Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation
 * - similar edits, needs investigation

Evidence submitted by Beyond My Ken
Evidence from User:Drmies/Roman Catholic?, posted here by request of User:Drmies: "Editor uses a bunch of IPs to remove 'Roman' from 'Roman Catholic'; representative articles are Catholic Church, Rachel Maddow, Saints, Loyola Marymount University, Eucharist, and a host of others. Typically reference is made to 'we' Catholics: Roman' was removed from 'Roman Catholic' because in none of the 16 documents of Vatican II does the Catholic Church refer to itself as 'Roman' Catholic, but simply as Catholic. We are not 'Romans. Other edit summaries speak of rights to names: 'Please respect the right of the university to name itself as it chooses, not as Protestants choose.' Mention is made of documents: 'Both the University and The Catholic Encyclopedia refer to it as 'Catholic, NOT 'Roman' Catholic.', and 'The term 'Roman' Catholic appears in NONE of the 16 documents from Vatican II, and is not accepted by the Church in self-identification. (See Kenneth B. Whitehead, 'How the Church Got Her Name')'. Note: this is the Whitehead article--hardly authoritative." In the AN/I thread about the latest IP sock, User talk:71.0.213.123, and on the IP's talk page, I (Beyond My Ken) pointed out a number of instances where the Church itself uses "Roman Catholic": ,,, ,, so there is no factual basis for this continued disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * At this moment, I have nothing to add but my thanks to Beyond My Ken. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Per WP:DUCK I'm going to say that most of those IPs are the same person. The thing is, only two of them have edited in the last two months; some of them last edited in 2009. The master account hasn't been used in ten months, either. The IP range is wide enough that I don't think we can do a rangeblock here, and the editing isn't active enough to really justify a block like that, I think. Seems to me that really all we can do is warn and block as necessary. But I would welcome a second opinion on this from another clerk. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this case. One IP is currently blocked, and another recently came off of one. I think all we can do is block as needed for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)