Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roman888/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Roman888

Roman888 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date March 18 2010, 07:08 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Mkativerata
[edit]

User:Roman888 was indefinitely blocked on 9 March 2010 for massive copyright violations.[1] The trigger for the block was the restoration of copyvios, having been warned not to and having previously been temporarily blocked for doing so. His CCI is here.

Over the coming days, each of the above IP addresses and accounts restored Roman888's copyright violations to the articles from which they had been removed. The IPs and accounts have made no other substantive edits. Each IP and account has been blocked following ANI reports. The activity is persistent and shows no signs of abating. This has been filed to request consideration of a rangeblock. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this was filed, another sock has restored another copyvio to Perkasa and has been blocked: (User:LochLoic). I've added him to the list above. In an effort to prevent this particular material being repeatedly restored, I've selectively deleted it from the article's history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed. This clearly needs further investigation. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following accounts are very  Likely to be the same editor and are  Confirmed to be socks of each other};
- Alison ❤ 06:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is LoganStarr listed three times? Anyway, those that weren't blocked are blocked, and all accounts tagged. Tim Song (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops - Copy/pasto :) - Alison ❤ 06:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - so has a rangeblock be imposed? --Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really feasible here, sorry - Alison ❤ 06:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, guess I'll just have to keep chasing him then...! --Mkativerata (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 1 2010, 20:22 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by User:Mkativerata
[edit]

User:Roman888 went through here a couple of weeks ago exposing a large sockfarm. Since then a few more have appeared. User:Golondong has been blocked as an obvious sock. But Roman888 is starting to get a little more clever. User:HonestAbe45's only contribution to wikipedia has been to give me a barnstar for "wasting time and energy" cleaning up User:Roman888's copyright violations. User:CarloNordo is the one I'm most concerned about. He created his userpage with a very similar layout to mine, purporting to be an autoreviewer: [2]. His contributions have aligned very closely to the articles that User:Roman888 worked on, particularly relating to Malaysian politics. His edits have used the same kinds of sources Roman888 used. The contributions also appear to be copyvios. For example in this series of diffs, one addition says "Raja Petra Kamaruddin]], alleged that a top police official, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof had met with Saiful three days before the charges were filed in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel", which is a close lift of this source. This is classic Roman888-style lifting from news sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Let's look at the accusation brought forth by Mkativerata in regards to the passage eg. in this series of diffs, one addition says "Raja Petra Kamaruddin]], alleged that a top police official, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof had met with Saiful three days before the charges were filed in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel". I have just reinserted one of the articles that was deleted [[3]] and the reason given for the deletion by Monkeyassault was This is entirely fringe. It absolutely does not belong here.I am also am not certain who this person Mkativerata is talking about and wonder why he would want to list my user name together with these names. I was introduced to Wikipedia by a friend of mine who used to contribute lots of articles in the past. I only started contributing some changes a few days ago. I am not only interested in Malaysian political articles but other areas such as history and movies. I might be also looking up sports articles and see where I can contribute. This Mkativerata I feel has probably has low self-esteem that he would seek to report all users who post contrary to his beliefs. CarloNordo (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I have not reverted any of the deletions made by this individual until the admins are able to decide what is the next course of action. I am waiting for Mkativerata to give an explanation on why he considers the following contributions are copyright violations.CarloNordo (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add one thing, I saw that Mkativerata did not post any further reasons of the removal of the post in the Talk:Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials. I think he is taking his own liberties towards what is construed as right and wrong in terms of what should be in the article. Are we allowed to do that without some sort of discussion with other editors? That goes against the cooperation I have witness in other articles. CarloNordo (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Amorymeltzer who I think is an admin has put up a sockpuppet and block notice on my userpage saying I am block before investigations have been finished. Is he a friend of Mkativerata? Am I allowed to revert this message? CarloNordo (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up a unblock request on my User page and Talk page. Am I doing this correctly? CarloNordo (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is all true, and you aren't Roman888, you'll be cleared very soon. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very familiar with the unblocking procedure for a new contributor. This is interesting, given that as you had not blocked, there had been no instructions on your page for contesting that block. Also interesting is that you put a "hangon" tag on an article created by User:Golongong. But your apparent inability to understand why Wikipedia cannot utilize text such as the following is all too familiar:

Raja Petra Kamaruddin, alleged that a top police official, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof had met with Saiful three days before the charges were filed in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel. He stated that Rodwan and Saiful spoke on the telephone at least eight times before Saiful went to Hospital Puswari to report the supposed rape

Raja Petra Kamarudduin, charged that a top police official, Senior Assistant Commissioner Mohd Rodwan Mohd Yusof had met with Saiful three days before the charges were filed in room 619 of the Concorde Hotel and that Rodwan and Saiful spoke on the telephone at least eight times before Saiful went to Hospital Puswari to report the supposed rape.

