Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Both accounts have only ever edited the obscure article Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric and its AfD discussion after I nominated it for deletion. The article was written by Łukaszyk himself to promote his own work, and was recreated by himself after being deleted in a previous AfD. Łukaszyk has been objecting strenuously to the AfD, to the point of canvassing support in the Polish Wikipedia, so I think the creation of sockpuppets is rather likely.

Note that Łukaszyk has a declared alternative account User:Gus~plwiki, so that doesn't count as a sock. Tercer (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

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

By the time I had an opportunity to look into this, an account had already been blocked. This one should be considered too: This account only ever edited the deletion debate mentioned above. Their first edit used the same opening as the sockmaster's own !vote, a bold and bulleted "keep" on a line by itself, and the same phrasing LK-metric lack WP:N. No other participant used the term LK-metric. They never responded to my reply to their !vote, but the sockmaster did. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In late 2021, I considered the possibility that Guswen, Parejkoj, Ozob, and A1E6 were coordinating edits to Volume of an n-ball, or that some were sockpuppets of others. See, for example this exchange regarding Guswen and Parejkoj.  I later asked and then let it go as insufficiently substantiated at the time, but the present investigation leaves me wondering.  — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to . Jilaszczuk is to . Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * is in a similar geolocation to the other accounts, but very different ranges. I suspect that Zvid and Jilaszczuk have been canvassed on plwiki and are probably not sockpuppets. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 07:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocking Guswen 3 weeks for socking and COI concerns. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This can be closed now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Possibly socks of each other but maybe not of Guswen (see discussion below for behavioral evidence):

WP:SPA edit warring to include obscure work by Szymon Łukaszyk, who is the real world identity of User:Guswen and User:Gus~plwiki according to these user pages.

Also worth noting that User:Guswen has been blocked for sockpuppeting and COI before. Tercer (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Henizcolter is probably a sockpuppet of Guwen. DaveFarn — Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This is a bad-faith accusation. Would you please eventually stop persecuting me? I've never committed sockpuppetry (i.e., I've never created a false account to use it myself under a different anonymous identity). In the case you refer to, I asked my godson and coworker, Wawrzyniec, to support me against your false accusations that the subject of my PhD thesis Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric lacks notability, despite being successfully used in various fields of science, as evidenced by | (167) citations of this paper. And he supported me from the IP address of my office, which turned out sufficient to you as a "proof" of sockpuppetry.

My name is Szymon Łukaszyk. I am from Poland, and I (attempt to) stay true to my values and to the mathematical conclusions I managed to reach.

And who are you User:Tercer?

What is your name?

Guswen (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is considered meat puppetry, and it is also forbidden, see WP:MEAT. Anyway, this case is about the account Naeemshahzada insistently adding your works to Measurement problem. Does it also belong to someone you asked for support? Tercer (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:MEAT ?


 * Let us take a closer look at the measurement problem "dispute" on Wikipedia that you took part in yesterday:


 * User:SageGreenRider: "I'm not a physicist, but shouldn't we add Superdeterminism as a potential solution to the measurement problem?"


 * User:Chetvorno: "We have an article about Superdeterminism, and we shouldn't add it to the measurement problem unless it gets more popular."


 * User:Tercer: "I am a physicist! Superdeterminism is similar to flat Earth theory, and we shouldn't add Superdeterminism to the measurement problem unless it gets more popular." (Ergo: I can agree with flat Earth theory when it gets more popular. It is a ridiculous conclusion, as such.)


 * User:Chetvorno: "Thank you, master. Superdeterminism is not supported."


 * What is the true intention of User:SageGreenRider, User:Chetvorno, and User:Tercer they try to smuggle by the above"dispute" between three "independent" editors? Here it is:


 * Explanation of the measurement problem by life within the framework of the holographic principle, entropic gravity, and emergent dimensionality.   shouldn't be added to the measurement problem unless it gets more popular. Only because it is not popular now, it is similar to flat Earth theory.


