Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alansohn/Archive

Report date January 27 2009, 02:07 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:


 * Evidence submitted by Good Olfactory

Alansohn is currently on an Arbitration-imposed editing restriction which requires him to strictly avoid incivility, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. As a result non-compliance, he has been temporarily blocked three times in the past. The most recent block was for violations that took place in this recent discussion of a category (CfD), for which I was the nominator.

At 19:50 26 January 2009, 165.230.65.52 made the following edit at the same CfD discussion that contained the comments that had led to AlansohnÃ¢ÂÂs blocking a few days previously: Ã¢ÂÂKeep, close this discussion, and take the nominator out of his idiotic misery.Ã¢ÂÂ

On 26 January 2009, Alansohn had made very consistent edits between 17:00 and 19:44, when he stopped. The userÃ¢ÂÂs last edit during this time period was posted 6 minutes before the IP edit was posted. AlansohnÃ¢ÂÂs next edit was at 21:22, after which he resumed his consistent editing pattern as before until around 21:50.

165.230.65.52 is tagged as a Rutgers University IP in Piscataway, New Jersey. The IP address had made no contributions since 9 December 2008.

Alansohn is from New Jersey (as noted on his user page) and much of his (otherwise very good) editing history involves editing New Jersey topics, including a substantial number of edits to Rutgers University, List of Rutgers University people and related articles and categories.

If the user is using an IP address to continue incivility anonymously and avoid the consequences that would be imposed because of the applicable editing restriction, that is unacceptable. CheckUser is needed to confirm or dismiss the connection between Alansohn and the IP address. (If there were a CU matchÃ¢ÂÂobviously, a block of the Rutgers IP address is not a good solution here.)