At this point, this account is blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]
I've placed his unblock on hold pending checkuser confirmation. The above looks pretty incriminating to me so it would be foolish IMO to unblock, and the on-hold may halt further unblock requests from the user. If someone else wants to decline in the meantime, thats fine with me. Syrthiss (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed I've blocked the remaining accounts, but let's check to see what else is out there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that BastilaShan == CarloNordo == Golongong == Roman888.
 Confirmed HonestAbe45 == TomCruise55, previously blocked as suspected Roman888.
No unblocked sleepers detected. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 4 April 2010, 17:27 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by MadUtd

This user has been editing Talk:Ramsay Kitchen Nightmare and Talk:Kitchen Nightmare, and all have been reverted. Looking at what he wrote, he obviously had some sort of connection with the article; He has noted about previously blocked users and has criticized User: WLU of his actions.

WLU warned this user on April 2 if he continues he will sock him, here [4]. Look at the bottom. the user eventually removed this notice.

There is also a strange similarity between this user and User:Mkativerata on their talk page.They have been in contact with one another to remove other people's accounts by making false sockpuppet and meatpuppet reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadchesterUnited (talk • contribs)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

information Administrator note The filer MadchesterUnited (talk · contribs), along with Sayangbumi (talk · contribs), have been indefinitely blocked and tagged as socks of Roman888 (talk · contribs), as confirmed by a CheckUser. No action taken on the suspected socks. –MuZemike 21:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: archived from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drmargi SpitfireTally-ho! 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 20 2010, 07:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Mkativerata
[edit]

User:Daci456's contributions have so far been to create Amaris kickbacks investigation‎. This article is remarkably similar to the work of Roman888. First, the article relates to so-called scandals in Malaysian defence procurement and attempts to tie the scandals to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Previous articles of this kind that Roman888 has created include Malaysian Military Scandals ([5]). The other similarity is that the whole article is a copyright violation of Malaysian news sources. Roman888's CCI, which is just about complete, shows a raft of copyright violations from Malaysian news sources. I therefore request a checkuser to confirm whether Daci456 is Roman888 before he adds any more copyright violations. Also to flush out any more sleepers in Roman888's considerable sockfarm.

User:Mkativerata2's contributions have been to impersonate my removal of copyright violations from articles that Roman888 had an interest in him. I forgot to include this in the earlier SPIs but now do so for completeness.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Manny432 to the list above for reasons that I suspect will be obvious in reading the note below and reviewing his contributions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Manny432
[edit]

User:Mkativerata's creation of user account User:Mkativerata2 has controvene the sockpuppet and meatpuppet rules of Wikipedia. Strong action should be taken against User:Mkativerata and he should be suspended until a proper investigation is made. Furthermore the actions by User:Mkativerata2 are similar to his removal and deletion of copyright violations from articles. These actions strongly suggest that User:Mkativerata created the User:Roman888 for his own personal use. Manny432 (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moonriddengirl has abused her authority and tried to revert the User:Mkativerata's user page before an investigation has been carried out. Both User:Moonriddengirl and User:Mkativerata have a previous history together seeing both have visited each other's talk pages. A suspension is needed for User:Moonriddengirl for abusing the rules because of prior relationship with the the individual. Orson876 (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roman, you and your socks will not be permitted to harass this contributor for cleaning up your copyright violations and sock puppetry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Mkativerata (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined At this point, rather obvious, what with the created accounts and all. All WP:DUCK blocked and tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 25 2010, 06:23 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Mkativerata
[edit]

