Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson
User: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. 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)
{{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 –
Declined, the reason can be found below.
Clerk declined per the checkuser criteria, requests for checkuser to prove your own innocence are not accepted. Mayalld (talk) 07:03, 8 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 regullary revert just using an edit summary.Nrswanson (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- 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