MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday October 03, 2023
Jump to navigationJump to search

NOTE: en.wp internal Wikilinks must be replaced.

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Template:User5 ("OWB")

Suspected sockpuppets

Template:User5 ("SS")
Template:User5 ("FWS")
Template:User5 ("HLSB")


Previous reports

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldwindybear

User:Barneca/Draft SSP report (deleted)

"There is currently an RFCU in place Here. Please note a common misconception, that I am expecting OWB and SS to be editing from the same computer. This is not the case; my evidence #1 implies to me that the user is editing from one location, then travelling and editing from another location. The purpose of the checkuser is to verify that they (including FWS, too) are all three editing from the same geographic location; to investigate the two cases where FWS edited within minutes of OWB; to see if there are any times when the user slipped and edited from the wrong computer; and to see if there are any other potential sockpuppets that I have not found. A checkuser that simply says they are not editing from the same IP is not going to convince me; it's what I expect." - User:Barneca on deleted page.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Oldwindybear

This checkuser determined

Additionally, this establishes

OWB admits multiple locations/IP addresses

Early on, OWB admitted having several IP addresses available to him from different locations:

Attempts to avoid having to file this report


See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274#User:Stillstudying, particularly: 09:28, 20 July 2007,10:34, 20 July 2007

By e-mail

Available by request.

Alleged misconduct

Vote stacking/self-nomination

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/August 2006

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macrohistorical battles tied to the existence of European civilisation

Besides just !voting "keep", both OWB and SS agree to change the title.

SS nominates OWB for adminship

  • On 24 May 2007, SS attempted to nominate OWB for adminship, but used the wrong format:
    • SS: "I nominate oldwindybear for adminship because I believe he would do a good job. He was here when I started editing on wikipedia, and is still here, working away. He has been an Assistant Coordinator on the Military History Project, and was always available to help people with any project. I feel he could add to wikipedia as an admin.Stillstudying 13:51, 24 May 2007" (diff unavailable from deleted page)
    • OWB: "Stillstudying I appreciate the offer, but I believe you put it on the wrong page, lol! Nonetheless, if this is a proper nomination, and the other admins approve it, I would be honored and would do my best.old windy bear 22:39, 24 May 2007" (diff unavailable from deleted page)
  • Filed incorrectly, this nomination page was deleted, to be refiled by User:TomStar81: 03:36, 7 July 2007
    • SS: "Strong Support The Bear should be promoted because of his help to new editors, his work towards always obtaining consensus, and his insistance on civility. I think it sends a message that hard quiet workers who concentrate on writing articles and helping others can get promoted!"11:10, 9 July 2007
See also: 11:15, 9 July 200711:13, 10 July 200718:02, 10 July 200711:41, 12 July 2007 14:32, 12 July 2007

Peer reviews own work on The Searchers (film)

SS creates illusion of agreement on talk

Talk:Bonnie and Clyde

  • "I strongly support the existing work oldwindybear has done…I strongly oppose the rewrite proposed."12:55, 4 May 2006
  • "I oppose your rewrite, period, for the reasons listed above. I consider every quote in the article a good one, and the entry excellent."16:02, 4 May 2006
  • "I know this may come as a surprise, but other people actually disagree with you. I am not oldwindybear."17:51, 4 May 2006
  • "I will say this simply and once. I completely oppose the proposed rewrite…The present introduction is excellent…"12:56, 5 May 2006
  • "I stand by the complaint, and my objection to your rewrite."17:57, 5 May 2006
  • "I will not engage you in the personal debate you have with oldwindybear…If oldwindybear does not revert your deletions, I will."17:44, 25 May 2006

Talk:Charles Martel

Talk:Battle of Tours

Talk:Frank Hamer

Spike (Buffyverse)

