Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:51, 22 January 2018

ApostleVonColorado

ApostleVonColorado (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ApostleVonColorado/Archive.

29 December 2017

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ms Sarah Welch (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WeyburnFarm (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Lisa.davis (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mark.muesse (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Ms Sarah Welch (MSW) and ApostleVonColorado (AVC) have same timings, writing style, edit summaries, interests, same POV and also both of these accounts are greatly interested in arguing with Fowler&Fowler across number of namespaces like no one else.

I was looking at WP:CASTES, and found an extensive ANI thread which was started by AVC against Fowler&Fowler. I read the allegations made by AVC and recalled that they have been recently made by Ms Sarah Welch as well in recent months.

The ANI thread resulted in topic bans on 3 editors. AVC got topic banned from all caste articles for 6 months, and since that day AVC never edited again, possibly due to increased scrutiny by editors.

• MSW's 1st ever edit was made on Culture of India,(clearly doesn't sound like new editor) and this article has been heavily edited by AVC. 2nd edit was creation of userpage while 3rd edit was to restore paragraphs that were removed over 8 months ago, but were originally added by AVC on Child labour in India.

• MSW added additional source on the image added by AVC on Child labour.

• MSW restored section title created by ApostleVonColorado on Culture of India.

• MSW and AVC have updated numbers on Indian road network.

• Like AVC added on Tamari on Caste, MSW added Tamari on Caste system in Africa, providing same details "{{cite journal|author=Tal Tamari| year= 1991|title= The Development of Caste Systems in West Africa| journal= The Journal of African History| volume= 32| number= 2|", pages "221-250"
• Added "Richter", "Further considerations of caste in West Africa" on Senufo people and Caste system in Africa, this source was also used by ApostleVonColorado on Caste for expansion.
• Added a "1977" journal with "pages=398" to "412" "volume=47" on Amhara people for saying that they have a "caste" system. This discovery was originally made by AVC on Caste.

And indeed both expanded Caste systems in Africa.

• On Culture of India, AVC added "The percentage of self-arranged marriages (called love marriages in India) were also increasing, particularly in the urban parts of India. A 2006 article reported that between 10 and 20 percent of marriages in urban India were self-arranged."

MSW updated this part, "A 2014 article reported that the proportion of “love marriages” has soared in India in the most recent decade, still some 70% of unions are arranged."

MSW further added "The average age of marriage for women in India has increased to 21 years".

• MSW added more stats("By 1995, of all") on the paragraph originally added by AVC on Dalit.

Same writing style, and using same sentences:

• "Let us focus on this article here" (AVC)

"Let us focus on this article please" (MSW)

"Let us focus on what this article actually states" (MSW)

"Let us focus on the dispute, and more importantly on ways" (AVC)

"Let us focus on the scope, and how we can improve this article" (MSW)

"let us focus on suggestions to improve this article" (AVC)

• "Specific suggestions to improve this article" (MSW)

"Specific suggestions to improve this article" (AVC)

• "welcome you to join me in" (MSW)

"invite you to join me in" (AVC)

• "I encourage you to read" (MSW) (AVC)

• "I am open to creating" (AVC) (MSW)

• "I will read it, reflect on it and then get back to you" (AVC)

"I will like to read the context and source, then get back to you" (MSW)

• "wikipedia must include many aspects of one subject" (AVC)

"An encyclopedic article would provide depth and cover the many aspects of this subject" (MSW)

"An encyclopedia covers many aspects of one subject" (AVC)

"encyclopedia is by definition a resource that summarizes "many aspects of one subject"" (MSW)

"Wiki is an encyclopedia, and a good article would include many aspects of article subject" (AVC)

• "Allow me to skip your attempts to lecture" (AVC)

"Allow me to skip your personal views" (MSW)

"allow me to skip where I disagree" (AVC)

"allow me to skip the rest of the WP:TEXTWALL" (MSW)

• "secondary and tertiary sources"

• "have been reviewed and cited"

• misspells "focused" as "focussed"

• Both have used this sentence: "take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without"

• Other common lines are:

"I am delighted"

"please identify where"

"please identify which"

"a few days to review and".