Good OlÃ¢ÂÂfactory (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * One IP address chimes in on his anti-Holocaust survivor attack that had already gone down in flames without a single editor supporting his bizarre proposal and he decides that the only possible explanation is that its me because this same IP has edited articles related to New Jersey? Not only will I categorically state that I have never used this IP (nor can I think of the last time that I ever used an IP) or votestacked, but I am sick and tired of an administrator pushing his very determined efforts at harassment. I can't imagine what the actual purpose of this is supposed to be, but this is one of the most blatant violations of WP:POINT I have ever seen. Apparently User:Good Olfactory, who refused to retract or refactor his sickening anti-Holocaust survivor nomination that violated any basic sense of decency, is still seething about this case; It looks like there's one more incident of abuse of process to add to his mounting RfC. Alansohn (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, slow down cowboy, you seem to be making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. I haven't assumed anything, and that's why this process exists. Have you read the guidance for defence? If the CU check is negative, nothing happens and we just chalk it up to the coincidence of two different people living close together in the same U.S. state who leveled attacks against me in the same CfD. The process of checking doesn't imply guilt. When you are under a probation, you have to expect such precautions to be taken when your behaviour is otherwise questionable.
 * Your comments have essentially accused me of a bad faith investigation into the IP attack, which I don't think is warranted by any of my previous actions. I'm unaware of the nature of the "harassment" or "abuse of process" issues that you raise. This is nothing about the success or failure of a CfD proposalÃ¢ÂÂit is about personal attacks being leveled by (possibly multiple) editors. Good OlÃ¢ÂÂfactory (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, slow down cowboy? You have assumed that any person from New Jersey who might have an issue with your offensive anti-Holocaust survivor CfD can only possibly be me? I'd say that's bad faith at its worst. I love the "let's run it the flagpole and see if anyone salutes" approach you advocate under which any disgruntled editor with a grudge can take a stab at trying to find an excuse to file a sockpuppet accusation and just blow it off as no big deal. This is conduct unbecoming of any editor and totally unacceptable from someone who has been entrusted with administrative responsibilities. When will the harassment and despicable personal attacks end? Maybe it's time to come to the realization that there are other editors who are equally (if not more) offended by your persistent abuse. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that that's an accurate reflection of what I've said or done. Because of the recent attacks against me by Alansohn, this was far from a fishing expedition. If the user wants to avoid being suspected of anonymous personal attacks, the best approach would be to avoid them when logged in as User:Alansohn. Then there would be no reason to suspect a connection at all. Good OlÃ¢ÂÂfactory (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It couldn't be more accurate. Here are a few helpful hints for you: Stop devoting full time to categories and start creating articles and building content; start to develop a view that other editors and readers use categories to navigate, not to follow the rigid interpretations of a small group of people who think their narrow view of what categories should be is all that counts; stop using offensive language to rationalize deletion of what you arbitrarily don't like, be it trivializing child molestation or the Holocaust, or whatever else you'll decide needs deleting tomorrow or the next day; stop running to find someone to punish those who disagree with you. Once you look at the non-existent evidence you've offered here, making a nonexistent connection based on a common state from an IP editor whose edits have nothing in common with mine, which would have required me to travel at an average speed of 350 to 400 miles per hour to get to another city in six minutes to make a single edit, which would have accomplished nothing if it came from me as there was zero support for your nomination, it would be abundantly clear that this sockpuppet investigation is not even a fishing expedition, as there was no legitimate possibility that it could have found what you were so desperately hoping for. This effort accomplished absolutely nothing other than to further prove that what you have been doing is not an effort to build an encyclopedia, but a rather bizarre game that is entirely disruptive, whether intended or not. I think now you have to start to realize that I am not the only editor who has a problem with your tactics. I have been so thoroughly abused by the RfC process that I cannot in good conscience inflict it on anyone else, even you, no matter how well justified or the ample evidence you've been generating for it or your determination to abuse process to get your pound of flesh. I'm stuck with you and you're stuck with me. Learn to live with that reality without pursuing blocks as your only alternative to getting what you want. Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be suspected of any wrongdoing, I'm not sure if continuing to attack other editors is your best course, as mentioned above. Good OlÃ¢ÂÂfactory (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you once more that your claims of personal attacks here are just as baseless as this sockpuppet junket was, only this was even more pointless and disruptive than usual. Read what I wrote, start making changes in your tactics and game playing, and learn that there are more people than me who are rather underwhelmed by your actions. If you weren't sure before, this SSP debacle ought to prove that fact pretty conclusively. This case is closed -- your accusations were found to be wrong, which should have been no surprise -- and it's past time for you to move on. As consensus was that you were wrong about Holocaust trivialization and wrong here, I'll give you the last word. Then you can move on to something productive. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm:
 * "Stop devoting full time to categories"
 * "stop running to find someone to punish those who disagree with you"
 * "start to develop a view that other editors and readers use categories to navigate, not to follow the rigid interpretations of a small group of people who think their narrow view of what categories should be is all that counts"
 * "stop using offensive language to rationalize deletion of what you arbitrarily don't like"
 * "[stop] trivializing child molestation or the Holocaust, or whatever else you'll decide needs deleting tomorrow or the next day"
 * "stop running to find someone to punish those who disagree with you"
 * "...what you were so desperately hoping for"
 * "what you have been doing is not an effort to build an encyclopedia, but a rather bizarre game that is entirely disruptive"
 * "your determination to abuse process to get your pound of flesh"
 * "Learn to live with that reality without pursuing blocks as your only alternative to getting what you want"
 * "start making changes in your tactics and game playing"
 * "learn that there are more people than me who are rather underwhelmed by your actions"
 * If some or all of the above don't qualify as personal attacks or at least gross incivility, then "Teaneck" must be a pretty attack-y and uncivilized place. I'm sure that's not the case. I think the cumulative meaning of the above comments is clear. Good OlÃ¢ÂÂfactory (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I live and work in Teaneck, New Jersey and I have not edited on Wikipedia in months on any computer without logging in nor have I edited on any computer located outside a one-mile radius of Teaneck, New Jersey at any time in the past three months that I could possibly imagine. The IP that Good Olfactory insists I must have used is located in Piscataway, New Jersey. While the two locations are in the same state, this Google Maps search shows the two places to be more than 40 miles and 54 minutes apart. The edit that Good Olfactory finds so bothersome took place six minutes after I took an editing break from editing here in Teaneck (as can be confirmed from a log), which would put me at least 48 minutes from Piscataway where my imaginary edit occurred. Monday afternoon, when this edit in question occurred, I was on my way to my traditional mid-afternoon break at Dunkin' Donuts on Teaneck Road in Teaneck, where I ordered my customary Large Iced Coffee, with French Vanilla flavor, skim milk, four Splenda and not too much ice for which I paid $2.99 less a one dollar off coupon, receiving eight cents in change when I presented two one-dollar bills. After finishing both puzzles in this Sunday's edition of The New York Times i returned hime to my computer and resumed editing. As much as I agree with the sentiment of this IP editor, I would have to have been flown on a jet in order to make it Piscataway in the six minutes that Good Olfactory has allotted to me.
 * A more thorough review of the supposed "evidence"

