"
Right, thanks Richard. I guess my question is more one of whether it's ""okay"" to revert edits that are otherwise non-controversial just because they're made by a suspected sock? The recent spates of edits to Hull really do seem to be in good faith and aren't clear-cut vandalism; it's more peacockism and too much detail, along with the frustration of little things like having to correct source formatting for consistency and the poor/inconsistent use of edit summaries, after entreaties on talk pages receive no response. For instance, another IP you've tagged has been active today since my last edit to the article, all edits are similar to what I just describe. Would it be considered bad form to revert those edits because a suspected sockpuppet has made them?   "