Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson/Archive

Report date April 6 2009, 23:51 (UTC)
Added per apparent admission in this case
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Kleinzach

Eudemis supported User:Nrswanson in Kathleen Battle controversy/edit war, see and Talk:Kathleen Battle. English style (Nrswanson/Eudemis) is similar if not identical. (I attempted to moderate this dispute.) -- Klein zach  23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if I've set up this wrongly. To clarify suspected puppet: Eudemis (also 98.26.92.151). Suspected master: Nrswanson. -- Klein zach  01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: I was originally asked to moderate the Kathleen Battle dispute by User:Nrswanson (see here) and my mediation was accepted by both of the main parties (Nrswanson and Hrannar) here and here etc. Unfortunately Nrswanson has a history of using sockpuppets to win arguments. In view of the possibility of this having happened again, I asked for Eudemis to be checked as a possible puppet. -- Klein zach  03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification: I originally asked for a private check on suspicious circumstances in the Kathleen Battle controversy/edit war. This wasn't possible, so I was forced to make an open request for checkuser. I would not accuse editors of malpractice without evidence. However I would look for that evidence if necessary. In this case another editor (Hrannar) had been blocked and I thought we should find out exactly what was going on. Obviously I'm disappointed that no check has been made and this problem — on Kathleen Battle and this page and the other Nrswanson investigation — has been left to fester. I don't think this helps anyone involved. -- Klein zach  04:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by Hrannar

'Something I just discovered, that is extremely compelling.'


 * THE INVOLVEMENT OF NRSWANSON, BROADWEIGHBABE, AND INMYSOLITUDE in the same article deletion debate [] **
 * March 15, 2009 at 22:17, Drdisque votes keep.
 * March 15, 2009 at 22:23, 'nrswanson' votes keep.
 * March 15, 2009 at 22:36, 'broadweighbabe' votes keep.
 * March 15, 2009 at 22:54, Dpmuk votes keep
 * March 16, 2009 at 08:21, 'Inmysolitude states, as if to conclude voting, "The result was keep."

So, just little over a month ago, nrswanson is still practicing socketpuppetry, if I understand the term correctly, where he uses broadweigh babe to help with a vote. / But this investigation may also confirm that he is the puppet master for Inmysolitude. / Additionally, this seems HIGHLY suspicious that Inmysolitude (a newbie) creates an account, then on the same day (1) serves in this capacity and (2) happens to be involved in an interaction with both nrswanson (master) and broadweighbabe (sockpuppet).

Hrannar (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

'TIMING OF INMYSOLITUDE 'S INVOLVEMENT in Kathleen Battle conversation & account creation.' = "Edit Warring"
 * On March 8, 2009 : Member (Eudemis) started adding content that had been debated. Nrswanson would very likely have been aware that another editor would protest.
 * Around March 16, 2009 Inmysolitude ACCOUNT CREATION.
 * On March 17, 2009 Inmysolitude's account is already blocked after one or so days activity. [[Inmysolitude's Archive showing block]] for disruptive behavior. In his defending himself and his experienced language, sounds a lot like nrswanson. (Please see SIMILARITIES section.)
 * April 1 and 2, other editor and myself become involved and edit content back, using similar criteria to what had been used during several months period of mediation.
 * April 2 at 1:19 Eudemis re-adds debated content
 * April 2 at 22:03 I revert (essentially removing a single sentence) (used undo button)
 * April 2 at 22:04 Nrswanson "restores" Eudemis' edit (REVERT 1) (Essentially, this was an revert, but doesn't use the undo, since Nrswanson would be highly familiar with the edit rule, given his level of knowledge. Is this not, on some level, gaming the system? Also, notice that the edit was just one minute after mine. He had this article on watchlist. Something that Inmysolitude stated he had. Another similiarity.)
 * April 2 at 22:15 I revert (essentially remove the same single sentence)
 * April 2 at 22:19 Nrswanson "restores"
 * April 2 at 22:23 I revert
 * April 2 at 22:33 INMYSOLITUDE writes, "I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for your recent edits at the article on Kathleen Battle. I was simply going to warn you at first until I noticed that this is not a new thing for you..." Also, please note that Inmysolitude's report is APPEARS MISLEADING, INACCURATE. [[Inmysolitude's report]]; Please see what Inmysolitude claims to be my "1st Revert" and "2nd Revert." They were not reversions. My rationale is provided and I am not sure they were be considered reverts.