Talk:The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

SS defends OWB against allegations of plagiarism

  • User:Butseriouslyfolks alleges plagiarism on Council House Fight: 06:16, 15 June 200710:22, 15 June 2007
  • OWB solicits SS:
    • "Would you please look at this article, and see if it is a copyright violation?"10:36, 15 June 2007
  • SS responds:
    • "Done bear!"11:27, 15 June 2007
    • "Nonetheless, I have examined the article(s) and cannot find a sentence copied verbatim. Would you identify any you say are? I have checked it carefully for such violations, and cannot find any."12:16, 15 June 2007
    • "Which by your admission was not an exact copy, and further, was attributed. I am sorry, but I don't feel you listed sentences which were exact copies - instead you resorted to wholesale editing for the sake of doing it."13:52, 15 June 2007
    • "I will let oldbear see if he wishes to revert your pointless edits, and I will back him on it if he does."13:54, 15 June 2007
    • "He could not identify one single sentence which allegedly was an "exact" copy, because they did not exist…I will certainly back you if you revert."14:18, 15 June 2007
    • "It will be up to Bear to put it back, or revert your edits, which I have made clear I see as pointless. He had removed or changed any exact sentences and complied with WP:C -- you did not remove those, you ripped the article apart, in my judgment. I am being honest, and this is the last time I post on this. It is up to Bear how he deals with you, he asked for my opinion, and I posted it."14:22, 15 June 2007
    • "I printed out the article, and the websites in question, and don't feel that there was a copyright violation…I feel he complied with the law…Because he was the author, I feel he should do any additions or reversions, and I will back him if he does in restoring information I feel should not have been deleted."14:54, 15 June 2007, 14:54, 15 June 2007

See also similar allegations by User:SaltyPig: 03:18, 7 January 2006 09:31, 7 January 2006

SS agitates for blocks of OWB opponents


  • "I would ask for mediation, and that he be banned for 24 hours for doing these things…This is highly violative of wikipedia policy, and I ask he be stopped."15:59, 5 May 2006
  • "…I would request mediation on him, and ask for his banning from editing…He needs to be banned…I can, and have, taken action to stop him."16:12, 5 May 2006


  • "I am requesting banning for an indefinate period for Mytwocents for his calling names on an adminstrator's talk page - hugely violative of wikipedia rules…"14:23, 7 May 2006

User:New England

OWB blocks New England

At 18:06 2 July 2007, in his first block since he was entrusted with the tools, OWB blocked User:New England, an editor with an otherwise clean record, for twenty-four hours; see block log. By 09:42 16 July, OWB had lengthened the block to one week:

  • "Yesterday a disturbing situation arose on the nomination page for TomStar81 for admin. New England accused me of having nominated him, Tom, bec ause he nominated me for admin. This is provably false, Stillstudying nominated me…I blocked him for 24 hours, and lifted it after telling him I would block him again if he continued false statements.…I warned him that continued false statements would result in another blocking, and he made additional false statements last night on the RfA talk page. He stated I have no right to block him for making false statements - at some point, I do have to do just that, or give up any pretense of enforcing our policies!…I have blocked him for one week for making false accusations…I hope you will support me, and make a stand for our policies on false accusations and wikipedia assume good faith which he has grossly violated. I cannot stay on wikipedia if users are allowed to simply lie about us, repeatedly, without any consequences!…I simply cannot stand by and let this person continue to lie about me. At some point, there has to be some accountability for this kind of slander. I felt I had to take a stand and do something about it. If I am wrong, the block should be lifted, and I will leave wikipedia. I cannot stay and have false statements made about me repeatedly. It is simply wrong, and against our basic policies of not allowing personal attacks."10:17, 16 July 2007

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive271#Block on New England for the rest of this discussion.

SS backs OWB bad block
  • "I hope you back his block, what are rules for if no one enforces them?"11:19, 16 July 2007
  • "The only fault I find with the bear is that he waited so long to act to stop the endless lying."11:40, 16 July 2007
  • "I think oldwindybear's only fault was waiting so long to act!"11:46, 16 July 2007
  • "Bear, I am gone. They are going to overturn your block of New England, and under the circumstances, I won't stay on wikipedia, and I urge you to come with me."12:06, 16 July 2007
  • "What use are the wikipedia rules on personal attacks if you won't enforce them?'12:27, 16 July 2007
  • "I can't say I blame the bear for blocking him…"15:04, 16 July 2007
SS accuses New England of deliberately lying about OWB
  • "The lies against him are contemptable…Are we free just to make up things on people?"11:19, 16 July 2007
  • "He is a pathological liar…Instead of shutting this liar down, he was allowed to basically slander the bear throughout wikipedia. He is a liar…"11:21, 16 July 2007
  • "…does it bother anyone that open lying went on, and no one seems concerned about the open attacks on a great editor, and new admin, when anyone who read the record knew it was a lie?"11:35, 16 July 2007
  • "The real issue, that a user lied openly…"11:38, 16 July 2007
  • "…this user was allowed to repeatedly lie…"11:40, 16 July 2007
  • "…New England deliberately lied and kept lying…he deserves better than to be lied about, over and over."11:46, 16 July 2007
  • "…lied about him, I am leaving wikipedia. I cannot and will not stay in a place that endorses the kinds of lying involved in this."11:53, 16 July 2007
  • "…he lied, over and over…the guy knew he was lying…"12:06, 16 July 2007
  • "…you are dead wrong to support open lying, and I am leaving wikipedia - who wants to stay in a place, and work for free, when people support open lying?"12:14, 16 July 2007
  • "The guy was making attack after attack on him, which were false? Do you care at all about the truth?" 12:16, 16 July 2007
  • "…your insinuations run rampant… kept repeating the same lies…repeated the same old false accusations…you knew it was false…I find it incredible that you are protected while making slander after slander, despite knowing it is false."14:56, 16 July 2007
SS suggests lifetime ban
  • "I am filing for mediation on this, and asking he be banned…Hopefully the other admins will block this clown, and get him off wikipedia!"11:21, 16 July 2007
  • "The bear's only fault is he tries to be too reasonable. I think this person should be blocked for life."11:30, 16 July 2007