Both users have same issues with Fowler:

• "Allow me to politely ignore Fowler&fowler" (AVC)

"Fowler&fowler: Allow me to ignore" "Allow me to ignore your editorializing" (MSW)

• Claims that Fowler gives "lecture":

"talk page's purpose is to help reach consensus, not to debate or lecture me or anyone else"

"I have explain you this, given how you lecture others"

"image that you question and lecture", "that another editor questions and lecture"

• Told Fowler to try DR:

"You must follow the[REDACTED] guidelines and community agreed consensus process/DRNs/mediation/etc." (AVC)

"take this to bigger forum and dispute resolution process" (AVC)

"You are welcome to initiate WP:DR" (AVC)

"I suggest you try DRN" (MSW)

"Take this to DRN etc" (MSW)

"Try RSN / DRN" (MSW)

• Both have claimed that Fowler use talk page as "forum"

• MSW alleges Fowler of WP:OWN, like AVC

• Has frequently claimed that Fowler "misrepresent" other users.

• MSW warned for edit warring, but asked admin to warn Fowler which is not too different than the ANI thread I linked above since both instances are about seeking administrative action. While AVC claimed that Fowler harassed him, MSW said that Fowler is "bullying".

MSW and AVC tell others about the trips they have made, to influence a content dispute:

• "I have spent weeks and months in places such as Rio/Cairo/etc visiting" (AVC)

"I was in Kerala a while ago visiting their archaeological sites / monasteries / temples" (MSW)

"my recent trip through Norway, Sweden and Russia - each of which have an equivalent template that Mrt3366 is proposing" (AVC)

"I remember from my visits to Ajanta" (MSW)

• Too quick in using {{od}}(outdent) template.

• MSW and AVC tell others "wikipedia is not a democracy" and not "majority vote", after failing to find consensus.

• MSW and AVC have used the same guideline quote "used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

• Same wikilawyering attitude.

• I will note only a few distinctive similarities with edit summaries below:

Often provide both "WP:V" and "WP:WWIN" as reason for the edit.

Writes "reply to" on edit summaries when writing a message. and sometimes "+"

"after checking source" , "revise per" , "simplify section" , "later section" , "request pending". Lorstaking (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: You are saying that because ApostleVonColorado hasn't edited for years that's why there is no case of socking, but ApostleVonColorado was topic banned under WP:CASTE after WP:ANI. The behavior that resulted in the topic ban are same as yours. ApostleVonColorado would be at least indefinitely topic banned if that account was used. According to WP:SOCKLEGIT everyone has to disclose their past accounts on userpage unless it's a cleanstart but this was not a clean start since first edits of your account. You have restored long removed edits that were originally made by AVC and you have continued his WP:BATTLE here.

I am not understanding why you are fabricating information. Contribution history shows that you edited Vastu Shastra 8 hours after you got notified of this SPI and you found that article from my recent contributions. The 4 years old section and the information still remains on the article despite you wanted to get rid of it and your deceptive edit summary, canvassing and the fringe claims that you made on talk page didn't even helped. Johnbod had no interaction with me nor we ever reverted edits of each other, but you have edit warred with him and he believes that you engage in WP:SYN and omit mainstream view. In short words you were just WP:WIKIHOUNDING on Vastu Shastra, that's why you can't use that article as justification for overlapping with ApostleVonColorado.

Also problematic is your claim that there should be no such SPI because there has to be "evidence of abuse or disruption that harms the project", but according to WP:SOCK creating new account "to avoid detection" is itself a form of disruption. Lorstaking (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's no relevance of irrelevant stuff like 2 years old self-reverted edit of mine to this report. You should consider talking about this case only.

I have not mentioned "please provide" anywhere on this report. I am sorry to see that your comments are overly descriptive of "please provide".

Seeing that you have oddly defended ApostleVonColorado by claiming that the account wasn't optimally disruptive, despite being one of the only five editors who were topic banned from WP:CASTE in 2013 2012, you are also saying that if you are ApostleVonColorado's sock still there was no violation of sockpuppetry policy, but you are wrong because if you had ever edited again from ApostleVonColorado, you would be subject to heavy scrutiny and the account would be topic banned again or indefinitely blocked given the problems with your editing on same subject and continued WP:BATTLE with Fowler. Lorstaking (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ms Sarah Welch: just because you can find several similarities between yourself and dozens of other editors, it still doesn't means that any of them amounts to the similarities that you share with ApostleVonColorado and all of these editors that you have mentioned are very far from that many similarities, let alone any other single account having as many same characteristics as yours. Lorstaking (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

After checking the histories and the interaction tool again, I have discovered two more accounts that have same timings, interests and other characteristics as MSW and these accounts edited when MSW was also editing. I have compared these accounts with MSW below and specified where I am comparing them with AVC.

• With the latest edit of MSW on Nāradasmṛti, I saw that nobody cared about adding more bytes to the article since 2008, except AVC, MSW, and WeyburnFarm.

• WeyburnFarm made their 1st ever edit on an article, and 2nd edit was creation of own userpage, just like MSW, whose 2nd edit was also creation of userpage.

• "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly" this particular sentence has been used many times by MSW.

• "I have no interest in a forum like discussion with you on this talk page, see WP:TPNO" (WeyburnFarm)

"I have no interest in a forum-y discussion, per TPNO" (MSW)

• "please respect[REDACTED] policies".

• "secondary and tertiary sources"

• "read and respect WP:QUOTE" (WeyburnFarm)

"read and respect WP:FORUM" (MSW)

• Used the word "versus" for section heading on talk page discussion for discussing relevance of two aspects.

• On Yamas, both used same edit summary, "add sources", for expanding content of same sections, it is a common edit summary but the edit was more than just adding sources.

• Same edit summaries:-

"add for NPOV", "merge two versions", "re-arrange"

Other account is Lisa.davis. Like Lisa.davis, AVC also stated on their talk page that they prefer messages on article's talk page.

• Like MSW, Lisa.davis made their first ever edit on Culture of India an article both MSW and AVC heavily edited like I have mentioned. MSW and Lisa.davis edited Culture of India together during the last months of 2013.

• Both "can read Sanskrit", MSW also claims on userpage to be capable of reading Sanskrit.

• Misspells "focused" as "focussed"

• "Please identify the pages"

• "secondary and tertiary sources"

• Lisa.davis uploaded an image on Commons, named "File:(A) Hindu wedding, Saptapadi ritual before Agni Yajna.jpg", MSW slightly modified this image, then inserted it on Agni by removing existing image, and also inserted this image on Vedic wedding ceremony, Yajna.

• While MSW and Lisa.davis have overlapped much, there are some articles where you won't really expect others to edit some particular section, an example is Temperance (virtue)#Hinduism, a section where both accounts have added content.

• Same edit summaries:-

"c/up",, "add summary of" "check sources", "revise to match", , "cite pending request". Lorstaking (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

After reporting WeyburnFarm as suspected sock, I planned an experiment, and it worked. I removed the WP:ORIGINALSYN added by WeyburnFarm (in 2014) and now that I had successfully defended the removal on talk page and the discussion became stale, I am seeing that Ms Sarah Welch went ahead to defend this content added by the suspected sock.

MSW never edited the article or the talk page ever before, nor the article appeared in my recent contributions, then why MSW is aggressively defending pure WP:OR added by WeyburnFarm over 3 years ago?  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Lorstaking (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark.muesse is another account that I have discovered. It overlaps much with MSW and was used during the same time when MSW was being used for editing as well.

• Like AVC and Lisa.davis, Mark.muesse stated on talk page that he prefer messages on article's talk page. The note is almost same as the one from Lisa.davis.

I have compared only MSW with Mark.muesse below:

• Misspells "focused" as "focussed".

• "peer reviewed secondary or tertiary sources".

• "secondary and tertiary publications".

• Removed same sourced content using a misleading edit summary,(such "version" never existed) that Mark.muesse had also removed on Vastu Shastra.

• Restored completely same lead that was written by Mark.muesse on Dharma.

• Removed content from Vivekachudamani that had been tagged and disputed by Mark.muesse.

• Mark.muesse uploaded an image on Commons, named "File:Saraswati Sarasvati Swan Sculpture.jpg", this image has been inserted by MSW on Hamsa (bird) (misleading edit summary), Sarasvati-rahasya Upanishad, and a DYK template.

• Mark.muesse uploaded another image on Commons, named "9 Grid Pitha Mandala Hindu Temple Floor Plan Vastu Purusa Mandala Architecture.svg", MSW inserted this image on Matsya Purana an article that is barely ever edited by anyone and this image has not been inserted anywhere else except this article.

• Raised issue on talk page of Hindu temple architecture that the article should mention views of "], ] and others. ]", later on MSW would add all these four authors to the article. Lorstaking (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

• The #1 instruction for an SPI accuser states, "please be sure that: The problem is current; if the suspected sock puppets have not edited recently, the case will likely be closed as stale." The last edit by ApostleVonColorado: September 2012. There is zero overlap:

Click on the "timeline" link to see the edits that both users have made to the page in chronological order.

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) edit count: 28278

Apostle von Colorado (talk) edit count: 0

Elapsed time: 6.561 seconds.

18:34:41, 03 Jan 2018

The same wikitool suggests that the accuser Lorstaking and I have overlapped in 10+ articles with edit timeline gap as short as a few hours. The most recent overlap was in Vastu Shastra article, where the accuser edit warred with several editors, starting with Johnbod then I to restore, what Johnbod called 'highly dubious' content. I agree this is dubious, as do other editors on the article's talk page. Lorstaking was trying to restore a fringe non-RS and the dubious claim that Hindu architecture texts have roots in 6000 and 3000 BCE era.

