posting related comments on his talk page, for which he was blocked for a week through WP-AE). Recently a suspicious (to me at least) account - User Tropical wind - appeared and voted. The rhetoric used by the user in their vote is highly reminiscent of Matthead´s previous statements. For example the reference to ¨Polish nationalists¨ is standard Matthead. Furthermore, TW complains about Nietzshe - this is another complaint made in the past by Matthead. Further investigation of the users edits led me to believe that there is a very strong possibility that Tropical wind could be user Matthead, sock puppeting in order to avoid their topic ban and take part in the vote. Here are further diffs showing similarity:

Nietzsche:
 * Matthead Matthead removes Nietzsche from List of Poles
 * Tropical wind Tropical wind makes edits in a similar vein

Miroslav Klose:
 * Matthead
 * Tropical wind

Lukas Podolski:
 * Matthead
 * Tropical wind

General shared interest in the FIFA world cup (I know, by itself this would be unnoticable)
 * Matthead
 * Tropical wind

Timing wise, Tropical wind began editing Wikipedia on April 5th, 2010. They arrived with a pretty good idea of how Wikipedia works, including calling stuff original research, assesing articles (this is a good way to rack up one´s edit count without raising suspicion of socking), ref formatting (Nietzsche diff) and of course knowledge of how to vote on requested moves and how to format a display of google hits very aesthetically. It´s true that Tropical wind appeared a little before Matthead was topic banned, but it´s very possible that around early April Matthead smelled ¨the way the wind was blowing¨ and decided to start the new account, particularly since the topic ban was a culimination of ongoing controversy, with blocks and bans obviously looming on the horizon.

Admittedly the only thing that gives me pause is that there is some close overlap in editing times of Matthead and Tropical wind. I´m guessing though that that kind of thing could be done with two computers, two browsers or by logging in and out - so it´s not a disqualifier.

I´m also including User Smith2006 here because I believe it has never been checked if Matthead and Smith2006 were related, and the two accounts share a very similar POV. Furthermore, Smith2006 also ranted about ¨Polish nationalists¨on the Jan Dzierzon page made similar edits at the article itself, demanded that the talk page be moved to ´Johann´, has also made similar edits at Lukas Podolski  and smilar edits at Miroslav Klose. Smith2006 was blocked for battleground mentality and incivility, including at the Dzierzon article in 2009 but has not been very active recently.

General note: Matthead is currently (Thursday) under a week long block for violating his topic ban. He should probably be conditionally unblocked to participate in this SPI, with the proviso that he only comment here and not edit elsewhere. radek (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Henrig - like I said, Matthead´s topic ban was the culimination of various problems one of which was the behavior at the Jan Dzierzon article. Even though it´s pretty irrelevant to this SPI let me just note that there´s a general tendency among SOME German editors to completely ignore the Gdansk-Danzig vote when it suits their purpose (i.e. when the vote implies inclusion of Polish names or naming) and to push it hard only when it´s up their ally (i.e. when it implies German naming).

Re to Tropical wind - if you´re not Matthead then a check user should clear it up. However there is a good bit of similarity between your POVs and edits, you´re a strange new account that arrived on Wikipedia at a suspicious time with a pretty thorough knowledge of how Wikipedia works, your comments are eerily familiar to those made by Matthead in the past and so on. Like I said, a check user could clear it up. Radek