'Similarities of Behavior and Perspective' He appears to be the "softened" version of Nrswanson, but shares two key similarities: (1) highly experienced knowledge of wikipedia issues (including blocking users and edit warring) after such a small amount of time with account and seems to go easy on Nrswanson, doesn't really seem to notice the aggresiveness and personal attacks on part of Nrswanson. Just mentions what Inmysolitude calls "sarcasm" and what he calls history of hosility on both parts.

'A Very Particular Misspelling Seams to be Signature of Nrswanson' Perhaps the most compelling evidence of Nrswanson and Inmysolitude being the same is the following statement "Inmysolitude" made when I presented reasons for not being blocked. Inmysolitude stated, "I would __appriciate__ it if you would look at this. Hrannar is challenging his block and making some angry accusations." When looking another user having Nrswanson investigated for sockpuppetry, I saw Nrswanson's history and another moderator noting that this spelling seems to be a signature spelling of Nrswanson. But Nrswanson in an[[earlier discussion with Nrswanson]] says, "...for the record I don't think any personal attacks have been made by either myself or Hrannar which I _appriciate_. Thank you for keeping this conversation civil." / But in another socketpuppet case, I believe another arbiter noted this peculiar misspelling on Nrswanson's part.


 * SOME EXAMPLES

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this. And please forgive for formatting. I am trying to learn.
 * (1) Inmysolitude stated recently on this current page, "I don't think in this conversation that either of you has stepped across the line... yet. But if things continue this way I'm sure it will lead to that." is similar to a reflective of Nrswansons statement he made in this section [[earlier discussion with Nrswanson]] where he says, "...for the record I don't think any personal attacks have been made by either myself or Hrannar which I appreciate. Thank you for keeping this conversation civil."
 * (2) Inmysolitude, in his statement, "While you aren't doing anything that is overtly wrong.." and " I see two editors who appear to have a shared history of hostility towards one another." Both statements seem to suggest that I have been doing something possibly "covertly" wrong (a personal view probably shared by Nrswanson) and that the hostility is two sided. (nrswanson has stated that there has not been "enough good will on the part of [me]."

Hrannar (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

'Instances of "archiving" information that they possibly do not want others to be aware of and/or appreciate information shown '
 * NRSWANSON example: (1) On August 12, 2008, Nrswanson wanted me to remove an observation of his behavior that I had made here . [[scroll a little up]] with these words, "But I still fail to see why the November 2007 edit is relevent enough to remain...Hrannar please do this as a favor to me as a sign of good faith." / (2) On the very same day, August 12, 2008, Nrswanson archived the ENTIRE page (not just the really old or burdensom stuff). Upon my inquiry [], Nrswanson responded, "...Everyone there will understand because most wikipedia editors are used to archives and how they work..." / However based on timing of archiving (same day) and his indication that comment bothered him -- he stated the comment, "really bothers me" -- seems more likely that he archived the page, because he didn't appreciate information on page.
 * INMYSOLITUDE example: (1) Inmysolitudes account appears to have been created on March 16, 2009. This is exactly one month from today. He had little discussion, save a welcome and some minor discussion. Then on March 17, 2009, you see a block. See here: [] The information on the talk page is neither unwieldy or old, and yet, Inmysolitude HAD already archived it, some time ago, not just within the past few weeks. Since having a block on a record could be perceived as unflattering, it is not inconceivable that a person could use archiving to obscure the comment. (This is not something I would have considered, had nrswanson so suddenly archived the talk page. His rationale seemed fairly transparent given timing, despite what he stated in his response to me.) Hrannar (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I hope user Kleinzach doesn't do writing analysis for the FBI. I'm in North Carolina and user Nrswanson's comments were already a part of the discussion the first time I read the article. My own comments were in connection with the subject's well known reputation for being difficult, a topic omitted in the biography. My entries will differ from any others on the discussion page by being self dated using eastern standard time. My prior use of the "Title: Your signature with timestamp" button yielded some odd results so I began to time/date mine manually. I have never met nor am I the same person as Nrswanson. I share many of his concerns about the Battle biography being misleading.