Disruption of WP:ANI

Evidence that SS/FWS is OWB

Edit times never overlap, consistent with CU result and work/home or school/home scenario

Typical editing patterns

A table shown in /Combined contribution timeline shows all contributions from OWB, SS, and FWS from 4-26-06 to 7-20-07. The edits are listed in order, with edit time (EDT/EST), and page/edit summary.

For much of their editing history since April 2006, OWB has edited nearly daily (with occasional breaks of a few days, obviously). On weekends, OWB’s schedule varied, with edits all over the day. On weekdays, OWB often edited for an hour or so early in the morning, usually stopping around 7:30 local time, followed by a session in the afternoon/evening, starting as early as 14:00, but more commonly around 16:00 local time.

SS only edited during weekdays (except as noted below, a telling exception). Their earliest typical weekday edits are around 08:30 local time, more commonly clustered around noon, and their latest are usually around 13:00 local time, and almost always before 14:00.

There is always a minimum 45 minute gap between when one stops and the other starts. The gap is often longer, however.

Analysis of instances when OWB edited outside of “normal” weekday hours

  • Friday Aug 25, 2006: OWB edited all day, starting at 08:23 local time [1], no edits by SS that day.
  • Friday Oct 27, 2006: OWB made one edit at 12:07 local time [2], no edits by SS that day.
  • Tuesday Feb 6, 2007: OWB made one at 11:31 local time [3], no edits by SS that day.
  • Wednesday Feb 14, 2007: OWB made three edits, starting at 11:16 local time [4], no edits by SS that day.
  • Thursday March 22, 2007: OWB started editing early, at 13:34 local time [5], FWS edited 72 minutes previously [6], (both editing same article, Charles Martel)
  • Friday March 23, 2007: OWB started editing early, at 12:42 local time [7], SS/FWS edited outside of normal window, 07:45-08:41 local time (last edit here), (FWS/OWB both editing same article, Charles Martel, SS dealing with Pocklington Dan sock puppetry case).
  • Friday June 15, 2007: OWB started editing early, at 13:06 local time [8], SS edited outside of normal window, 07:27-10:55 local time (last edit here), (both editing same article, Council House Fight, during a dispute over accusations of a copyvio by OWB).
  • Friday June 29, 2007, OWB made one edit at 11:43 local time [9], SS edited outside normal window, 07:19-10:04 and 13:28-23:11 local time (edit at 10:04 here). (SS working on Searchers, OWB responding to SS on his talk page.)

Analysis of instances when SS/FWS edited outside of “normal” weekday hours

  • Friday June 9, 2006: SS made three early edits, starting at 07:59 local time [10]. No edits by OWB that day
  • Monday October 30, 2006: SS made 6 edits between 15:26 and 15:41 local time, starting here. No edits by OWB that day
  • Tuesday November 14, 2006, SS made 3 edits between 14:13 and 15:35, starting here. No edits by OWB that day.
  • Friday March 23, 2007: see section above.
  • Friday June 15, 2007: see section above.
  • Friday June 29, 2007: see section above.
  • Saturday and Sunday, June 30 – July 1, 2007: For the first and only time in their editing career, spanning 60 weeks, SS edits over a weekend (starting here). For one of only six weekends in this 60-week span, OWB does not edit this weekend.

Analysis of editing pattern on July 17, 2007

Note that this is the day that Deskana accused OWB of sockpuppetry at 08:24 DC time (12:24 UTC), and Barneca followed at 10:10 DC time (14:14 UTC).

  • OWB makes 4 edits during “typical” period, 05:41-06:00 local time (09:41- 10:00 UTC).
  • 79 minutes later SS makes 25 edits, starting much earlier than “normal”, 07:19-11:40 local time (11:1915:40 UTC).
  • 44 minutes later OWB makes 9 edits, starting much earlier than “normal”, 12:24-13:19 local time (16:2417:19 UTC).
  • 72 minutes later SS makes 4 edits, much later in the day than “normal”, 14:31-14:37 local time (18:3118:37 UTC). SS never edits after this.
  • 69 minutes later, OWB begins editing again, at 15:46 local time (19:46 UTC).

Significant overlap in article interests

Contrary to OWB's assertions (one of which is here), OWB and SS/FWS mutually edited quite a few very diverse articles, showing similarity of interests unlikely to occur in two separate people:

For articles with large quantities of edits, see:

European history

Texas history

US crime

Books by Robert Heinlein


Clint Eastwood movies


First user talk page edits

And we know that Finishedwithschool is Stillstudying.

SS changes OWB signature to his own

This was done manually, not with four tildes.

Textual idiosyncrasies

Both OWB and SS have offered the defense that they write in a different style ("I/oldwindybear(…)never said anything in [few words]"):

  • OWB:
  • SS:
    • "I myself could not understand how anyone could possibly believe I was oldwindybear, who, no offense, because I like his work, never said anything in less than forty-two paragraphs, while my edits are brief and to the point. " 16:52, 15 May 2006

But is it true that OWB and SS write in different styles? Because OWB and SS are the same writer, and the corpus is substantial, it is easy to show that it's not.

Addresses others by wikilinked username or full signature

NOTE: there are countless other examples of this yet to be added.

Though earlier on this was often done defectively, the attempt is still visible.

Avoids very common contractions

Both OWB and SS totally or near totally avoid the common contractions "I'm"/"you're"/"he's"/"she's"/""we're"/"you're"/"they're", even "it's" (excepting the error shown below.) Similarly, contractions of the future with "_ will" to "_'ll" For obvious reasons, no diffs can be provided, but over dozens of pages of downloaded samples, no counterexamples have been found, while the full phrases appear liberally.

Shared phrases

"I am sorry, but…"
  • OWB:
    • I am sorry you feel that people writing to support my efforts, and object to Pig's, need to be eliminated. No offense, butI am sorry, but you were wrong to take these issues off the page."16:58, 10 January 2006
    • "I am sorry, but that is plain crazy…I am sorry, but you pretty much concede there is NO evidence…I am sorry, but that is really stretching it."23:40, 17 July 2007
See also:15:03, 8 January 200615:35, 9 January 2006 17:37, 10 January 200601:12, 22 February 200716:43, 17 July 2007
  • SS:
    • "…I am sorry, but while you certainly edited language, nothing you changed was a direct copy…I am sorry, but I don't feel you listed sentences which were exact copies…"13:52, 15 June 2007
    • "…I am sorry you feel this is absurd or ridiculous, but blame me for this, the bear is evidently at work and unable to say a word…I am sorry you feel that is ridiculous, but frankly, i feel you have gone way over the line…."16:46, 16 July 2007
See also:16:52, 27 April 200613:01, 25 May 200612:56, 18 May 2007
"[bad thing], period."
See also: 20:53, 19 March 2006(x2)02:22, 2 May 2006
See also: 16:02, 4 May 200613:01, 25 May 200614:13, 25 May 2006 12:14, 16 July 2007
"dead right/wrong"
"[editor] is absolutely correct"
*"There are/is [sic.] only so many ways… [to reword sourced material]"
See also: 10:38, 15 June 2007
  • SS:
    • "Bear is right that when dealing with historical data, there is only so many ways you can cite it." 12:16, 15 June 2007
"I frankly/frankly I…[bad thing]…I don't know/think…and frankly, (I) don't want"
  • OWB:
  • SS:
    • "frankly. I thought you were a poor choice for assistant military coordinator because of exactly this type of controversy…I don't think you want that, and frankly, I don't want it for you or anyone else who is serious about wikipedia."12:29, 23 March 2007
"You are a good person…(but) Pig/New England [is constantly] lying"
  • OWB:
"…you are a good person who is trying to be fair. But I am not letting Pig post constant lying and negative comments about me…"13:40, 9 January 2006
  • SS:
"You are a good person…I think that the real issue is that New England deliberately lied and kept lyingYou are a good person, but wrong in this instance."11:46, 16 July 2007
"wholesale [deletions] (without any discussion)"
  • OWB:
    • "…delete facts wholesale…when you rewrite articles wholesale…your wholesale deletions,…It does not mean you simply delete facts wholesale…"20:53, 19 March 2006
    • "You came here twice, and made wholesale deletionswithout any discussion"02:22, 2 May 2006
  • SS:
    • "…The issue is the right of anyone to unilaterally delete sections of an article wholesale, without any discussion."13:01, 25 May 2006
    • "instead you resorted to wholesale editing…"13:52, 15 June 2007
"abrogates/destroys all vestige of"
  • OWB:
    • "This is a sad travety that totally abrogates all vestige of wikipedia assume good faith.old windy bear 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" (diff unavailable from deleted page)
  • SS:

While not ungrammatical, this is far less common than "all vestiges of" or "any vestige of"; see also "all vestige of" + Wikipedia.

"hugely/deeply/highly violative of wikipedia rules/policy"

The rarity of this phrase is shown by Googling "violative of wikipedia."

"wikipedia rules" (i.e. policies)
"you must learn the rules/rules…it is time you learned"
"I find/think [something] sad"
"My friend, …"
See also: 10:23, 16 May 2006
See also: 15:30, 30 June 2007
"I am myself and no other/I am not anyone but myself/I am no one but me"

Overused words

"feel" (i.e. think/believe)
See also: 00:39, 6 September 2005 (also "frankly")20:22, 27 December 2005 (as HLSB)17:16, 7 January 2006 (also "certainly")11:43, 14 July 200710:38, 15 June 200720:58, 3 July 200716:24, 17 July 200716:46, 17 July 2007
  • SS:
    • ":…I…don't feel that there was a copyright violation…I feel he complied with the law…Because he was the author, I feel he should do any additions or reversions, and I will back him if he does in restoring information I feel should not have been deleted…I simply feel you are wrong…"this."14:54, 15 June 2007 (also "simply)"
    • •"…I am sorry you feel this is absurd or ridiculous… I am sorry you feel that is ridiculous, but frankly, i feel…"16:46, 16 July 2007 (also "I am sorry…but", "frankly")
See also: 13:53, 24 May 200714:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)12:16, 15 June 2007 (x2)13:52, 15 June 200702:56, 30 June 200718:15, 16 July 2007
"note" (i.e. observe)
  • OWB:
    • "…as somone else noted, I am removing the accusation from my user page pending check/user - I do note…"14:23, 7 May 2006
See also: 07:01, 7 January 200620:10, 12 June 200710:06, 15 June 200716:24, 17 July 2007
  • SS:
    • "…would note his concern, and ask for clarification, which I would have given! But as you note…"14:04, 17 July 2007
See also: 13:34, 10 May 200615:47, 30 May 200619:59, 7 December 200613:12, 13 December 200612:16, 15 June 200715:30, 30 June 2007(x2)

Shared spelling errors

As google statistics change daily, they may be slightly different when you examine them than when they were tallied.

"it's" [sic.]

This contraction is never used for "it is", but for the possessive "its":

No examples of correct usage were found in the downloaded corpus.

"plagerize/plagerism" [sic.]

No examples of correct usage were found in the downloaded corpus. See plagerize: 50,000 vs. plagiarize: 921,000 (approx. 1:18), plagerism: 202,000 vs.plagiarism: 11,600,000 (approx. 1:57)

"challange/challanging" [sic.]

No examples of correct usage were found in the downloaded corpus. See challange: 2,440,000 vs. challenge: 286,000,000 (approx. 1:117), challanging: 163,000 vs. challlenging: 87,000,000 (approx. 1:534).

"apparant/apparantly" [sic.]

No examples of correct usage were found in the downloaded corpus. See apparantly: 1,300,000 vs. apparently: 127,000,000 (approx. 1:98)

"resembalance" [sic.]

