Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ian Salisbury/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ian Salisbury

Ian Salisbury (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

  • User creation dates, for reference:
    • Ian Salisbury: 15 December 2005
    • Plasmon: 31 March 2007
    • Warren Whyte: 20 April 2007
    • Lexigator: 26 April 2007
  • Plasmon creates Lexigator's user page (13 October 2007)[1]
  • User compare shows that Lexigator often creates pages and then Ian Salisbury (and sometimes the others who are otherwise inactive) watch and revert changes, or vice versa; sometimes within hours or even minutes of one another (see those marked with an * and a time difference indicated):
Extended content
Architects'_Registration_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom
  • The following shows a page where Ian Salisbury creates a file talk page and two other users (otherwise inactive) come out that same day to comment on the discussion:
Extended content
File_talk:1931_Act_ed.jpg
  • 2007-10-27 08:16 UTC Ian Salisbury 5 ←Created page with '==Crown Copyright== The use of this image is entirely legitimate. Please see rules re: Crown Copyright. [four tildes]
  • 2007-10-27 14:46 UTC Lexigator 1 /* Crown Copyright */
  • 2007-10-27 18:42 UTC Plasmon 1 /* Crown Copyright */ Crown copyright waiver
  • 2007-10-27 20:00 UTC Ian Salisbury 4 /* It's a question of WP policy, not US (or even UK) law */
  • 2007-10-27 21:48 UTC Ian Salisbury 3 /* It's a question of WP policy, not US (or even UK) law */
  • 2007-10-27 21:49 UTC Ian Salisbury 2 /* It's a question of WP policy, not US (or even UK) law */
  • 2009-01-16 09:20 UTC Ian Salisbury 1 /* Crown copyright expired */ new section
  • This one shows similar to the above, also note the unusual inclusion of multiple -s to create lines between the comments. Each individual editor adds them with their post:
Extended content
Talk:Architects_Registration_Board
  • 2007-04-16 09:11 UTC Plasmon 7 Comment on intervention 10 April 2007
  • 2007-04-19 10:27 UTC Ian Salisbury 5 Comment for Plasmon / Arb
  • 2007-04-19 12:06 UTC Plasmon 6 @NONE
  • 2007-04-19 12:07 UTC Plasmon 5 m
  • 2007-04-19 17:14 UTC Ian Salisbury 4 @NONE
  • 2007-04-27 14:16 UTC Warren Whyte 1 Comments about the petty removal of a link
  • 2007-05-22 12:21 UTC Plasmon 4 Corrections and additions
  • 2007-05-24 05:47 UTC Ian Salisbury 3 /* History? */
  • 2007-05-24 05:48 UTC Ian Salisbury 2 /* AfD notice */
  • 2007-05-31 16:37 UTC Plasmon 3 @NONE
  • 2007-05-31 16:41 UTC Plasmon 2 Add title to shift contents up
  • 2008-01-05 12:35 UTC Ian Salisbury 1 /* Reverts */ restored web link
  • 2010-12-04 17:13 UTC Plasmon 1 classifying and assessing
  • The investigation was triggered when Plasmon came out of two years of inactivity to support Ian Salisbury on a content discussion here. Lara 02:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Lexigator's post below, was made "on behalf of Lexigator" (a strange assertion, considering it was made using Lexigator's account) in the style of Plasmon. Combined with the creation of Lexigator's userpage, etc... and a general style of "Lexigator creates, others defend". Is pretty much all you need to see that Plasmon's either a sock or a meatpuppet of Lexigator. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further (extensive) evidence with diffs posted below, diff here for convenience. Lara 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The root of the problem seems to be that Lexigator/Plasmon/Ian Salisbury are part of a lobbying group called "AARUK" "About Architects Registration in the UK" (or perhaps it's one of those "information sites") registered by Ian Salisbury, which are linking to a version of the book they prefer. I think they are under the impression that changes in Book:Architects Registration in the United Kingdom will somehow affect their book (User:Lexigator/Books/ARCUK and ARB: 1930s to 2010) or something (this isn't the case, as users have control over books in their userspace [as long as they are within policies, aren't used to make personal attacks, etc.], and the PediaPress version to which they link is a permanent one). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed Warren Whyte. If he was encouraged to join for the purposes of editing in this area, his involvement in editing that is, overall, in breech of multiple policies, has been limited to, at most, one incident, and that may have been innocent. It was also quite some time ago. Lara 12:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Ian Salisbury's responses to each of the above points
(Moved from evidence section)