My concerns are actually broader than Nrsawnson's. My impression is that a few contributors (Hrannar, Kleinzach) have taken ownership of the article. They block repeated attempts to improve the article by purging any mention of Ms. Battle's behavior and its role in ending her operatic career. User Kleinzach has in the scant amount of time I've been involved in the piece: 1) pronounced the article "excellent" in its very sanitized form 2) questioned why Ms. Battle's dismissal has become the focus of such "extraordinary attention" 3) deleted an anecdotal entry of Ms. Battle's odd behavior 4) sought the lifting of a ban for edit warring placed on Hrannar stating that in his opinion, Hrannar was provoked. Hrannar had been deleting a quote from a Time Magazine article concerning Ms. Battle's past behavior generating ill will. I believe any indication from user Kleinzach that he is somehow a neutral observer is no longer appropriate, particularly given his latest conspiracy theories. Eudemis 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Disagreement with above statement and reasoning' It is my understanding that, given the latest development in this case where we see Inmysolutude reported me, got me blocked, as the sockpuppet (or meat puppet) of Nrswanson, is not a conspiracy theory, but unfortunately very likely true. (No one wants to believe that of another.) But perhaps, when a contributor (like nrswanson) is so certain of their stance, they may go to inappropriate and at times, uncivil lengths to get an article to reflect their stance. / Moderating cannot be easy, because there can be contributors who disagree with their observations -- particularly if it doesn't support their view -- and who through these contributors frustration, seek to discredit them. / But without them, wikipedia articles most likely lack the quality that many of them have and degenerate to articles full of gossip and libellous statements, for example. That is my opinion. / My efforts to, what Eudemis calls "purge any mention of Kathleen Battle's behavior" was effort to the remove of 'potentially defamatory material' for a living bio. AND. I have just learned that that 'does not count' as edit warring and is something wikipedia feels strongly about. [[See article here]] Hrannar (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar


 * I am neither Eudemis or the anon IP. I would like to request a checkuser to prove this. Given my history here (which I am not proud of) I think some concrete evidence would be beneficial at proving my innocence in this case. While I do not doubt Kleinzach's motives, we do have a history of conflict which makes this accusation not surprising. Further, I readily admit to having a dislike for hrannar and to sharing a similar viewpoint as Eudemis in this debate. So frankly Kleinzach's suspicion is not entirely unfounded given my history (see December 2007 case). I think a check user is the only way I can adequately defend myself. Thanks for your help.Nrswanson (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