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm not sure what (if anything) is required of me here - I have no connection with Matthead and I'm confident that this will also be the result of the investigation. I understand that I find myself on the receiving end of these accusations because I dared to oppose the point-of-view of Mr Radek. Tropical wind (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Comment by the admin who blocked Matthead: If the admin or checkuser processing this report requires a statement by Matthead, then Matthead can be asked on their talk page to provide one. An unblock is not necessary.  Sandstein   06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Matthead's current block. He has been blocked to enforce his comment on Radek's arbitration request. There is no need, not to unblock, if Matthead agrees to comment at the appropriate places. --Henrig (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment concerning Radek's statement: It's simply wrong, that Matthead has been banned for an engagement in Dzierson's article. Sandstein banned him, after he had well-founded complained about some editors. Maybe Sandstein had felt a challenge of his neutrality, maybe he had not carefully reviewed the matter ( - something, which, for instance, arbitrator user:risker recently has criticised in another case, where Sandstein blocked someone. [|JuliaHavey1] (section 'JuliaHavey1') - ). Whatever, Sandstein not only banned one of the four accused users, who's history showed, that he was always purely engaged in reverting wording according a Polish view, in particular, to contempt everywhere and steadily the guidelinge of the Gdansk/Danzig vote.  Matthead, who reverted such edits of this user in good faith, to defend a guideline was therefore banned by Sandstein too. I told Sandstein my astonishment about this. [] (section 'Talk:Gdansk/Vote').


 * On the comments on Shirik and FP bellow: The evidence presented is more than overwhelming. I am not sure what "edit patterns" are you talking about but obviously he won't do exactly the same patterns as before. But again he is inserting himself exactly into the same topics as Matthead with exactly the same bizarre claims. The probability that two different people would make such claims is very low. If even such overwhelming evidence isn't enough than we can as well stop blocking people. Dr. Loosmark  20:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I simply see too many differences to let me endorse this case at this time. The users all appear to be unrelated. If stronger evidence than common interests can be presented, please feel free to present it, but I see significant differences in editing styles which are sufficient to convince me that these editors are not related. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing, but not archiving, to allow for a second opinion from a clerk Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked Smith2006, but Tropical wind and Matthead have occasional overlaps in editing times with rapid and substantial sequences of simultaneous edits, which would be difficult to pull off with socks, so I also don't see a high degree of likelihood. T.w. also seems better behaved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

15 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IIIraute is an account which was created in May 2010 and stayed mostly quiet until recently. Recently, the user began edit warring/spamming German names into Poland related articles. Basically the account has tried very hard to revive old naming disputes centering around Gdansk/Danzig and Copernicus. Both of these topics are what Matthead was very very active in, with the exact same purpose and editing, before he got a topic ban from User:Sandstein from Poland related articles in ... 28 April 2010.

So, Matthead gets topic banned from Poland related topics on April 28, 2010 (in early May he appears to have believed the topic ban may be rescinded ), and IIIraute is created on May 15th, when that doesn't appear to pan out.

In his latest spree Illraute mostly does not engage in discussion but rather mostly "comments" by copy pasting text (e.g.). However, he did let slip an uncivil comment of the sort that Matthead often used in the past (for example here .).

Furthermore, the fact that Illraute has not just tried to revive the disputes Matthead was engaged in but also showed up to the page of Marie Curie and insist she was Russian not Polish is just weird,. Edit warring over Polish-German naming? Ok, I can see that there's a non-trivial number of editors who'll do that. But doing that AND portraying Marie Curie as "Russian" is just strange. And what you know, it was Matthead that has made this very unique and idiosyncratic argument in the past. Compare this edit by IIIraute, and the fact that IIIraute has also focused on Royal Prussia   (etc) with this past comment by Matthead: "The article Marie Curie says: born in Warsaw, Congress Poland, Russian Empire, and lived there until she was 24. As I saw people born in Royal Prussia or in certain Hanseatic cities being pronounced as Polish, I figure that Curie must be Russian accordingly, no matter what language she spoke." and you most definetly hear a lot of quacking.

Additionally, here (google translate ), on German Wikipedia article on Marie Curie, Matthead uses almost the exact same wording that IIIraute uses on the English Wikipedia version. Essentially the approach of "if you don't let me call Copernicus German, I'm gonna go and make Madame Curie be Russian" was particular to Matthead and here we have IIIraute doing the exact same thing. Here's another instance where Matthead makes the almost exact same edit on German Wikipedia as IIIraute did on English Wikipedia