  • Lexigator has until recently relied upon Plasmon and self as amanuensis and may continue to do so. That is not sockpuppetry.Salisian (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it is. Lara 12:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This shows nothing more than a shared (and very particular) interest in the subject of architects registration in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. See www.aaruk.info. No rule broken.Salisian (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, common interest, Watchlist, etc. No evidence of sockpuppetry.Salisian (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because you say it's not evidence of sockpuppetry does not make it so. When dormant accounts wake up to support each other on talk page content discussions, that is, in fact, evidence of sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry). When one user has access to, and posts via, two or more different accounts, that is often considered sockpuppetry. That you and your wife use another account—whether it actually has its own living owner or not is irrelevant—is sockpuppetry. That all of them were created within a couple weeks or so of each other suggests sock or meatpuppetry. Lara 12:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the avoidance of doubt, Warren Whyte has shown a great deal of support in the Royal Institute of British Architects for the reform of architectural registration, but has no connection with either Plasmon or self or, as far as I am aware, with Lexigator.Salisian (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as you're aware? I like that you both keep qualifying. Lara 12:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that shows is that Plasmon will react to a provocation. It does not demonstrate sockpuppetry.
Objectivity of this analysis nevertheless noted. Awesome. Salisian (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference, we suspected User:Warren Whyte, but looking more deeply at his contributions shows (IMO) circumstantial evidence at best. The general periods of editing align, and so do the hours, but that's about it. It is possible that Lara may disagree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Lara 03:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Warren Whyte's website and Ian Salisbury's website. Salisian (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After talking with Lara a bit, I'm revising my position. This could be circumstantial evidence, but it could be indicative of more. The general periods of editing align, the time of account creation matches the other two, and so do the editing hours. The article intersection however, is low (only Architects Registration Board and its talk page once), but the general topic of "buildings" is there. So a SPI is probably warranted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When considering the user only has 13 edits to 6 pages, one third of which overlap, it's sort of significant. Lara 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the editor considers this to be a vexatious accusation based upon circumstantial evidence. See Headbomb's talk page. Lexigator is a real person living North of London, UK. Ian Salisbury and Plasmon are separate and distinct real persons living under one roof in Oxfordshire, UK. Salisian (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. NB. One computer here, as others will doubtless have time to confirm. Plasmon (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, you're meatpuppets. Plasmon comes to edit when Ian Salisbury (Salisian) needs backup. Or when Lexigator needs his user page created. Lara 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading WP:MEAT and then Beatrice Webb and Sidney Webb. Lexigator has only recently started accessing Wikipedia directly, only doing so (as far as I am aware) in connection with the books he has been editing, otherwise using me as keyboard amanuensis (= scribe - to save looking it up); original documents to prove to hand, if necessary. There has certainly been close collaboration on creative work on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I cannot think there would be any criticism of that. But this is dealing with well-meaning but careless contributions from Headbomb and then vexatious commentry and unfounded accusations from Lara (viz: "perhaps you have time", "put away the thesaurus", " You're trying so hard", " you should also avoid being a hypocrite", "blanket whining" etc.; and perhaps most ascerbically (= in a sarcastic or cynical manner): take "a break from the area of architecture"); and you should be in no doubt that I write this without anyone leaning on my shoulder. And by the way, how about "we suspected..." (see above). Is it that Lara is Headbomb's meatpuppet? No collaboration at all when it comes to fending off justified criticism, eh? (Please note absence of accusation, ref WP:CIVIL) Salisian (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've read MEAT, thank you. So, what you're saying is that you asked your wife to support your opinion of Headbomb's edits by coming out of a more than two year break to respond to me? Also, vexatious? Hmm... probably shouldn't toss that and CIVIL out in the same paragraph, of course, everyone that knows me knows I personally don't mind. I mean, like you pointed out, I have no problem calling spades out either. I do, however, take offense to "unfounded". They're plenty founded. Lara 00:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations: a first correct assumption. This year we celebrated our 30th wedding anniversary. Another fact: in this household we spend a great deal more time in