per the checkuser criteria, requests for checkuser to prove your own innocence are not accepted. Mayalld (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Following an apparent admission on behalf of some accounts, and those accounts seemingly being abandoned, it is noted that (an account alleged to be a sock, but not conclusively shown to be a sock based on behaviour) continues to edit. CU endorsed to determine whether we have a case of sacrificing a number of socks that had been found in order to protect another continuing account from scrutiny. Mayalld (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since a check user was declined. I (nrswanson) am editing this not logged in to display my IP address. You will see that that the IP address is based in Oklahoma and not South Carolina like the anon IP.70.185.222.155 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the above will help. Unfortunately Eudemis is such a new user its difficult to make a case without a check user. Nrswanson (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking through Eudemis's short edit history the only defense I can build is to argue that he edits like a new user and not someone experienced at editing the encyclopedia. User:Eudemis is not formatted well. An experienced wikipedian would have known to use an * and : marks to indent and denote items under his list of Areas of interest. Further, he has forgotten to sign his comments on a number of occassions at Talk:Kathleen Battle. He also doesn't self reference wikipedia policies or procedures or wikify anything in his comments. His comments are actually pretty much devoid of wiki lingo. My arguements are almost always policy centered around BLP guidelines, WP:Not censored, and WP:NPOV. I also sound like someone who has been editing on wikipedia for a while and Eudemis, while confident, doesn't really. I personally don't think our writing style is all that similar either. There are also small things like his use of the undue function. In the more than 30,000 edits I have made I have never used the undue function. You'll notice going through my edit log that I regularly revert just using an edit summary. I also have the habit of making minor changes to my comments after posting them (fixing spelling error, etc.) That's evident looking at almost any conversation I participate in. Eudemis doesn't go back and edit his comments. In short we have different editing habits and display different levels of knowledge about wikipedia in general. Nrswanson (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hrannar, no offence intended but I can't possibly see what the motive for all of this would be. Inmysolitude has never edited the Kathleen Battle article or tried to influence any content decisions made there in any way. The fact is you and I were edit waring. Nobody can make someone edit war. The worst consequence would be a minor block for a day which doesn't really seem worth the trouble to create such an elaborate conspiracy involving a month of planning. I mean we would just be going back to arguing the same points hours later. There's no real advantage in it.Nrswanson (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, Nrswanson. I do not believe you made me edit war. I suspect that you and Inmysolitude are the same person. I may be incorrect or correct. I cannot begin to speculate as to motive, save that it may be partially fueled by sentiments that you shared such as, "I readily admit to having a dislike for hrannar," so it is possible that comments coming from a person whose dislike is apparent would not bear as much weight as comments coming from someone like a Inmysolitude who, as you state, "has never edited the Kathleen Battle article or tried to influence any content decisions made there in any way." Hrannar (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Of course I deny it and I think your case is ridiculous. If anything I think inmysolitude was much harder on me than you. He (or she?) basically implied that I was doing something overtly wrong whereas you were just being anoying. I think I come out looking more like the bad guy than you do. Frankly I didn't much care for his take on the situation which I think is evident in my reply to him.Nrswanson (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not surprise me that your perspective differs from mine. However you state, "I didn't much care for his take on the situation which I think is evident in my reply to him" but from my perspective, you seem quite receptive to his suggestions. If we are speaking of your "reply to him" that includes, "I'm willing to try and keep my comments as civil as possible in future." Which, by the way, I want to thank and encourage you to keep your comments as civil as possible in the future. Thanks. At the same time for the reasons stated above, I still believe you and he are the same. Do you not have a history of creating sockpuppets or meatpuppets to support whatever view you hold, which you have stated you are not proud of? Hrannar (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Hrannar once again you are selectively quoting me. I also said "I feel entirely justified in the comments I've made", basically not acknowledging inmysolitude's chastisement. My agreement to continue in a civil manner was merely an attempt at extending an olive branch for the sake of peace. I still have no regrets about any comments I've made. As for the history of Meat puppets from 2007, I think I've addressed that. Its there for everyone to read and see. I'm not proud of it and if anything that experience taught me to not do it again. The particulars from that case are also very different from this one. I'd like to point out that I was a relatively new user at that point in time as well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nrswanson - The quote I selected, was meant to illustrate how receptive you seemed to be to Inmysolitude. But it also showed your interest in being civil. If you wish to interpret that as selectively quoting you, so be it. / And for what it's worth, it matters little to me that a person here would have regrets about comments they have made. What matters more is they they be civil and openly and honestly. Behaviors like "reverting" a passage without using the undo button, for example, is a clever way of obscuring the fact that a person is actually reverting, which you practice. For example. Or conveniently mentioning the particulars of "a case" (singular) as if to suggest that you were caught only once for taking part in fairly serious inappropriate behavior. It is mature of you to quickly aknowledge and apologize, but please don't be surprised then at my concern about the sudden creation of the Inmysolitude account and his recent involvement seem highly suspect to me. It took no major planning. And is probably not difficult to do at all. That, at the curious fact that he got himself blocked after just one day of creating an account and argued with the administrator as if he is some professional wiki editor. Just very curious behavior, when all the pieces are considered, in my mind. / So given your history (some great, some not so great), would it not be a a helpful thing if it can be proven that Inmysolitude is not you or known by you?  Hrannar (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar


 * I was hoping that Nrswanson would not claim that he only used sockpuppets on one occasion. As he now has implied as much, we should make it clear that there was another case in April 2008. The puppets were User:Insearchofintelligentlife and User:Divinediscourse. -- Klein zach  02:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach is correct. Yes I appologize, I'm sorry. I wasn't meaning to cover that up. By the way for full disclosure this is an account of mine as well. Which others are aware of.Broadweighbabe (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nrswanson. I've long suspected that Broadweighbabe (who did briefly post and delete here) was also you. Do you have any other puppets, active or inactive? I know that you enjoy the role playing involved in all this, but do you understand how much all of this poisons the discussions in which you take part? Kathleen Battle has been enough of a snake pit without added complications. -- Klein zach  03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * case moved and formatted Mayalld (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * added accounts per apparent admission by Broadweighbabe Mayalld (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * report generated at Mayalld (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at this, could take a couple of days. Mayalld (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the following recent AFDs may have been affected by vote stacking, and should be re-closed; Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My request to for a comment on the apparent admission by  that the two are alternate accounts seems to have fallen on deaf ears, and both previously prolific editors haven't edited for 72 hours. It would seem that there is an inescapable conclusion that Nrwanson=Broadweighbabe=Inmysolitude (but that there is not the same level of evidence in relation to Eudemis), and that this user has engaged in vote stacking in a significant number of recent AFDs Mayalld (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Audiophonic visual isolation
 * Articles for deletion/Abdulfez
 * Articles for deletion/List of neopets species


 * Looking at the case, there seems to be strong evidence pointing to sock puppetry or meat puppetry. However, I would like to hear responses from Nrswanson before acting, specifically regarding the apparent admission from Broadweighbabe. If this is not forthcoming in the next few days, I will close this case. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 12:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Wow, Wikipedia gets more cynical with every passing day.  Ceran  llama chat post 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that there are proven cases of sockpuppets (at least two for the user above), which detracts from the honest and collaborative nature of wikipedia. Mechanisms such as this, then, can help reduce those who engage in this behavior. Hrannar (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Eudemis is ❌. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC) all socks and master indef blocked by Slakr. All tagged. Mayalld (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as Nrswanson:

Evidence submitted by Peter cohen
Tempodivalse has made a recent dyk nomination for his article Siegfried Translateur. The text looks to me to contain close translations of the German sources and therfore trngresses WP:COPYVIO. A random new article I picked Blindekuh_(operetta) contains close paraphrases of material from the sources on the Naxos site. The creation of copyright-violating articles on oepratic articles and nomination of them for dyk is a recognised behaviour of Swanson and his socks. Further the first edits of this account indicate a user with prior Wikipedia experience. I'd prefer a checkuser carried out as this user advertises themselves as an admin on another project and therefore maximum evidence should be gatehred before warning them.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC) NB The related wikinews account has bureaucrat privileges.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Hello, I would appreciate it if someone notified me when things involving me come up on the wiki. I'd just like to say that I have absolutely no relation to . "Tempodivalse" is the only account that I have ever edited this project from. I admit that I was too lenient on the copyvio issues, this is my main weakness, and an area that I am trying to improve on, but I am not in any way sockpuppeting. Tempodivalse   [talk]  03:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I don't know if User:Tempodivalse is a Swanson sock, but if it isn't there are likely to be others that are. Is anything being done 'proactively' to check account creations coming out of the Swanson IP? -- Klein zach  01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Swanson and his sockpuppets have been responsible for long term damage to Wikipedia through violating copyright in the hundreds of new articles that they have created. That this suspect account has bureaucrat privileges on Wikinews raises the question of whether there are similar seriosu problems there. Although the original Swanson account has been blocked for over 6 months, some of the known puppets have been active more recently. Here is a post identifying accounts thta were active until stopped this October.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * . Brandon (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Behavioral evidence makes me think this is quite unlikely. Marking this closed as no action taken. NW ( Talk ) 03:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Voceditenore
After the indefinite blocking of Nrswanson and his known socks on 21 April 2009 (see Report date April 6 2009), he returned on 27 April 2009 as
 * Background

