Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linas/Archive

Report date September 30 2009, 06:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

User:Linas won't take this well, but it's fairly clear there is some socky action going on here. Ignoring one (old and spurious) edit, here are all of the edits by the IP- all today:
 * Evidence submitted by Tedder
 * spelling fix of a comment by Aboutmovies on User talk:Aboutmovies. Nothing terrible here, but it's a page Linas is well aware of, was blocked (by me) for attacking Aboutmovies on his talk page.
 * editing Trace monoid. Edit is on a page Linas is also well aware of and was the page/string that led to Linas being blocked.
 * posting on ANI on the current thread about Linas.
 * Removed Linas's attack of another moderator (Wknight94) on Linas's talk page.
 * spelling fix of another editor's discussion in Linas's arbitration request case.
 * spelling fix of another editor's discussion in Linas's arbitration request case.
 * Claiming "I'm not a sockpuppet" on Linas's ANI thread.

I'm requesting that an uninvolved party verify that this is a Linas sockpuppet, using checkuser if necessary. Second, after verification is done, it'd be nice to mark the IP with a sockpuppet template. However, I'm intimately involved in this dispute (current threads are here and here), so I won't get involved other than filing this report. For instance, I'm not going to use the uw-socksuspect template, as I don't want to make a bad situation worse. tedder (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(postscript) Since I began editing this, Linas has been blocked for a week. Checking for a sockpuppet seems especially prudent, though it means Linas cannot defend himself. tedder (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Considering that the IP's edits include both a near restoration of the mistaken edit to Trace monoid that set Linas off in the first place, and a suggestion that Linas be banned permanently, I think it highly unlikely that the IP is Linas. More likely, it is someone poking Linas. It would still be worth checkusering though. Cardamon (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

Requested by tedder (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * : Not seeing the need for checkuser yet. If the IP continues to edit in arbitration cases and AN/I threads on this subject, and develops a history of controversial comments, then come back or ping a checkuser privately. The arbitration committee has stated that editors should not use IPs or alternate accounts to participate in project space debate while avoiding scrutiny, and that checkusers are able to check for this sort of thing as well as disruption during arbitration cases generally. Nathan  T 15:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Closing per Nathan. NW ( Talk ) 01:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Today, this account uploaded an image on Commons (File:Wiki-math-Zipf-distribution.png on 21:00 UTC. About a few minutes later, this IP (67.198.37.16) adds the image this account has uploaded. I don't think this is a coincidence. 1989 (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2020 (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 have left a note for the IP. In the absence of a satisfactory answer, I intend to block. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 05:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You have got to be kidding me. Could I respectfully ask you to investigate the five thousand edits, and clarify exactly which of them merit blocking? What, exactly, is suggestive that harsh and punitive action is required? To be clear, starting from here, and moving forward. The nature of these edits is summarized here: in the top section. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It is fairly obvious block evasion. Blocked. ST47 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)