This user's contributions have been to create Apco Worldwide and 1Malaysia. The article appears to be a copyvio of various Malaysian news sources. The creation of articles about political controversies in Malaysia, that violate the copyright of news sources, is the work that User:Roman888 and his considerable sockfarm are known for. The username appears to be an impersonation of me: as my userpage says, I'm Chinese ethnicity from Brisbane, Australia. "Cinapekfrombrisbane" means Chinese from Brisbane (in Malay). Roman888 has attempted to impersonate me before: see User:Mkativerata2. I think this is obvious enough not to require a checkuser. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note Cinapekfrombrisbane blocked and tagged per DUCK. Elockid (Talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 27 2010, 09:13 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Mkativerata
[edit]

User:Havingfunfuker has recreated Najib administration and Apco Worldwide, a page previously created as Apco Worldwide and 1Malaysia. The latter page was created by a sockpuppet of User:Roman888. Accordingly, there is every reason to believe that User:Havingfunfuker is a sock of User:Roman888, particularly when regard is had to the content of his userpage: [6]. I have joined User:Clancy057 to this SPI as his only contributions have been to Apco Worldwide and 1Malaysia in an apparent attempt to save the article from a prod. I'm requesting checkuser for two reasons. First, while WP:DUCK can be applied to User:Havingfunfuker, it might not be able to be applied to User:Clancy057. Secondly, it is apparent that Roman888 is building quite a sockfarm so he may very well have sleepers introducing copyvios on articles that aren't on the watchlist of me or Roman888's other watchers. A checkuser may be warranted to flush any other socks in the farm.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Mkativerata (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed for a sleeper check on Havingfunfuker (talk · contribs) & Roman888 (talk · contribs). If Clancy057 is attached they should show up in that sleeper check. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Also User:Goback54, tagged and bagged. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 1 2010, 08:52 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Mkativerata
[edit]

First contributions were to introduce material to Scorpène class submarine that closely paraphrases its sources in parts. The purpose of the material is to criticise Malaysian defence procurement, which was an area in which Roman888 was heavily active (Malaysian Military Scandals). Username seems to attack User talk:Monkeyassault who Roman888 had conflicts with. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Let me point to the articles in question before any assumptions of wrong-doing has been made

  • An investigation is being conducted by French prosecutors involving a wide range of corruption charges involving different submarine sales, with the possible bribery and kickbacks to top officials in France. In particular interest by the prosecutors are sales of Scorpene submarines to countries like India, Malaysia and Pakistan.[7]

[7]

  • The investigation in Malaysia has been prompted by human rights group Suaram as it involved current Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, when he was defence minister and his friend Abdul Razak Baginda[8] whose company Primekar was alleged to be paid a huge commission during the purchase of two Scorpene submarines.[9]

[8]

  • French investigators are interested in the fact that Perimekar was formed only a few months before the contract was signed with the Malaysian government and DCNS and that Primekar had no track record in servicing submarines and didn't have the financial capability to support the contract.[10]

[9] [10]

I feel the entries do no paraphrase the sources closely, because I have made several changes to the entries. As a sign of good faith I have also put the ref sources, next to the entries. I willing to edit the entries made, if the person concern lets me know where it is in breach.

As for the name Monkeybuttgirl23, I am a fan of the cartoon I Am Weasel where there is a character by the name of I.R. Baboon with a obviously, large butt. I am a girl in a school classroom with 23 other girls. Any similarities to that person is coincidence. Monkeybuttgirl23 (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users
[edit]
  • I've added Roman444 (talk · contribs) to this, even though there's no doubt, as it may be helpful for checkuser. Although I suspect that this is bluffery, note that he says, "For the last couple of weeks we have been posting plenty of articles on Wikipedia, there have been some that you have not even noticed. You have just only scratched 5% of the articles that I am talking about." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Mkativerata (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that Monkeybuttgirl is Roman88. Also:
  1. Gomojolives (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Nothing interesting for Roman444; quackery is quite obvious, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
08 July 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Mkativerata
[edit]

These five accounts have sprung up to post on talk pages (a) attacking the Malaysian government; and (b) accusing myself and another user of being "cybertroopers" for the Malaysian government.

Two of the accounts refer to User:Roman888,[11][12] an indefinitely blocked copyright violator and sockpuppeteer who was well known for his dislike of the Malaysian government.