 * It should be lucidly clear to everyone that User:SageGreenRider, User:Chetvorno, and User:Tercer are meatpuppets recruited by someone to edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, which is prohibited by WP:MEAT.


 * Guswen (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to accuse me of sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting you're welcome to open a WP:SPI. Here, however, is about Naeemshahzada. You haven't answered my question: does this account also belong to someone you asked for support? Tercer (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of the 161 citations you mention are self-citations from your own unpublished papers. Also, having some citations to a single work from your thesis more than 30 years ago does not make you or the work notable. You clearly went out of academia and science more than 30 years ago. You may want to try to become notable in patent law perhaps, but your ship has sailed when it comes to anything related to science. So, please, stop believing you can make contributions and express your uninformed opinion in scientific articles. DaveFarn (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Tercer, Naeemshahzada seems to be a sockpuppet of Guswen. The Naeemshahzada account was created 10 March 2024. Between 10 March 2024 and 13 March 2024, as mentioned by Tercer Naeemshahzada conducted an edit war, , ,  trying to insert a sentence on Szymon Łukaszyk's theories, supported solely by citations to Mr. Łukaszyk's papers, into the article Measurement problem, this sentence was opposed as WP:UNDUE and inadequately sourced by SageGreenRider, Tercer and myself. These are the only edits made by the account. It seems to be a WP:single use account whose goal is to insert Szymon Łukaszyk's work into Wikipedia. It seems likely that User:Naeemshahzada is Mr. Łukaszyk (Guswen) and he is using Wikipedia to promote his publications and his career.

Another probable Guswen sockpuppet is HonterFoolah, an account with only 3 edits which originally added the self promoting sentence to the Measurement problem article 4 March 2024, the same day the account was created.--ChetvornoTALK 09:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the analyses of Tercer and Chetvorno above. Talk to SageGreenRider 21:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Guswen's previous socks, detailed in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Guswen/Archive, had the same objective as Naeemshahzada, to insert Mr. Łukaszyk's work into Wikipedia. --ChetvornoTALK 18:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I see that three anonymous meatpuppets, who preemptively created the suck-up section "Thank_you!", are continuing their discussion about Superdeterminism on the Measurement problem talk page. And what are they talking about?


 * User:SageGreenRider: "Superdeterminism may be OK as it is supported by some authorities in physics, who say it is similar to Laplace's Demon idea, but I humbly admit that I don’t know much about physics.”


 * User:Tercer (who claims to be the physicist): "Laplace's demon has nothing to do with superdeterminism. Laplace's demon is a regular determinism. Superdeterminism is insane. It’s a fringe idea."


 * What is a takeaway from this "independent exchange of thoughts" for a reader? Here it is:


 * "Explanation of the measurement problem by life within the framework of the holographic principle, entropic gravity, and emergent dimensionality (and also assembly theory) is also insane. It’s also a fringe idea."


 * Influencing decisions on Wikipedia in this manner is prohibited by WP:MEAT.


 * Guswen (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have just noted from the history of this page that other anonymous meatpuppets from the same team: User:Quantling, User:Dreamy Jazz, and User:XOR'easter, my long-time cyberbullying "friends", are actively working undercover, though not revealing their anonymous (sic) identities in this discussion. How did they find out about it? Why did they decide to participate (undercover)?


 * Again, WP:MEAT is prohibited.


 * Guswen (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * People make mistakes :)


