Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson
- Nrswanson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Report date April 6 2009, 23:51 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Eudemis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by Kleinzach
Eudemis supported User:Nrswanson in Kathleen Battle controversy/edit war, see [1] and Talk:Kathleen Battle. English style (Nrswanson/Eudemis) is similar if not identical. (I attempted to moderate this dispute.) --Kleinzach 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. --Kleinzach 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. --Kleinzach 03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.
- Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
- Current status –
Awaiting initial clerk review. - Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Clerk note: case moved and formatted Mayalld (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions