Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Gtadoc

message: "I don't see any evidence of an actual violation--for instance, there's no evidence of joint participation in AfDs or other types of "voting"."
Huh? Violations aren't restricted to actual votes. Here is what the policy states: "Voting and other shows of support...sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in discussions" If they are sock or meat puppets, they are clearly in actual violation of these rules. I (and Matisse) documented many "shows of support" that give "the impression of more support for a viewpoint," to say nothing of "using more than one account in discussions." Did you see the timeline posted by SXT4 posted here: 
I think banning people should carry an extremely high burden of proof, which this case might not meet. The goal is prevention not punishment. But almost immediately after you closed this case (without any discussion), Allgoodnames promptly took up editing  the one page again, and again weighing in on Gtadoc's side , and again opining about controversial matters. The "tag-team" approach has not been prevented by your decision.Bsharvy 06:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. The timing threw me (I was User:SXT40...). I wasn't sure if I shoulda posted that timeline to the SSP or not... --SQL(Query Me!) 06:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfect description of Allgoodnames: "Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in existing edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary." Within two weeks of his first post, he had made a complaint at the admin indcidents board, used "Vandalism" templates, taken sides in an edit war, argued about policy regarding sock-puppet templates, made accusation of "wikistalking", and explained in detail to a newbie why the page was protected, despite the fact that the page was protected before he had ever registered or posted. It is a single-purpose account, never having edited anything but the atomic bombings article. Bsharvy 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, since gtadoc left, there was no "side taking" or double voting.  As for reporting you, its because you vandalised my talk and user pages; this is the 2nd time I believe you've been reported in your...what 1 month at WP?  Additionally, my account is less single user than yours, it seems your account's sole purpose is to harrass people (not just me, I count about 4 editors) who disagree with you.  Perhaps you should learn to run IP traces before you make accusations. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 00:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 
* Lie #1 Your first edit after this was closed was to take sides with Gtadoc. I already gave the link.
* Lie #2 My only edit to your pages was to post the SSP templates required by WP procedure. You made an admin complaint after I made the sockpuppet report.
The rest of your comments have nothing to do with the SSP case, so it will be ignored.Bsharvy 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)