conversation than contributing Wiki. Not a fact that Plasmon does not have a head and an opinion. Now, how about telling us whether or not you are Headbomb's meat puppet, or is there a whole College? Plasmon (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just congrats? I don't get a cookie? Boo. Well, congrats to you for 30 years married. That's wonderful. Back on topic, though, Headbomb and I aren't meatpuppets. I have something like 40,000 edits, and maybe a handful go along with him. If that. I don't know that we've ever voted or otherwise participated in the same content discussions before. As for the one on his talk page, well, no examples were ever given by you, your husband, or his sock, so that's not even covered by policy. And we're surely not sharing an IP considering we live in different countries. His talk page is on my very short watchlist, however, and this investigation would have never happened if you hadn't jumped in from more than two years of no editing to respond to me. Huge red flag. I initially was looking for evidence that you were a sock. Lexigator and Whyte just fell into place as far as evidence goes. Whyte's involvement in this circle may be completely appropriate. You and your husband, however, have admitted meatpuppetry, and checkuser confirms that your husband uses the Lexigator account. Whether it is his own or he merely has access to it doesn't matter much. Either way, it's against policy. Lara 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't get a cookie? Boo.". The tone of the discussion is not becoming to wikipedia and lacks diplomacy and civility Lara/Jennavecia . Of course I have responded here; you advised me to respond on my log in page, so what is with the "Whyte's involvement in this circle may be completely appropriate" statement? (my emphasis) Warren Whyte (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like to inject humor whenever possible. I say may because the timing of your account creation and the fact that, at best, 1/3 of your edits appear to have been prompted by Ian or his wife. Lara 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you calculate 1/3, but then I'm only a chartered architect. Before being dragged into this, my record shows that I edited George Gilbert Scott, The Old Gaol Museum, Buckingham, London IMAX and Architects Registration Board. That adds up to 5, so even if you don't take into account the pages I did multiple edits (such as Buckingham), that is 1/5. You may wish to refrain from humor [sic] as it reads as antagonistic or bad sarcasm this side of the Atlantic.Warren Whyte (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to pipe a link to fractions. I doubt those, like (apparently) my humor, are US centric. Anyway, at the time of this investigation, you had 13 edits to 6 pages. Of those 6 pages, 2 seemed to enjoy your participation only because of prompting by either Ian Salisbury or Plasmon. Your very first edit was to Architects Registration Board just hours after a series of edits by Ian Salisbury, then a discussion on that article's talk page wherein Mr. Salisbury inexplicably thanks his wife for a revert she made as if he doesn't know her.

Thus, it may all be just a coincidence in timing that you got pulled into this investigation—having created your account in the middle of a very short period of time during which both the Plasmon and Lexigator accounts were created, and then the unfortunate intersection of this single article (and its talk page); which, incidentally, also happen to be the first pages Plasmon edited too. I believe that scenario is about equally as possible as you having been encouraged to join Wikipedia by Mr. Salisbury or his wife for the purposes of editing in this area.

But why, you may ask, would Ian Salisbury ask his wife and friends to come edit this article? Couldn't he just do that himself? Well, no, not really, because his edits, as you see, were being reverted as vandalism. And then began an edit war. That all started in December 2006 and ended in March 2007, then Plasmon was created and joined in to add a link (http://www.aaruk.info/), which was reverted as "inappropriate". She re-added the link and referred to the discussion on the talk page, which she had just started. Another editor reverts with the rationale "The website is is merely a mouthpiece for disaffected critics of a regulatory body of which they have fallen foul." Then, Mr. Salisbury engages in an edit war with an IP.

Now you're probably wondering, "What does this have to do with me?" Well, Mr. Whyte, let me tell you. It's in the middle (and I mean during and between the hours) of that edit war that you appear. Now, you merely added http://www.architecture.com to the external links. Nothing wrong with that at all. But then you randomly jumped on the talk page to add this comment a few days later: "I've no idea why the link to AARUK keeps disappearing - it seems to be a legitimate link with a lot of background information. It seems very petty to keep removing it." Perhaps that was of your own volition, unprompted by Mr. Salisbury or his wife. Regardless, this seems like a good time to address your expressed concern there.