 * Guswen (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I had no idea this discussion was happening until I was mentioned, but having now read it over and investigated the edits in question, I agree with et al. This has every appearance of sock/meatpuppetry with the goal of promoting Łukaszyk's own writings. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Łukaszyk has been heavily editing the article Assembly theory and its talk page. Łukaszyk is also the co-author of a preprint about assembly theory . (That preprint is not on the arXiv, the standard repository for preliminary results, but in preprints.org, a site set up by MDPI where things like claims to have proved the Riemann hypothesis or the Collatz conjecture are easy to find .) This is about as blatant a violation of COI policy as I've ever seen. It appears that when Łukaszyk is not actively inserting references to his own writings, he is editing to make the topics he chooses to write about elsewhere look more respectable. This has been going on since 2009. It needs to be stopped now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most vicious cyberbullying attacks I've ever experienced. And I did experience many last years.
 * I don't even know where to begin...
 * First. You'll find plenty of "proofs" of the Collatz conjecture (e.g., ) or the Riemann hypothesis (e.g. , ) on arXiv as well. These are simply preprints, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed materials (like these ,).
 * Second. Our preprint concerning assembly theory in the context of binary strings is currently under review by the renowned Mathematics journal, which has an Impact Factor of 2.4 and CiteScore of 3.5, and we are awaiting the publication of our study.
 * Third. Indeed, I am actively editing the Wikipedia article about assembly theory. ASSEMBLY THEORY HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED, and this is conclusive in this matter. Now, this theory is criticized and discredited on the basis of some unpublished, non-peer-reviewed preprints, Internet blogs, vlogs, press-releases, commentaries, etc. (my PhD thesis, which I defended almost 21 years ago, was removed from Wikipedia only two years ago, also based on a never-to-be-published preprint, so I know very well how this system works).
 * What is your point, here XOR&#39;easter?
 * It is obvious that Prof. Cronin and his team cannot defend themselves against these attacks due to the WP:COI policy. But other Wikipedians can defend this theory. I defend it not only because of its success and predictive power (drug discovery, chemputation, etc.) but because assembly theory aligns with the results I've learned, reached myself, and it is the experimentally confirmed, correct description of nature.
 * Guswen (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Guswen, so you think the journal Mathematics is very respectable, but at the same time, you say that the Journal of Evolutionary Theory or the Royal Society Interface is not. Makes no sense. Also, there is no experimental proof of assembly theory. You have no idea what you are talking about, and now I can see you have no clue and are an amateur science writer defending a page only because you have written unpublished a crackpot paper on black holes (talk)


 * I never said that Journal of the Royal Society Interface is not respectable. I simply do not know why do you want to cite it twice in the Background and Critical Views section of this article.
 * You can not claim "there is no experimental proof of assembly theory" in view of the overwhelming evidence on the contrary. My own research results are irrelevant here. Please avoid ad hominem attacks. They do not help to achieve an amicable compromise and are against WP:NOPA. Guswen (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The journal Mathematics is published by MDPI; it is not "renowned" by any stretch of the imagination. The "general mathematics" section is a dumping ground for (I will be blunt here) crackpots, so that they don't complain that the arXiv is censoring them ("general physics" works the same way). Whether or not assembly theory has been "experimentally confirmed" is entirely beside the point here. The issue is that by Wikipedia policy, you cannot be writing about it.  The same goes for Volume of an n-ball, where you cited yourself repeatedly. And also Wigner's friend . And Simplex  and cross-polytope  and inscribed figure . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. Do you have any (not necessarily peer-reviewed) source(s) to support your claim that the Mathematics journal is a "dumping ground for crackpots"?
 * Many groundbreaking results have been published in MDPI journals (e.g. - experimentally confirmed in  and, or ).
 * 2. What kind of arXiv "censorship" are you talking about? About the one that allowed submitting "proofs" of the Collatz conjecture (e.g., ), Riemann hypothesis (e.g. , ), or claims that assembly theory is "mathematical and computational methods based on decades-old coding schemes" , or that assembly theory "does not explain selection or evolution against the publications in renowned scientific journals (Nature ,Nature Communications ,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society , Science Advances , etc.)?
 * Yes, you defend the Royal Society journal when it published a paper on assembly theory but you also delete a Royal Society paper when it it proves assembly theory wrong. You are vandalising the page and making assembly theory look good because otherwise your nuts paper on black holes looks nuts. (talk)