The IP address's previous edits to North Jersey add a claim that "Although many may think otherwise, Monmouth County is a part of South Jersey." and a redirect at the bottom of the article. Not only are these edits childish and vandalistic (they were reverted by someone who called them "sandboxing"), but the statements made directly contradict arguments about state divisions that I made at Talk:South Jersey a few months earlier that there are no hard and fast boundaries. This only further undermines the claims made that I have used this IP.

This IP never uses edit summaries, does not use references correctly, has made numerous edits that border on vandalism and the majority of articles edited by this IP have never been touched by me. That there are edits to New Jersey articles can hardly be surprising coming from an IP at New Jersey's state college. That I have edited the same New Jersey articles can hardly be surprising as I have edited nearly every single New Jersey-related article. In the usual zeal to "improve" Wikipedia by attacking those who disagree with him, User:Good Olfactory hasn't even bothered to make any connection other than a state as the basis for trying to find an excuse for another block.

While I do appreciate that User:Good Olfactory seems to believe that there could only be one person per state who finds his actions and proffered justifications for category deletions to be in extremely poor taste, if not patently offensive, I can assure you that I not only did not make the edit that so disturbs him, but that I could not, and this is based directly on the "evidence" User:Good Olfactory has provided. I look forward to a checkuser confirming this. I would like to suggest that in the future, similarly frivolous sockpuppet reports should result in blocks for those proposing them when they are returned unsuccessfully, as will happen here.

While I am glad that there are other editors who were sick and tired of this abusive CfD, my only regret is that this IP editor did not sign in so that I could thank him by name as I probably should for the many others who participated in putting down this disturbing Holocaust trivialization. An RfC would only help make others aware of the problematic pattern of past edits from User:Good Olfactory and help prevent any more of them in the future. Alansohn (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Both parties in the above strike me as coming on a bit strong. Can we dial things down a bit please? Findings below. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * However the fact that you paid 2 dollars and a one dollar coupon for a 2.99 item and got 8 cents back suggests that SOMETHING nefarious is going on here. Don't you owe Dunkin Donuts 7 cents? What do you plan to do about THAT? ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For some reason, Dunkin' Donuts treats the dollar coupon as also reducing the sales tax included in the price, cutting the transaction cost by $1.07. I will probably leave within the hour for some iced coffee, and use the last of the four coupons printed in the Wednesday, January 14 edition of The Record. As to the "inconclusive" findings, can anyone explain how I could have managed to use two different IP addresses located 40 miles apart in a span of six minutes? Given the allegations made with no evidence other than a state in common, I would hope for a much more detailed accounting of how I could possibly have done what Good Olfactory has so blithely manufactured. Alansohn (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's 2:26 PM Eastern Time (my Wikiclock reads 19:26:09) here in Teaneck. I'm heading to Dunkin' Donuts now, so the IP attacks can begin. I will secretly hop onto my jet at Teterboro Airport and fly at 500 miles an hour to get to Piscataway so I can squeeze in a single edit. Anyone want any coffee or doughnuts on the way? Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's 3:00 PM Eastern (20:00:42 wiki time) and I'm back. This time, I saved my Dunkin' Donuts receipt. My 34 minutes away from the computer allowed ample time for my round trip flight to Piscataway AND an iced coffee. Sorry I didn't get anything for anyone else, as no one asked. But let me now in advance for tomorrow. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Good OlÃ¢ÂÂfactory (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC) If this is Alansohn, then it would indeed be editing around an Arbcom restriction. Additionally, given that Alansohn and the IP both went KEEP on the CFD, there was attempted votestacking (although the result is not affected) Mayalld (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

user notified of this case. Mayalld (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions


 * There are a number of users on this IP. Alansohn is not present. There could be a technical match between the IP and Alansohn, but it could also be coincidence. Based on everything available, I'd tend to say it's less likely that there is a real match than that there is not. I invite review by other CUs. ++Lar: t/c 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

23 November 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

As far as I know, Alansohn has never been accused of socking, so I file this with some trepidation. The facts boil down to this:

1. Since I expressed the opinion on AN/I that Alansohn was the primary problem in violations of his interaction ban with Magnolia677, Alansohn has hardly missed an opportunity to try to get me into trouble, or to express his disdain for me. I won't enumerate the instances, suffice it to say there is bad blood, at least in one direction.

2. I recently ran across the account of User:Beyond Bozo, which I suspected might be an attempt to "get" at me. My suspicion was confirmed by their first edit, in which they set up their user page. It said: "Respect my authoritah. I know what I'm doing. I contribute mightily." Even though it is a gross misrepresentation, it was also clearly meant as a parody of something I might say according someone I was in a dispute with.

3. Still, there are a number of people who might like to make fun of me, so I had no way of connecting "Beyond Bozo" to a specific user.

4. Until, that is, I ran the "Intersecting Contributions" tool against a number of possible editors, and got this result for Alansohn. Both Alansohn and Beyond Bozo (who has only 22 edits to article space) have edited three articles in common: CANDU reactor, Nuclear fusion, and Ochroma pyramidale. Now, the first two have some relationship to each other, but the third one is a tree. The probability of any two unrelated editors contributing to those three articles at random is certainly extremely low.

5. There's also the matter of timing. Beyond Bozo was created on 9 November 2015. At that time, I had filed an Arbitration Enforcement request regarding Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and Alansohn had commented on it several times:, , (the last of which is instructive for an example of how disdainful Alansohn is towards me). Immediately after that last dismissive remark was made, "Beyond Bozo" was created. The timing is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

There's clearly enough evidence here to justify a CU look to officially connect the two accounts. BMK (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: My mistake, it wasn't their first edit to the user page it was this one, and you'll find that it's still there, at User:Beyond Bozo.I think you know that I have the utmost respect for you as an admin and a CU, but I do think you're making a mistake here. The 3 article overlap is as significant as a fingerprint when one of the editors has only 22 edits and a name that's clearly disparaging to me, and the other editor has been on my tail for quite a while.  The fact of the common articles was what convinced me to file a report -- otherwise I would have let it go, just as I let the off-wiki blog outing of my real identity go (after I reported it to ArbCom), and a number of other sub-rosa items as well.  Obviously, you have to go by your best judgment, but I do believe that there's sufficient evidence here to justify an CU. Would you be adverse to discussing it with some other CUs to see if their opinions agree with you? BMK (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, that's not meant to butter you up -- I don't do that -- it's a real opinion. BMK (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly, then, if you can't parse my logic, my perspective on the matter has skewed my thinking.I hesitated for quite a while before filing this report, knowing that if I was wrong, or was turned down, the repercussions regarding Alansohn would be irreversible (not that we had such a great relationship beforehand!). Now I wish I had not taken that path.Regarding Alansohn's remarks below, yes, they are intemperate, but I can hardly blame him for that. If I am wrong and "Beyond Bozo" is not his creation, then he surely sees himself as being under attack from an old adversary.  If, on the other hand, "Beyond Bozo" is his, then "the best defense is a good offense."  Without knowing the truth behind "Beyond Bozo", it's impossible to tell which is the actual situation.  In any event, unless "Beyond Bozo" is connected to him (which seems extremely unlikely now, since I really have no other evidence to present) I would be opposed to any sanctions for Alansohn based on his statements here, other than the warning you have already given. BMK (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Comments by targeted user Alansohn
Let's take this bullshit item by item:

1. "Alansohn has hardly missed an opportunity to try to get me into trouble, or to express his disdain for me.... suffice it to say there is bad blood, at least in one direction."' There's blood all over the floor here, but it's BMK who's the problem. User:Beyond My Ken, by my estimation, has to be one of Wikipedia's most abusive editors. It takes a special someone to make thousands of edits at WP:ANI and simultaneously be the person who most blatantly disregards the rules on edit warring and personal attacks. See this report (with 8 reverts) and this one (only four reverts), both reported on the same day. His block log shows five blocks in just the past five years for edit warring, plus dozens of reports that didn't result in blocks. BMK is the problem here.

2. Regarding User:Beyond Bozo, "which I suspected might be an attempt to 'get' at me." It takes someone who is both breathtakingly narcissistic and paranoiac to believe that this catchphrase from Eric Cartman of South Park is obviously directed at him. Per this Google search, there are a total of 628 user pages that are all attacking BMK with the phrase "Respect my authoritah".

3. "Still, there are a number of people who might like to make fun of me, so I had no way of connecting 'Beyond Bozo' to a specific user.", but that doesn't stop BMK from leaping to the baseless conclusion that it must necessarily be me.

4. "Until, that is, I ran the 'Intersecting Contributions' tool against a number of possible editors, and got this result for Alansohn. Both Alansohn and Beyond Bozo (who has only 22 edits to article space) have edited three articles in common: CANDU reactor, Nuclear fusion, and Ochroma pyramidale." Look at the edit history of the three articles, all of which were vandalism reverts on my part, all of them more than five years ago.

5. "There's also the matter of timing. Beyond Bozo was created on 9 November 2015.... The timing is highly unlikely to be a coincidence."' I have never been reluctant to call an asshole an asshole. I have always been willing to call someone an asshole when someone is acting towards me like an asshole. Why would I go out of my way to create an alternate account when I have been more than willing to call him out directly? It's BMK who's going to dig his own grave, and he's done so in dozens of disputes with dozens of other editors, including a current edit war over the size of university seals. It's just a matter of time.

Can someone please do a checkuser once and for all and get this guy off my ass? Even better, I'll be happy to agree to retire from Wikipedia if the checkuser is positive, as long as BMK agrees to retire when it comes back negative. Ready to make a deal, Ken (or whatever it is you should be called)? Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm a straight arrow too, and I assumed you were too from the casual banter, so I figured I'd be straight; I don't think I could have been any straighter. And I'm not one to butter anyone up either, because I never know exactly where to apply the butter, let alone how much butter to apply. From my perspective, this is all a shameless abuse of process and a spectacular waste of time. Let's do the checkuser ASAP and prove that this is just a baseless attack., my offer for reciprocal resignations / lifetime bans still stands. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , here is my edit history for the three articles offered as "evidence": CANDU reactor (one vandalism revert in April 2009); Nuclear fusion (three vanalism reverts in December 2008, January 2009 and March 2009); and Ochroma pyramidale (one vandalism revert in November 2010). Now, from five to seven years later, I decided to pick those three out of the 140,000 articles I've edited to suddenly start working on, but using a sock and not my real username. What does that prove? What was it supposed to prove?The accusers in Salem also didn't have any skin in the game. They had nothing to lose if their accusations didn't pan out. Just like in the real-life witch hunts, the only way to be exonerated is when they shove you under the water and you don't come back up.And just like the witches back in the 1600s, a witch would obviously deny she was a witch, wouldn't she? That only proves she's a witch. Maybe burning at the stake will prove it.When innocent editors can be the target of bad faith claims and the accusers have nothing to lose, we're only going to see more and more of these bad faith checkuser demands. My offer still stands, and I still don't have a taker. I insist on a checkuser and if I'm guilty, I go for good; If I'm not, BMK goes for good. That seems to give everyone a little bit of skin to lose. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Frankly, your evidence is too thin to justify a check. I've therefore declined the request. I'm tempted to decline the SPI as well, but I'll let it sit for a while to see if a clerk sees more to than I do. However, if it sits too long without additional evidence or action by a clerk, I'll close it. As an aside, although not really relevant to anything in my view, how do you get from the gibberish added to Beyond Bozo's userpage to the sentence "Respect my authoritah. I know what I'm doing. I contribute mightily."?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I always look askance at an SPI that arises from something personal. For longstanding sockmasters, evidence that a new sock has something against editor X may be telling because there's a history of previous socks doing just that. Here, you have a new alleged master and a new account, and you believe that the master is using that account to "get" at you. I'm willing to accept that Alan has antipathy toward you, but otherwise your logic on almost all points eludes me. For example, why is the username Beyond Bozo necessarily directed at you? Why are the "authoritah" sentences a parody of something you would say? You assert both as fact but with no evidence backing it up. And how exactly is Alan getting back at you through BB? What is BB doing that serves that purpose? Have you looked at any other evidence that might demonstrate that the two accounts do not belong to the same person? One of the things that leapt out at me when I looked at BB's short list of contributions is their use of edit summaries. They are unusually long and aggressive, whereas Alan's are the more typical fragments or short phrases. I don't intend to discuss this with another CheckUser, but you certainly can; you know just about everyone around here. :-) Don't forget that I didn't close the SPI, at least not for the moment. I just declined the CU request. BTW, thanks for the kind words. Right back at you. I know it's not flattery; you're a straight arrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI unfortunately may be a forum where you can make such intemperate comments about another user and still avoid a block, but this is not ANI. Any more such comments here, and you risk being blocked, not for sock puppetry, but for personal attacks. And please don't tell me how you've been provoked. You're responsible for your own conduct. Finally, a CheckUser is not going to be a party to any such deal as the one you've proposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This SPI is now closed. No more comments from BMK or Alan.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