You see, above, Mr. Salisbury kindly linked to his website (as well as you own). If you take a moment to look at this page, you find he has provided his contact details. Well, if you also check the registration for the AARUK website—the one he and his wife edit warred to keep in the article—you will find that while the name given is "Good Consideration LLP", which has no bearing on anything here, the address matches that of one Mr. Ian Salisbury, as given on his provided website. As you might imagine, we have policies against that sort of thing. Lara 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Looking at this, the "we're roommates" card is always a weak justification after the fact, and there is the common page creation. I'd say something further is warranted here. MBisanz talk 00:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well nobody asked, did they? Notice when they did (although without even a nod to WP:CIVIL, which I have now read), nothing to hide and no rule broken.Plasmon (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This all appears rather petty and wasting time and goodwill of contributors. The whole architectural profession went through quite a debate with ARB (and still is alas), so is not surprising that out of 30,000+ architects in the UK, one or two may sign in join wikipaedia to take part in editing after reading contentious edits. I am sure other topical pages develop in the exact same way when they make the news. And like many users, I lurk more than edit, as many pages are detailed enough not to warrant further contributions, but in areas that I am an expert in and have something helpful to add, then I take part. Headbomb: it used to be the whole point of an encyclopaedia - experts only contribute to their own area of expertise, and surprise surprise, building related topics would be my area of expertise. If it makes the editors happy, I could start contributing to the psychology or law pages to make it look less "suspicious". Warren Whyte, Buckinghamshire, UK --Warren Whyte (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I come a little late into this discussion, but not I hope too late to help restore some goodwill and good sense.
There appears to have been a deliberate attempt to sidetrack the only real point at issue:
given (1) that the content of the Lexigator articles have been treated as good enough in themselves to be appropriated (by a non-contributor who has shown no evidence of any prior knowledge or interest in the topic) for a book, viz. by whoever is behind the strange name "Headbomb"; (2) that Headbomb has done so with questionable and unscholarly alterations, such as the omission of the article on Prof. Budden (perhaps due to a superficial scrutiny of the prior Lexigator bookmaking); (3) that the grouping of the articles as a subcategory is also found to be convenient enough for the purpose (subject to Headbomb's alteration of article title, probably well meant but based essentially on some ignorance of the subject which seems too stubborn to allow intelligent discourse, if not on his part then on Lara's, whose intervention, so far as I know, is unexplained):
then how can it possibly be of any bona fide concern to others whether there is a connection between Lexigator and any other contributor? That is how such material is likely to be created and originated: by those willing to work collaboratively, creatively and usefully, unencumbered by an excess of amour propre. If H. (or is it L.?) will get off this high horse it would still be possible, so far as I am concerned, to reach an amicable agreement about how best to present these articles to whatever readership is likely to want to see them.
Headbomb and Lara cannot fail to be aware that objection was made to alterations which were unnecessary and unhelpful, and their reaction is bound to raise a prima facie suspicion (unproven as far as I am aware) of malice.
Mr Whyte's comments are wholly correct (I confirm that we are connected only by goodwill in the fellowship of bona fide contributors on a topic of mutual interest); and can it be reasonable to persons of Common Law countries to leave it to some remote person purporting to have some kind of official status to presume to be in a position to judge otherwise, in order to protect persons styling themselves as editors or as of some other status (whose reaction gives every sign that they are simply piqued by an imagined slight to amour propre) when an entirely reasonable and reasoned objection has been made, which they have not yet taken the trouble to justify to the satisfaction of a manifestly better informed party? This is contrary to the declared ethics and ideals of Wikipedia which these quasi-officials profess to be supporting, and is therefore unlikely to be endorsed by Mr Wales. (This message is sent on behalf of) Lexigator (a real, distinct and natural person, whose name appears on a series of books which he has created and ordered from PediaPress). Lexigator (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lara cannot fail to be aware that objection was made to alterations which were unnecessary and unhelpful" - I can and I do. I don't agree with Ian Salisbury's initial opinion that the title change Headbomb made was not a good one. The longer original title was not good. Furthermore, no additional examples of anything were given. So no, I have yet to see any unhelpful edits from Headbomb in that area. Do some exist? Maybe. But I'm not digging through his contribs to find any. If you have complaints about specific edits, let's see them. As of yet, none of you have presented a single one. That said, your signature says Lexigator, checkuser says you're Ian Salisbury, but I'm guessing you're Plasmon because of your writing style... and she did create your userpage, afterall. Lara 04:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I could direct readers to the point of this page and the accusation of four sockpuppets, no one had proved any involvement of my "sockpuppetry", and any insinuation of "meatpuppetry" is tenuous at best, and totally ignored my first post here about the ARB being in the professional press, some of which can be found online[1][2][3][4]. I would be grateful the the Wikipedia powers-that-be conclude this witch hunt at its earliest convenience.Warren Whyte (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ Building Design
