Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euclidthegreek/Archive

Report date August 18 2009, 12:41 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Stephen

Euclidthegreek has recently been the subject of an ANI thread regarding his nonsense pages, and been requested to cease their creation, has been blocked for disruption, and has had many of his pages dragged through MfD. He seems to have a valid contribution to make in polyhedra articles. Johanneskepler has recently sprung up, with a similar polyhedral interest and creating the same style of nonsense articles. Require checkuser to confirm they are the same editor.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Stephen 12:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * . NW ( Talk ) 16:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

✅ =   J.delanoy gabs adds  16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety talk 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date September 14 2009, 03:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Stephen

Started the day after Euclidthegreek was blocked, with a similar interest in "fun" pages and geometry. --Stephen 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm not sure if we need one. I haven't caused disruption. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 06:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I am not anybody's puppet. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 11:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by Stephen 03:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * for CU attention. Nathan  T 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ the following appear to be the same person:
 * Note that one of those accounts is EucIidthegreek, with an 'I'. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that one of those accounts is EucIidthegreek, with an 'I'. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that one of those accounts is EucIidthegreek, with an 'I'. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that one of those accounts is EucIidthegreek, with an 'I'. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that one of those accounts is EucIidthegreek, with an 'I'. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that one of those accounts is <tt>EucIidthegreek</tt>, with an 'I'. – Luna Santin  (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged, blocks by PeterSymonds. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date September 18 2009, 06:32 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Stephen

Yet another new user jumps into editing the exact same polyhedral articles after the previous one was blocked. Can we look at an IP range block? --Stephen 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

My comments will be short and to the point. I am interested in polyhedra, but not JUST that. I'm also editing other stuff. Hexadecachoron talk contribs 09:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I shall admit it. I am that user and am trying to reform. Hexadecachoron talk contribs 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Stephen 06:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ as:
 * : Archives show that this user typically has more than one account, so despite the admission above I'll endorse this request. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 15:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * . Range block not possible. Brandon (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Conclusions

I have decided to block this user, and I'm not fully convinced of reform here. Any unblock request should be considered on your primary account (Euclidthegreek). Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Admitted to socking according to this diff. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 03:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

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

I don't see what the claimed abuse is. Please clarify. Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (I created this redirect.) The creator of the redirect under a different account was blocked for sockpuppetry with this account as the master. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 05:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that I was unblocked way back in 2011 per this AN discussion after I grew up a bit more, so I don't see the reason for this sudden jump to SPI. (If nothing else, you might have checked my block log.) I have not used any other accounts since getting unblocked, FWIW. Double sharp (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (Longer response follows.) Actually, my current account "Double sharp" is Euclidthegreek renamed. I have to wonder, Jd22292: did you just jump into this without checking the history? I admit that I dislike talking about my early silliness and block evasion on Wikipedia that's from eight years ago, without having a valid reason to have it brought up: I'm not a kid now and I regret having done that anyway. But your search was thorough enough to target my old username "Lanthanum-138" to "Euclidthegreek" without maybe wondering why the latter openly redirected to a user in apparent good standing who has been editing for the past few years. You might perhaps have assumed some good faith and asked me about this, failing which you would then have good reason to go to SPI. Or you might perhaps have searched the administrator's noticeboard archives for "Euclidthegreek", which (as I just checked) brings up the discussion for unblocking immediately. But no, you went straight to SPI without checking thoroughly – and given the sheer absurdity of a sockpuppeteer proclaiming his recent sockpuppetry if he had succeeded in not being caught for years, it could hardly have been clearer that a thorough check was needed before jumping all the way here.
 * If there was ever a better way to make people consider Wikipedia's block log as primarily serving the function of the wooden board around the neck of a condemned Chinese criminal, as a badge of shame forever for past misdeeds that can never be forgiven, I have not seen it. I daresay quite a few users would retire over this sort of thing. I am not one of them, as I understand your motivations for your actions (though I was tempted at first, I have good control over my emotions). But given that this will pretty much certainly be closed without further comment and the relevant explanations provided, perhaps you might want to learn from this experience not to shoot first and ask questions later in cases that seem this outlandish.
 * Since this may be lost in text, I do not write this with bite or venom. I bear no grudge towards you and look forward to meeting you again on Wikipedia, though hopefully in different circumstances, even if you do not. I would simply like to offer a suggestion with regards to your actions, so that you might not drive off another productive editor who does not react to your honest mistake this kindly. Thank you! Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This report was a perfectly understandable mistake. Yes, in an ideal world we should all check every aspect of the history before taking action, but in reality there is a limit to what checking we can do. Can we reasonably expect everyone to go through everything such as searching admin noticeboards on the off chance that they will find something there that is relevant before making any report on any other noticeboard? An editor saw unmistakable evidence of sockpuppetry, and can't reasonably be blamed for reporting that evidence. As for "the sheer absurdity of a sockpuppeteer proclaiming his recent sockpuppetry if he had succeeded in not being caught for years", anyone with a quarter as much experience of sockpuppet investigations as I have will know that a remarkable number of persistent sockpuppeteers do exactly that kind of "absurd" things. Case closed: nothing more to be done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)