28 December 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I suspect sock activity here. This is based on this edit and total alignment with the IP's points. The confluence of this where he makes and references a weird suggestion of editors being paid to delete seen here  that is very similar to the IP's strange statement here about being paid to nominate articles for deletion. Outside of this editor, the editor he copies and the IP I've never seen such an allegation on WP. Legacypac (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to Alansohn: The behavioral evidence is troubling, and the IP is an obvious sock of someone closely connected to this topic. No new IP jumps into a complex topic and starts commenting on the WikiProject talk page and AfDs immediately. Jumping to defend the IP and attack me at the same time puts a spotlight on you. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Per this source, the IP address 37.4.93.114 is located somewhere in Germany. I'm located somewhere in the Northeast United States, somewhere where Chris Christie casts a giant shadow, and my most recent 400,000 or so edits show that connection pretty conclusively. I've never step foot in Germany and haven't been in Europe for decades.Filing an SPI seems to be the bad faith, personal attack du jour; User:Legacypac offers no justification based on behavior that would connect me to this IP address and has been remarkably trigger happy in making repeated accusations of sockpuppetry and single purpose accounts. I look forward to this going nowhere and will file this bad faith nomination away for future Arbitration Enforcement action. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is no behavioral evidence, as the alleged edit by this IP user in Germany doesn't match any edit that I've ever made. If you make an accusation like this, you might want to offer one of my 400,000-odd edits as your "evidence"; you haven't bothered to do so. In just the past few weeks you've attacked several dozen editors as potential sockpuppets / single person accounts, which leaves you with several dozen possible suspects for your witch hunt. This attack only adds to the negative record of abusive edits that will result in Arbitration Enforcement action. When this is closed you can post similar SPIs for every other editor who has ever edited any Longevity related article. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to get hot headed. If it is not you, then it is not you. An admin will figure that out. As an experienced editor you are no doubt aware that threatening me over and over is not going to look good if you end up at AE. If the IP is not you it should be blocked as a sock of of one of the other Longevity sockmasters anyway. Legacypac (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looking at the behavioral evidence, it seems far more likely to me that Alansohn and the IP are unconnected editors with similar opinions than the same individual. It's possible that the IP is another editor logged out, but I strongly doubt it's Alan's IP. Closing case. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick assessment. Happy New Year. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)