  2. ^ Architects' Journal
  3. ^ Building Design
  4. ^ Building Design
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
 Clerk note: Recused. However, I offer the following: Lexigator appears to not be the same person from a behavioral standpoint (I make no comment on WP:MEAT). The others I feel warrant a check. I leave it to another clerk to concur and endorse. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume "recused" means "not fit to deal with this so won't" as it does where we leave a redundant "u" in "behavioural"? Thanks. Salisian (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see recusal. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Salisian (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed that Plasmon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = Ian Salisbury (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). The other two are  Possible matches, bordering on  Unlikely (to each other and Ian Salisbury). TNXMan 01:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reasoning noted. Will any be forthcoming? Interesting policy implications... perhaps a contributor should be warned not to use the same computer as another? Or should the username attach to the computer and not the contributor? Auto-reverts might give the appearance of bi-polar editing!Salisian (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that I have done is check the technical data. Any conclusions about what I've found (and whether or not it violates any policy, warrants any action, etc.) will need to be drawn by the closing administrator. TNXMan 12:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; thanks. Is the technical data available to/verifiable by the accused? Salisian (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only give you your information, but it is information you should be able to access yourself - your IP, operating system, times you've edited, etc. TNXMan 14:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should be able to access this material myself, but you will appreciate my difficulty when you undertand that I have no idea what my IP is; so if it's no trouble I would like my information please. Secondly I am sure it will not have escaped your notice from the comments made above by Headbomb and Lara that I have been accused by persons who have perhaps unwittingly disclosed that they have been collaborating. It seems odd to me that a complaint from two people who have most probably done this in order to protect some detracting editing, bad faith if ever there was, should be given a fair wind when complaining about others who have merely objected to inexpert editing - which is, I undertstand, encouraged behaviour. You say that you invite requests for help and I appreciate that. Perhaps I could therefore ask you whether I should not merely defend myself as I am doing, but lay a meatpuppet complaint against the complainers? Thanks. Salisian (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to make a complaint, by all means, feel free. Which of your accounts will you be using? Lara 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something new has come up and I should be able post more later this evening. I would like to consult with another checkuser to review some information. TNXMan 19:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this  On hold. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've conferred with another checkuser. What caught my attention was this edit. After some checking and getting a second opinion, it's clear this edit was made by Ian Salisbury, using the Lexigator account. This leads to one of two conclusions: either Ian Salisbury is operating the Lexigator account as a sock, or has access to its password (which means it's compromised). TNXMan 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first conclusion correct, your second proposition is correct, and you clearly have not read what I have already written on this. I am village scribe, following a long and honourable tradition. (See for instance Bible: Romans 16:22 - Tertius). Your first alternative is incorrect (see available justification already referred to above). As to "it's compromised": that too is incorrect, for there has been no theft of private information nor failure in its security. I do not intend, nor should it be necessary, to explain why Lexigator chooses to contribute to Wikipedia in this way. See for further reference WP:FAITH, WP:COMMON and WP:IAR, relating particularly to the Wiki fifth pillar:
"Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule."
I look forward Tnxman307 to your answer to my requests previously posted. Salisian (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you have included the last justification about the spirit and letter of rules. In any case, you (Ian Salisbury) made an edit from the Lexigator account. This is simply not allowed- one person to one account. TNXMan 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not seen WP:NOSHARE. Thanks for that; accepted. Not sockpuppetry, though. Salisian (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, it's now been found that the joint participation for at least one of these articles (the first article edited by both Plasmon and Whyte) involved edit-warring by both Ian Salisbury and Plasmon to include a link to a website registered to Ian Salisbury, deemed not to meet the standards of WP:RS. Lara 03:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note It is painfully obvious that Plasmon is at best a meatpuppet of Ian Salisbury, and that Lexigator is a shared account. Both blocked indef. Ian Salisbury blocked for one week. T. Canens (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ian_Salisbury/Archive&oldid=1075152451"