He then created 6 more socks between May 2009 and October 2009: All were indefinitely blocked by Moreschi on 13 October 2009 after checkuser confirmation. That round of socks came to light after many copyright violations were discovered in articles edited by Nrswanson. The new accounts I've listed were all created between 21 January and 13 February 2010. They are clearly not "new users" as they are thoroughly familiar with wiki markup, categories, page moving, etc. They also edit almost exclusively in the same areas as Nrswanson and his previous socks — opera and classical music related biographies, articles on individual operas, opera companies, and opera houses.
 * Current suspected sockpuppets

They have a similar style of opening sentences to those used by Nrswanson and his confirmed sock Singingdaisies and to each other, e.g.
 * Nrswanson: "Dawn Kotoski (born 1966) is an American operatic soprano who has a substantial international opera career."
 * Singingdaisies: "Rita Orlandi-Malaspina (born 28 December 1937) is an Italian operatic soprano who had a major international career from the 1960s through the 1980s."


 * 4meter4: "Maria Capuana (2 September 1891 – 22 February 1955) was an Italian mezzo-soprano who had a major international opera career during the first half of the 20th century."
 * 1adele9: "Arrigo Pola (5 July 1919 - 3 November 1999) was an Italian tenor who had an active international performance career during the 1940s through the 1960s."
 * Tltrrpj: "Bruce Fowler is an American classical tenor who has had a major international performance career in operas and concerts since the early 1990s."
 * Jschmidt1985: "Marguerite Krull is an American classical soprano who has had an active international performance career since the 1990s."

Nrswanson almost invariably spelled "appreciate" as "appriciate", e.g., ,. Note that 4meter4 makes the same error here

His sock Singingdaisies wrongly used "assail" instead of "assay". See his use of "frequently assailed role" here and the exact same wording by Gcfhs100 here I have checked the contributions of these new editors for copyright violation, and so far found none, although the referencing is inadequate in some of them. However, the scale of the copyright violations by Nrswanson and his socks in the past has been very disruptive. We are still cleaning it up and 4meter4 has become extremely prolific.. If this turns out to be a false alarm, I apologize in advance to all the users I've listed as suspected sockpuppets, but I hope they'll understand why this investigation is necessary. If sockpuppetry is confirmed, I'd like to point out that although Nrswanson (in all his guises) caused considerable problems, he also made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I wish he could have made a "fresh start" after his past problems, but this certainly isn't the way to go about it.

– Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: Checkuser may no longer required per this apology from 4meter4, which he made an hour ago at WikiProject Opera admitting that he is Nrswanson and has been editing as all the suspected sockpuppets listed above. If he wishes to make a "fresh start" and promises to edit under only one user name and respect copyright, I would support this. But will leave this to the closing administrator. I'm not sure what's done in these cases. Voceditenore (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the first block (April 2009) for sockpuppetry involved "vote-stacking" in AfDs and other discussions. To the best of my knowledge, Nrswanson has not repeated that with either the second lot of socks (blocked in October 2009) or with these new ones. Voceditenore (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also would support giving this user a chance at a fresh start, with his old username if he prefers, taking him at his word that he will do no more copyright violations, and seeing that his latest contributions (the ones I have checked) contain no problems. Antandrus (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the past I have supported giving this user another chance (his third, fourth?). I don't any longer. If he is going to be allowed back, I think it's essential that it is under his original name. -- Klein zach  03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FACT 1: It seems that wikpedia administrators felt it wise to block nrswanson; FACT 2: it was ignored. (what good is an administrative decision if users do not have to be expected to follow or if it cannot be enforced). Nrswanson or any user should be permitted to contribute in POSITIVE ways -this makes perfect sense. He clearly can and has done so. ---FACT 3: Nrswanson is previously indicated that he has 'learned from his mistakes' only to later be caught again and again as Kleinzach indicated. QUESTION: When others make similar poor choices, does wikipedia allow those person to create a new account and start fresh? I believe that by seeing my history (as you can with me, but not with nrswanson) it  forces US ALL to stay honest and help to enforce accountability. -- ULTIMATELY if nrswanson's apology is sincere and humble, I support allowing back, since he can make positive contributions, but he should have no problem KEEPING HIS ORIGINAL NAME and allowing others to see ALL  he has done. (like users can see all we other members of the community has done). It seems against what i understand wikipedia policy and goals to hide user contributions.  (Apologies in advance if i don't format or do this correctly.) The wikipedia guidelines said users should be given a second chance if they wait 6 months of not doing the socket puppet behavior. Why is nrswanson given 2nd chance since he didn't seem to wait 6 months of socket puppet behavior? Should wikipedia 2nd chance guidelines be changed, since it seems ok to make multiple personas as long as one is not violating copywright or is caught vote stacking. It kind of seems that whatever admins decide, nrswanson will just create another persona. Hrannar (talk) 05:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Hrannar
 * THE LARGER QUESTION is how or can wikipedia manage users that does this sort of behavior? Nrswanson is one of he most intelligent individuals I've ever interacted with which is why he is able to make an uncommonly large number of wonderful contributions. At the same time, his SELECTIVE APOLOGIES (apologizing only when caught) is a little suspicious. For example, please note what Nrswanson said April 14, while being investigated "As for the history of Meat puppets from 2007, I think I've addressed that. Its there for everyone to read and see. I'm not proud of it and if anything that experience taught me to not do it again. The particulars from that case are also very different from this one. I'd like to point out that I was a relatively new user at that point in time as well." Then shortly after, he does an about face and starts creating 6 new accounts about month later despite administrative decision. Hrannar (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Hrannar

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Voceditenore (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming 4meter4's claim, I am highly inclined to give Nrswanson a second chance, as (before these accounts were registered) it had been quite a while. As this is perhaps similar to what happened last April, I'm endorsing the CU request to make good on the claims since we don't have any confirmation (nor even recent activity) from the other named accounts. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 21:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Doing now. Please note, however, that all previously confirmed accounts (as listed here) are, so this is only going to be a comparison between the five currently suspected accounts. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅: 4meter4 == 1adele9 == ==  == Tltrrpj == Gcfhs100 == Jschmidt1985. Accounts not listed previously on this page are linked. I haven't blocked or tagged anything, as I'm leaving this up to your judgment based on your comments above. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all I could ask for. Sorry for not specifying but yes, had the account not been stale I'd not be considering the request. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that we've heard no rumblings of puppetry for months and months before these accounts were registered, and noting 4meter4's honest apology at WT:OPERA and the overall desire of our fellow editors to see a second chance given, I think I'll give it. I've blocked all the above accounts, except 4meter4 as the user has expressed the (understandable) desire to stay at that account. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(sorry. moving feedback to what seems to be more appropriate place. sorry, i am not experienced editor. Hrannar (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Hrannar)