 * I never said that Journal of the Royal Society Interface is not respectable. And it does not "prove assembly theory wrong". It cannot. It only questions the assembly index of 15 as a threshold for biosignatures. Please read this paper carefully, and please avoid ad hominem attacks. They do not help to achieve an amicable compromise and are against WP:NOPA. Guswen (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you decide what is wrong or not. The only 'experimental evidence' that assembly theory had, was that cutoff value. I have read the paper carefully, you read it. You have not done anything serious in science in more than 30 years so stop believing you can judge the authors of the Royal Society Interface paper that you delete from the article and you think does not prove assembly theory wrong. It does. The paper itself says so, and it is not your role to judge it, only to keep other editors do their job at trying to show the various angles of the subject to give the topic context and neutrality rather than your hidden agenda to make assembly theory look good because you happen to write a paper on the topic that is under review, as per your own admission, therefore in COI and forbidden from touching this page. DaveFarn (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not blame arXiv editors for these omissions. They are overwhelmed with submissions, and all they can do is prescreen them. They moderate but do not peer review the submissions.
 * 3. By which Wikipedia policy can I not contribute to the assembly theory Wikipedia article? WP:COI? WP:COI involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I'm not doing that, and I do not have any conflict of interest. I am simply protecting an article about the experimentally confirmed theory that has been developed for almost 10 years by a number of renowned Universities and published in renowned journals against vandalism.
 * Guswen (talk) 07:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that Mathematics is a "dumping ground for crackpots". I said that certain categories of the arXiv are (this is common knowledge). The journal Mathematics is published by MDPI, which means that it is not "renowned", as you called it. But that is beside the point: year after year, in one article after another, you have been using Wikipedia to promote your own work, which is against policy. That's the most obvious conflict of interest imaginable. You seem to understand above that the inventors of assembly theory should not be writing the Wikipedia article about it. This applies to you, too, for exactly the same reason. Moreover, you did not disclose your relationship with the subject. I only discovered it when I went looking for other potential sources for the article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, you phrased it to sound like the Mathematics journal, and its "general mathematics" section, in particular, is a "dumping ground for crackpots" who are unable to submit their works even to the arXiv preprint server.
 * I've never been using Wikipedia to promote my own work. I've always been using it to learn and - while contributing - to promote and popularize science. Quantum speed limit theorems, for example, is a Wikipedia article I recently created from scratch, providing all the relevant proofs of these theorems (Mandelstam-Tamm, Margolus–Levitin, and Levitin-Toffoli) I found in various sources, put into a historical context, analyzed, understood, and did my best to make them clear to the readers. There is nothing in this article that promotes "my own works" and I was thanked for this contribution . I think this contribution alone suffices to rebuff your groundless claims, but the same holds true for my contributions to the assembly theory article: I do not promote any of "my own works" there, either. Guswen
 * And I'm not the discoverer of assembly theory (It hasn't been invented - it was discovered). As I wrote, my sole intention is to protect an article about the EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED theory that has been developed for almost 10 years by a number of renowned Universities and published in renowned journals against vandalism. (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is not vandalism, some of us have added balance to an otherwise page that looks like assembly theory is not challenged. Assembly theory is NOT EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED and has not produced any result in drug discovery or anything of the like as you say. You simply wrote a nuts 'paper' that you think is sound based on assembly theory and that's why you are defending it. (DaveFarn)