No examples of correct usage were found in the downloaded corpus. See resembalance: 932 vs.resemblance: 13,600,000(approx. 1:14,592)

Typographical metathesis

SS persona

Speaks for "the bear"

From his very third edit, Stillstudying seems to know what Oldwindybear ("the bear") is thinking, feeling, doing and planning, and why:

  • "Oldwindybear had toned down those direct quotes to avoid an article that might be interpreted as being pro B & C, which I do not gather he is."16:45, 3 May 2006
  • "…while oldwindybear may not resent this, I do…"16:12, 5 May 2006
  • "Frankly, oldwindybear appears to love this site…"15:09, 15 May 200615:12, 15 May 2006
  • "Hey Bear…You were trying to tone down the language…"13:00, 6 July 2006
  • "I ascertain from Bear's posting that he feltBear must have agreed…"12:16, 15 June 2007
  • "He won't defend himself further, for reasons I don't care to second guess."11:46, 16 July 2007
  • "…my interaction with him over a year tells me he would probably apologize if he was online to do so. I will certainly apologize…"15:37, 16 July 2007
  • "Ha! I bet he would. he tends to be more diplomatic than myself, so I bet he would."16:28, 16 July 2007
  • "…blame me for this, the bear is evidently at work and unable to say a word...I cannot speak for the bear, but messgaes on my talk page indicate he is not happy with me for pursuing this, so I would assume he would do most anything to end this…"16:46, 16 July 2007
  • "I doubt he will, and would urge him not to…and the tone was he would accept Deskana's ruling…I expect him to take a more reasoned tack, which is just his way, I would be genuinely surprised if he yielded an adminship which got not one opposing vote because of this."17:18, 16 July 2007
  • "…I see why the bear likes you."11:48, 17 July 2007

Adulation of "the bear"

Stillstudying displays an unusual and fanatical admiration and adulation of "the bear::"

  • "You would think people would learn - beating you on the quote game is not going to happen."13:00, 6 July 2006
  • "…the best editor on wikipedia…Your only fault is you are too soft hearted!"11:21, 16 July 2007
  • "No wonder I nominated the bear!…The bear's only fault is he tries to be too reasonable."11:30, 16 July 2007
  • "…they don't care that you spend an incredible amount of time working on this encyclopedia."12:06, 16 July 2007
  • "…people like…the bear are why I am pleased to be a part of this project."12:08, 17 July 2007

"Bear is right"


OWB overcompensation

  • "And I understand his refusal to self nominate, I would not either, and that is not knocking those who self nominate, you just feel that when it is your time, someone will nominate you..."11:43, 14 July 2007
"work with him and myself"
Stages minor difference of opinion
Using different computers
  • "I don't think anyone would seriously suggest someone would edit for over a year, 500 plus edits, and never use the same computer if it was the same person!"10:14, 18 July 2007
"SS imitated my signal greeting"

SS overcompensation

"I am a new user"
  • "I am a new user, who…until today, had not contributed or commented…"12:55, 27 April 2006
  • "I am a new user, so this is coming from a dispassionate person, who has not previously engaged in this argument."16:52, 27 April 2006
  • "I must weigh in on this one, though I generally am a reader, rather than writer."12:55, 4 May 2006
First user page edits
  • SS: "I am a student, in other words, one who is learning. Wikipedia is a great tool for that. Until recently, I have been more of an inactive reader. I have become more active, and intend to be more so, especially in political issues, and those of historical interest to me"16:25, 5 May 2006
  • FWS: "I had not previously created an account, but some of the issues I have observed ongoing decided me to create an account, so my voice could be heard, other than a mere internet number."12:36, 26 February 2007

Like Finishedwithschool, Stillstudying is a sock of someone else.

Signature slip-up
  • "I did not write the above section, and don't know who changed it to show I wrote it, but the history shows oldwindybear wrote it."13:07, 25 May 2006
First sock accusation
  • "When I first arrived on wikipedia, I was accused of being oldwindybear. That was dismissed for no evidence. That was a year ago, and no one has made that idiotic claim since."12:24, 21 March 2007
Edit times
  • "I was away for the weekend and missed all this."11:19, 16 July 2007 (SS is always away for the weekend).
"I cannot speak for the bear/oldwindybear, [but…]"

FWS persona

User:Finishedwithschool presents a two-dimensional persona, with many diffs denouncing "political correctness:"

History vs. political correctness

This phrase may also be found, juxtaposed against "history," in the contributions of both OWB and SS/FWS:

  • OWB:
    • "…who do not seem as interested in the truth, or accurate history, but political correctness."05:15, 28 December 2005 (as HSLB)
  • SS:
    • "I became interested in Bonnie and Clyde, because of the movie, and edited because I felt it was a case of political correctness against history."12:45, 8 May 2006
  • FWS:

Calls his other username "Still"