And there's more. There's lots of articles one could go to edit war over Polish-German naming but some of them are more pertinent than others and some of them are quite obscure. For example, Lech Walesa article is about the last one where you'd think a German editor would really insist on "Danzig", since the histories here don't overlap nor is there any relevant controversy. So the fact that IIIraute chose this particular article to put "Danzig" in is also weird. And what you know, again, this was one of Matthead's WP:POINT edits in the past ("if you don't let me call Copernicus German, then Lech Walesa should be German because he was born in German occupied Poland). He already makes that claim in the German Wikipedia Curie diff provided above but there's more there

And some of the articles that IIIraute has chosen to add "Danzig" to basically scream "Matthead". For example the articles on Albrecht Giese, Prince-Bishopric of Warmia or Johannes Dantiscus  are all fairly obscure and not really the kind of articles that a new user who wants to slap "Danzig" around would go to. But of course they're all articles on which Matthead edit warred over Danzig/Gdansk before he got his topic ban:   (many more diffs possible here, just illustrating).

Furthermore, here is Matthead and IIIraute  sharing the exact same opinion, on the exact same piece of text, quibbling over the exact same number, on the German resistance article.

The above behavioral evidence is enough to establish that this is at the very least a meatpuppet, though if this is coordinated editing, it's damn close. But if you look at the edit histories of both users, Matthead and IIIraute, then it turns out that they never edit in close temporal proximity. There's no times when they edit close together. The only exception is the edits made on January 28th, 2012, but in that case there were special circumstances; IIIraute was subject of a 3RR report, time was of the essence or he was risking a block, so he was forced to make edits in close proximity. Volunteer Marek 15:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that I actually asked IIIraute twice, point-blank, if they have edited under a different account  and both times they have evaded giving an answer. Not by itself a proof of anything but it does corroborate the above evidence. Volunteer Marek 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Tnxman307 - it would be, since the sock would be being used to evade a topic ban that Matthead is under. Volunteer Marek 15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Defending myself against the accusation
Those baseless smear campaign accusations towards my account (made by "VolunteerMarek") are just ridiculous. In the last two years I performed almost 1500 edits - even more, before that, as an IP. The user obviously does not agree with the result of the Gdansk/Danzig vote - and that's ok - however he should learn to accept the vote of the majority. Apart from that he should watch out from not being blocked, as he clearly (and consistently) violates the vote. The result of the vote is binding on all parties. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. The rules are to follow - especially in the case of disputes. Persistent reverts against community consensus may be dealt with according to the rules in Dealing with vandalism.--IIIraute (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I am not anybody else than IIIraute and I never had any other account; and in regards of the Marie Curie edit, maybe you should have a look at this, as I was asked to participate.--IIIraute (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I have been teaching at the University of London, Berlin, Barcelona and Düsseldorf during the last two years - and I also have been editing the WP from all those locations (IP address!) - it should be very easy to give proof that I can not be the same user. Why don't you compare the IP locations of Matthead and IIIraute for the last two years of editing.--IIIraute (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * so this isn't what you call a lengthy discussion - apart from that are the rules of the vote very straightforward and easy to understand and do not leave room for interpretation or a lot of discussion.--IIIraute (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ..."at point-blank"? - why should I - are you the Spanish Inquisition - just comply with the vote.--IIIraute (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having a closer look at your accusations above - I have to say, they are truly delusional - quite scary indeed.--IIIraute (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having a closer look at your accusations above - I have to say, they are truly delusional - quite scary indeed.--IIIraute (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC) my mistake - there was no intention to repeat the comment - just went the wrong place.--IIIraute (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you for the acquittal concerning those gross accusations made by User:Volunteer Marek -  regarding the latter - I better leave this without further comment.--IIIraute (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

With regards to any comments about Matthead being inactive - please note he is under a ban from Polish topics, so if this editor is Matthead, than he is avoiding a ban. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 16:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I only see two edits by Matthead in the past three months. I'm not sure this would qualify as multiple account abuse. TN X</b> Man 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Matthead is under a topic ban [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matthead&diff=prev&oldid=358920493], it certainly would, wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * - results are, bordering on ❌. Frank  &#124;  talk  02:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)