 * Assembly theory is experimentally confirmed. You'll find massive experimental confirmation in renowned journals. Kindly refer to the assembly theory article. As for drug discovery, look at Figure 7 of this paper, for example. It shows "six new opiate-like molecules generated from assembly pools" of assembly theory. Guswen (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a useless 'discovery' found when compared to random search. Almost any algorithm can create new molecules, this is just so silly. But I am stopping discussing with you given your COI and that everybody here agrees you should not be touching this page because of your hidden agenda. to promote your own 'research'. DaveFarn (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've never been using Wikipedia to promote my own work. Wow. Just... wow. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Why don’t you understand, XOR&#39;easter? Science requires learning, promotion, and popularization. Why? To be accepted (and further researched). Do you really think that cutting-edge contemporary science, like the EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED assembly theory (developed for almost 10 years by a number of renowned Universities and published in renowned journals), which overcomes deeply rooted prejudices, will be easily accepted? By no means! We're at the "adoption of a new paradigm" stage of the Kuhn's Paradigm Shift. Resistance against the new paradigm is fierce, as anyone can see. Guswen (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Science requires ... promotion Yes but those of us with self-respect don't think that it is our role to promote specifically the parts to which we have contributed. But really I don't know why we're talking about this here; some number of accounts will eventually be blocked as a result of this report, hopefully yours will be among them, but if not someone will take you to WP:ANI for the long-term continuing self-promotion, and then after you have been blocked people who care about Wikipedia (rather than care about using Wikipedia to promote their own interests) will clean up what you've left behind.  It's silly for all these words to be spilled in the interim.  --JBL (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with JBL. DaveFarn
 * Again. I do care about Wikipedia, and I've been a Wikipedian since 2006 (much longer than you, I understand, JBL?).
 * Again. I do not promote my own interests on Wikipedia; I do not advertise or try to sell anything. I'm contributing to promoting and popularizing science. And I am so stupid to do it as Szymon Łukaszyk.
 * And what will these anonymous accounts (most without User pages) who "care about Wikipedia" do to clean up the Wikipedia article about assembly theory, the EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED theory that has been developed for almost 10 years by a number of renowned Universities and published in renowned journals? They will insert blogs, vlogs, commentaries, press releases, and never-to-be-published preprints to this article to undermine this research despite rock-solid scientific evidence. Guswen (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've linked to ten examples of you doing exactly what you claim never to have done. (And that's not counting the fact that you named a Wikipedia article after yourself and then recruited people to try and stop it from being deleted.) You've linked to a podcast. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Whatever I do, you will colorize it and distort anyway.
 * I am contributing to Wikipedia to promote and popularize science (like, for example, the fact that convex polytopes are omnidimensional, that is well defined in any complex dimension). Using your own words, XOR&#39;easter, Wikipedia is a place to "explain research that has already been done, and whose merit is already clear". Isn't it?
 * I do not advertise anything; I do not submit any links to any of my blogs, vlogs, etc. (Perhaps only because I do not have any blogs and/or vlogs :)
 * You say I'm promoting my "career".
 * I wrote my Ph.D. thesis in 2003 on [Probability Metric], and only when it got into Wikipedia in 2009, did it have to be renamed to Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric to stay there.
 * You say, "I named a Wikipedia article after myself".
 * Thirteen years later, in 2022, after a vicious cyberbullying attack, based on some never-to-be-published preprint (in which attack you participated, XOR&#39;easter) the article about this metric was deleted from Wikipedia.
 * You say It happened "then", i.e., right after this article was created on Wikipedia in 2009.
 * While arguing against its deletion, I was alone against many, so "I asked my godson and coworker, Wawrzyniec, to support me against your false accusations that the subject (...) lacks notability, despite being successfully used in various fields of science, as evidenced by | (167) citations of this paper. And he supported me from the IP address of my office, which turned out sufficient to you as a "proof" of sockpuppetry" (I wrote it at the top of this page, XOR&#39;easter).
 * You say I "recruited people to try and stop it from being deleted".
 * For how long have you been throwing baseless obstacles in my way? 2009? Earlier? Guswen (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ASSEMBLY THEORY HAS NOT BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY CONFIRMED, AND IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY AND THEORETICALLY DEBUNKED (to use your emphasis in caps). You are only defending it because you wrote a crackpot paper connecting assembly theory to black holes that has not been published and may never be (DaveFarn)
 * This is not true. Assembly theory is experimentally confirmed. And you will not find even a SINGLE peer-reviewed publication that would "debunk" it. All you can throw at assembly theory are vicious, and mostly ad hominem, blogs, vlogs, commentaries, and press-releases.
 * And please avoid ad hominem attacks against me. They do not help to achieve an amicable compromise and are against WP:NOPA. My own research has nothing to do with the experimental confirmation of assembly theory. Guswen (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is true. And your own research has everything to do with your interest to keep this page appear as not challenged. You are even deleting peer-reviewed journal papers:
 * https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.2023.0632?af=R
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-024-10163-2
 * without mentioning the commentaries by 2 professors from Harvard and Cambridge experts in the field that you keep deleting from the Critical views. You are a patent lawyer for 31 years that has little to no idea about this field.
 * It has been proven time again and again that you only modify Wikipedia pages to make your amateur papers look better and insert your amateur research in Wikipedia. Amateur is not an insult, is what you are because you have no academic affiliations or academic work in more than 30 years. DaveFarn (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Talk:Assembly theory is a bit of a spa farm, with some spas arguing for it and others against it. Presumably the ones against are not allied with Guswen, but, , , , , , and are all examples. I think a checkuser would be helpful here to try to straighten some of this out. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it is a fair solution to remove any press releases, podcasts, blogs, vlogs, preprints, and links to Prof. Cronin's website, etc. following XOR&#39;easter suggestion on Talk Page, leaving only the citations to renowned scientific journals. Guswen
 * (I am not affiliated or allied with any of these anonymous Wikipedia accounts that you mentioned)
 * (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that makes sense. I am often reverting Henizcolter's changes, so how could I be allied with them? Sure. Whatever is checkuser, please be my guest, I second it. Any insight on why you think those in favor of making this page as only praising assembly theory are independent but those trying to add some balance are not?? Guswen, I don't think you understood a word of what Eppstein wrote, you seem to answer random things to whatever you understood. DaveFarn 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