Another foundation of SPI is the evidence of abuse or disruption that harms the project. The accuser is seemingly alleging that using language such as "please provide" .....to.... "request pending", or collaborating with Cordless Larry and others to add scholarly sources to Horn of Africa / Somalia / Ethiopia / West Africa space articles during the Africa de-stub-athon initiative, etc was abuse or disruption of the[REDACTED] project. It is not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23: Indeed, I typed the name wrong. I struck out that part above. Lorstaking: No, you reverted Johnbod and restored the "highly dubious" source before this case. What you did was inappropriate. That was not the first time you did something like that. You have done so before in Shahr-e Sukhteh article, an edit that LouisAragon called an attempt of "deliberate misinterpretation" of source by you (to your credit, you self-reverted and did not edit war). You have less than 500 edits so far, and this case is by far your largest post on wikipedia. Interesting. You make sweeping allegations about "like no one else" etc above!... but you are wrong, if you look at the facts and study the disputes in Kashmir / FA-nominated colonial era Indian famine articles / etc space articles. You mention "Please provide" etc as evidence of abuse or something, but over 150,000[REDACTED] pages have the same phrase!, and my total edits are a fraction. I do read talk pages and their archives before reviewing and editing articles; what I read does influence my choice of words and style. For example, some of my phrasings are similar to Joshua Jonathan, RegentsPark, Doug Weller, Vanamonde, Kautilya3, etc. I do so because I learn from them and I admire editors such as them. Now on the technical issues here: one account is stale, we are in 2018, the stale account has had no activity since 2012; the stale account seems to have never been indefinitely banned, only topic banned for a few months, according to your own submission above; [REDACTED] policy does allow WP:CLEANSTART etc, we don't gather here to witch-hunt and bludgeon people behind their keyboards, we gather here to build an ever-improving 💕 that hopefully our poorest sisters and brothers worldwide can access; you have not shown one specific evidence of abuse or behavioral issue. Phrases such as "please provide...", or if two editors cite the same scholarly source(s) to an article, fwiw, is neither abuse nor a "behavioral issue". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23: A question: On top of this page are links. If I click on the "block log" at the top I don't see anything, for some reason. Where can one search for anyone's block(s) and restrictions placed on their accounts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lorstaking: In my view, words matching without evidence of any abuse can be a source of hounding because as[REDACTED] grows older, you will find ever more two or more words matches. Consider your two or more word phrases (working backwards from your list):

• "request pending" (used by numerous users such as Bellhalla, Adam McCormick, MZMcBride, etc)
• "later section" (used by 100s of editors such as Iztwoz, Earendil02, Muad, Josephine Kelso, etc)
• "simplify section" (Tuf-Kat, Hordaland, etc)
• "revise per" (Johnbod, TonyTheTiger, Ben MacDui, and many more)
• "after checking source" (Sam Sailor, etc)
• (...)
• Lets try a four word phrase such as "Allow me to skip" (Hoary, Go for it!, , and more)
• You mention you did not use "please provide". Indeed. You matched "please identity". It has been used by users Jytdog, Taxee, Plumbago, rtc, KuyaBriBri, 1000s more.
• "I am delighted" (, , , 1000+ more)
• Calling out the bullying behavior by Fowler (DIYEditor on 19 July 2017, that too twice in different posts that day, and in edit summary)
• Mentioning visiting Ajanta, such as "when I visited Ajanta", etc on Talk:Ajanta Caves page (by Johnbod, twice on 24 October 2017 and 25 October 2017; Johnbod mentioned that before I did; etc)

Of course, one can say, well those are single matches and what are the odds of "a combination of matches". I submit that if you take two active users in a particular topic area, you will find plenty of two-words and more-words matches between the two. For example, consider Joshua Jonathan and I... we are both active in Indian religions space. Lets see the common phrases between JJ and I:

• "As I said before" (JJ: , MSW: )
• "does not mean" (, , , )
• "should be noted" (, )
• "I agree with" (, )
• "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" (, )
• "rely on" (, , , )
• "see talk" (, )
• "You probably missed" (, )
• I see matches for "Allow me to", "problematic way of editing", "kind of POV-pushing", "this is OR", "undue for the lead" etc etc (I am tired of copy pasting links; some of these are not edit diffs because that takes time to locate; if you search for the phrase and then trace who posted it, you will see it). JJ also has had content disputes and charges of behavioral issues from a wide range of editors.