These five accounts could probably be blocked without a checkuser, but I'm suggesting a checkuser for any sleeper accounts through which Roman888 might be editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Clerk endorsed these accounts are quite clearly socks, if an admin wants to step in and block. Endorsed for a sleeper check, please. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Avi (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All already blocked and tagged; nothing to do here. Closing, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Monkeyassault
[edit]

These are just 10 of many IP addresses that Roman888 is using to edit war on POV push on the 1Malaysia page. The style of writing, particular POV, edit warring, subject matter, and conspiracy theories all point to our old friend Roman888. He rarely seems to edit from the same IP twice and will probably need a range block. I have over one year of experiencing dealing with this fellow. Even though the IPs are from Australia I am 100% sure it is him. It appears he created one account called HanSolo54 for the purpose of initiating a 3RR investigation against me that resulted in that account be indefinitely blocked. Here is an edit that he just made [13] and here is talk comment [14]. Both are pretty incriminating. Please also note the failure to sign comments, classic Roman888 style. Monkeyassault (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

Couple of notes: the accounts from the archive are  Stale and checkuser will not link IPs to named accounts. TNXMan 15:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we deal with blocked users with named accounts using IP addresses to evade their ban? What do we do when someone jumps from address to address without re-using them? Monkeyassault (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we just block the IPs for a given period of time. I looked at some possibilities for rangeblocking here, but I think there would be too much collateral damage from that. As a side note, HanSolo54 (as listed above) isn't a registered account. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually HansSolo54. I am sorry for the mistake.Monkeyassault (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. I've updated the list above... and it looks like that account is blocked anyway. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Rangeblock does not look feasible here. However, the main page that was targeted, 1Malaysia is semi-protected. No further action needed at this point. Elockid (Talk) 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Pushing the issue of adding restaurant updates on Kitchen Nightmares talk page [15] and [16]. Many ducks quacking loudly; IP resolves to Roman's mobile network in Sydney, Australia as always. He has a long history of pushing this point, using his mobile phone to IP hop. He pops up for a time, makes a fuss, loses, and disappears again. He was last around in September, harassing me on my talk page and editing disruptively over the same thing. Now he's got a bee in his bonnet to take the issue to ArbComm. Let's nip this in the bud. --Drmargi (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Drmargi (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These are classic Roman888 antics: he starts on the Kitchen Nightmares talk page by complaining about some element of the article, but makes no effort actually edit it. He first posted from IP 58.168.51.144 which I removed per banning policy. The then reverted and re-signed under 58.168.101.160, accompanied by a series of personal attack posts. His IPs always geolocate to Telestra Internet (Australia), somewhere in and around Sydney.

When he's called out as Roman888, he ratchets up the drama quickly, usually by calling for my head in some fashion or another, in as many places as people will listen to him. Then, when that gets him nowhere, he gets bored and goes away. He's canvassed a series of editors [17] [18] [19] [20] trying to get me blocked using what Baseball Bugs aptly coined the "non-denial denial" approach to the evidence that he's an IP sock and a banned user. This time, he's raised the drama to new levels by filing an ANI report. This gets wearying; I seem to be his pet target, and he's determined to turn the community against me. Drmargi (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Seeing that I am being accused of sock-puppetry is calling the pot calling the kettle black. Drmargi has been reported for unfriendly behavior in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Want_to_report_User:_Drmargi. He or she has the habit making baseless accusations against other new editors who post in the talk page of Kitchen Nightmares accusing them of being Roman888. Drmargi is also making the assumption that all IP addresses in and around Sydney are sockpuppets of this Roman888, which is a childish accusation as there are millions of IP addresses in the Sydney greater region. Drmargi also has the habit of canvassing different editors and making the same baseless accusations against other editors. Please check the links he or she has provided. Drmargi has also been civil in his or her replies to new editors, pointing the accusing finger on nearly every editor that posts on the talk page of Kitchen Nightmares.58.168.101.160 (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An as you can see, here is the non-denial denial. These are the same augments Roman makes, and his typical augmentation style: don't address the point, turn the argument around on the other editor, the sure sign he has no defensible position. I invite the reviewing admin to grab a sandwich and a six-pack, read the Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares talk archives and see what I mean. He's transparent as glass. --Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roman888/Archive&oldid=1138678679"