Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Logologist/Archive

Evidence submitted by Novickas
Request evaluation of whether User:Nihil novi is a restart of User:Logologist. Both have engaged in the same disputes, and the WP:Sockpuppetry policy asks that restarted accounts identify themselves when doing this. I've asked NN the question but no response.. User:Logologist and User:Nihil novi have edited the same articles, as have NN and Logo's socks User:Anatopism , User:KonradWallenrod , and User:Mattergy. Both NN and Logo have asserted that they met Czesław Miłosz in person and asked if he knew Lithuanian,. Logo's and NN's prose styles are similar, and both were/are given to the same edit summary style - terse or nonexistent - as other editors have noted , , , ,. This unsigned edit by NN to Logo's talk page adds some info to a para Logo was building.

Under the WP:Sockpuppetry policy, restarts are allowed, but it asks that users identify their former WP accounts when re-engaging in the same disputes, especially in contentious areas. Logo was active at Copernicus -an extremely contentious topic - and NN continues there. ,. Same personal disputes too - see prose style diffs.

If this is confirmed tho, how is NN to go about declaring the former identity? This isn't made clear in the WP:Sockpuppetry page. Novickas (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

 
 * The 2009 CLEANSTART addendum that Novickas adduces here, does not appear to have been discussed at SPI or the article's talk page, and is deleterious to the CLEANSTART spirit (it is not CLEANSTART, but CLEANSTART + the non-editing of all articles that an editor has previously worked on).
 * CLEANSTART was altered, as described above, years after Logologist ceased — and Nihil novi began — editing. Is it appropriate to apply a law retroactively, in contravention of the principle of "lex retro non agit"?
 * A clear statement would be desirable, whether SPI should be used to identify restarts, when users are editing peacefully and are under no sanctions. Also, the ex post facto CLEANSTART addendum should be re-examined — I think, repealed — if SPI is not potentially to be swamped with witch hunts whose only purpose is to compromise the privacy of, and harass, contributors to Wikipedia.
 * Logologist's socks are very stale (2006–7).
 * Nihil novi is an uncontroversial account who has done nothing but edit peacefully.
 * Novickas' argument that two users' editing of similar articles is evidence of their identity, is clearly fallacious, as demonstrated in the following comparisons of edits by Logologist and Piotrus, and by Logologist and Halibutt:

As we see, each pair of editors have likewise edited hundreds of similar articles — proving nothing at all in regard to their identities.
 * Inasmuch as Czesław Miłosz's Polish-Lithuanian background has intrigued many people, it is hardly surprising if more than one person has asked him about the degree of his knowledge of the Lithuanian language.
 * The only reason why this investigation has been instituted is that some editors seek a pretext to launch personal attacks on Nihil novi and to exclude him from discussions at Wikipedia articles (see "Dr. Dan" WP:AE ).
 * Given that Nihil novi's editing is uncontroversial, and that Logologist is inactive and stale, which is the more legitimate interest: Novickas' curiosity about fellow contributors, or the right of Logologist and Nihil novi to privacy? Novickas' stalking and harassment of editors is creating a hostile workplace at Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Well considering Logologist stopped editing in November of 2007, and Nihil novi registered in April of that same year. There isn't much a block can do now. -- B s a d o w s k i 1   08:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)