The third hypothesis can be, well what about inactive accounts and a combination of word matches. I submit that if you find any old dormant account with over 1000 significant edits, and a currently active editor with more than 20,000 non-minor contributions, you will find numerous two words and more words matches. This follows from the Bayes' theorem on probabilities and the nature of English language. Another consequence of the same theorem is that if you gather 40 random people anywhere, two of them are highly likely to have the same birthday. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Bbb23: I see the list now. There was a 6 month topic ban that started in September 2012. Lorstaking claims above AVC was banned with five people in 2013. I don't see the second five-people-2013 ban. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: For years I assumed good faith with Ms Sarah Welch, even one editor in good standing claimed that MSW asks only me to join discussions. I have been watching this SPI since Bbb23 notified MSW and I have found no reason not to believe that MSW is a sock. These accounts are coming from an unusual location, having strong dedication towards Culture of India, Indian road network, Nāradasmṛti, Moksha, Caste system in Africa, same timezone, obsessing over particular images, same distinctive views and same battleground mentality. It is impossible to have more than one person having these all traits. Also after seeing that since SPI, MSW is continuously attacking Lorstaking, hounding his edits, harassing him, filing frivolous revenge SPI, restoring edits of listed socks, instead of showing remorse for long term sockpuppetry, MSW has proven to be a net negative to the project.

The pointed ANI complaint against Fowler&Fowler by ApostleVonColorado has reminded me of a similar ANI complaint filed by MSW against Soupforone. Both complaints are nothing but huge wall of text about personal attacks and not even a single reasonable diff was provided. Both complaints starts with {{userlinks|}} and notes down the issues in numbers. And the last paragraph of these both complaints has specifically highlighted how their complaint is not a content dispute, but seeking justice for personal attacks. Just like ApostleVonColorado's complaint was found to be frivolous, MSW's complaint against Soupforone was found to be frivolous as well and there were no personal attacks.

Feud with Fowler&Fowler is spot on. I am also remembering that even Fowler&Fowler mentioned AVC-related incidents from Caste on the Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. AVC was engaged in expanding the scope of Caste, while MSW was engaging in expanding the scope of Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, and both AVC and MSW have bludgeoned the discussion. MSW was frequently edit warring, that even I had to convince MSW against this approach, and I requested protection. MSW was also taking this feud with Fowler&Fowler to a higher level by commenting on an ANI thread where Fowler&Fowler was participating, feuding on Jhatka, Cattle theft in India, Cattle slaughter in India, MSW was focusing on being anti-Fowler&Fowler. Frequently alleged Fowler&Fowler of misbehavior and WP:COI on Talk:Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, and wondered if Fowler&Fowler "should be editing this article and related articles at all". Fowler&Fowler gave up on this article, however MSW still taunted him. Fowler&Fowler also gave up on Cattle theft in India. Finally, it is clear now that there was no reason behind this unnecessary aggression from MSW, other than taking revenge on Fowler&Fowler because of the ANI complaint that was lodged by AVC against Fowler&Fowler, it instead led to loss of reputation of AVC.

Over here, MSW is treating a 6 month topic ban to be nothing, but MSW reminds other formerly topic banned user about the past "sanction" when engaging in content dispute. MSW is trying to justify sock puppetry, claiming that sock blocks depend on the "behavioral issue", despite Lorstaking's comment that socking is itself a disruptive, but MSW is not getting it. MSW has severe behavior issues, such as edit warring, misrepresenting sources, WP:SYNTH, and when someone happens to challenge MSW's edits, you would see talk pages getting filibustered. Not every editor is willing to rack up long talk pages such as: and this is similar to AVC who filibustered: . Even this SPI is enough evidence of disruption. Despite the diffs provided by Lorstaking where AVC and MSW edited same articles, MSW still claimed that "'there is zero overlap" with AVC. MSW falsely claimed 3 times that Lorstaking mentioned "please provide" as a similarity, reverted DoRD to restore off-topic sock comment in order to derail the SPI, and then mentioned names of the editors and very commonly used phrases, irrelevant to SPI or these socks. You see this same lengthy disruption on articles and their talk pages from MSW. Capitals00 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Ms Sarah Welch: I'm not expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations, but you ran the Editor Interaction Analyser incorrectly. The usernames must be exact, and you misspelled the master's username. There are intersections between the two of you. Obviously because the master has not edited in years, the timeline is very distant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: There is no way that AVC would be entitled to a cleanstart.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I assume you're talking about the links for AVC. They have a clean block log. Restrictions are harder because they are normally noted, but depending on the restriction, they can be in a variety of different places. In AVC's case, look at WP:GS/Caste and then click on Show in the section "Expired sanctions" because the restriction expired six months after it was imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review