might be Henizcolter; they both seem to care strongly about one obscure detail in particular (compare and ). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The checkusers aren't going to tell us anything about comparisons between logins and IPs. That can only be behavioral. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IPs and behavior suggest that these are the authors of assembly theory based at Arizona State University. Most likely one of the first authors of one of the papers in question, or the leading senior co-author of assembly theory, Sara Walker. DaveFarn (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * See the second 15 April 2024 case for closure details. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Continued edit warring on Assembly theory. Removal of content 1. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:03, 15 April 2024 (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

 * See the second 15 April 2024 case for closure details. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Continued edit warring on Assembly theory. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:46, 15 April 2024 (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

 * OK--I can't claim to have checked everything. All these Assembly theory accounts look fishy, and I blocked the two IPs (clearly the same person) reported most recently. I saw fit to check the main account, but found nothing at all. It may be that there's meating happening here, but I saw no evidence of that in the two or three accounts I checked--though geolocation may suggest some of these are related, I think I've fished enough in this pond already. As far as I can tell (again, I did not check everything), semi-protection is the best solution here, along with a keen eye on the talk page and perhaps the simple blocking (or partial blocking) of disruptors. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Guswen is already blocked. I've blocked Naeemshahzada as WP:NOTHERE, and the articles in question have been semiprotected. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Similar pattern of editing on Assembly theory, removing content. It seems to be a long-term edit war. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:43, 8 May 2024 (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

 * I wasn't able to make any conclusions, but I agree that a CheckUser is warranted here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - probably worth a look. The SandDoctor  Talk 17:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think these accounts are related, but I'm going to leave this open in case someone who is more familiar with proxy use wants to take a look. Guswen does appear to have an undeclared alt account, - that hasn't edited, but I'm going to block it anyway as a precaution.  Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * given the numerous mobile user agents that were changing between networks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the absence of technical evidence, there isn't enough here behaviorally to prove a connection. . <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Edit request here indicates a desire to add a Szymon Łukaszyk citation to the article. Given IP location and the fact that this is the first edit was this talk page request, makes me think this is a sock. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:41, 21 May 2024 (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

 * No edits in a week and it is an IPv6 that is most likely dynamic. Closing without action. Please feel free to re-report should this reoccur. The SandDoctor  Talk 17:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)