Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cuhs/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See talk page for genetic code, at the very end, about vandalism FeralOink (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Fixed the username. You blocked and tagged H2mex as a suspected sock of Cuhs, but I don't see any temporal overlap between the two accounts, and Cuhs last block expired a long time ago. Can I ask about the reasoning behind your block?  pending a response. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit on commons is by H2mex on 9 February 2021 referring to being blocked on enwiki, but there's no apparent attempt by H2mex to edit (live, deleted, or in EF log), let alone a direct block, until June. Thereforem H2mex is an evading sock of somebody. The comments by others at Talk:Genetic_code were what drew my attention to Cuhs, where we noticed the 155.69. pool still active in promoting Shu's work, including Cuhs's commons images that Cuhs uploaded there in May 2021 (now deleted, other commons admins can confirm). So Cuhs is 155.69. and H2mex is "someome who had been blocked", and all are promoting some sort of own-work on the same genetic-code article-set. I was relying on the talkpage as basis for who else H2mex was. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, DMacks, as I had not realized how thorough you had been already, regarding the issues discussed on the genetic code talk, in the looks vandalized section. It troubled me greatly how Cuhs and friendss/sock suspects were inserting what we called "the embarrassing" (and another described as "hideous") genetic code copyvio image in so many articles (at least five that have been found so far). That's why I initiated this sockpuppet inquiry. Secondly, I did not realize that others were already aware of Shu is in self-promotion activity on Wikipedia! For example, I wish I were more comfortable with Stokes flow so I could provide other sources, as there are two in the lead of the article that are both Shu articles, see "The closed-form fundamental solutions for the generalized unsteady Stokes and Oseen flows associated with arbitrary time-dependent translational and rotational motions have been derived for the Newtonian[7] and micropolar[8] fluids" which suggests WP:UNDUE attribution to Shu. For something as important as Stokeslets, we don't want Wikipedia to inordinately emphasize Shu's contributions.-FeralOink (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to check this IP too 155.69.184.58 as it has 4 edits, one disruptive and the other an addition of a Shu article as a source for to Incomplete Bessel functions.--FeralOink (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. In most cases, I'm happy to discuss at least some of the evidence I find publicly. I agree that there are a bunch of 155.69.180ish IPs involved over time. And I too wish I knew enough about applied-math topics to know whether the content and refs there are viable. I think we've done all we can from the chemistry side; maybe ask at WT:MATH? Refspam is a problem, and finding better secondary refs even if these are "ok" definitely helps WP in the long run. DMacks (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Clerks, it would require CU on commons to find details about Cuhs, unless they have logged into enwiki without editing recently. Both named accounts have edited commons recently. DMacks (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Can I go ahead and close this, or is there still something you're waiting on? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, thanks for the reminder. Closing. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)