Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026/Archive

Report date June 18 2009, 21:29 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by RadTek

Nrcprm2026 is a habitual sockpuppeteer. Users listed above, as well as many others to be sure all demonstrate an obsession with particular subject matters including depleted uranium, nutrition, instant runoff voting and hybrid vehicles.

Please refer to prior check users for additional information. 


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Denied. User:RadTek is using phrasing and quotations of banned user User:TDC a/k/a User:Hempbilly and is unlikely to "always" misspell the name of his alleged employer. There appears to be no interaction between James Salsman a/k/a User:Nrcprm2026 and anyone from Exelon on the RadSafe mailing list and no posts by James Salsman to RadSafe in the past year. RadTek is deleting secondary peer-reviewed sources from Depleted uranium (the only secondary sources in that entire article) and Uranium. KeepinReal (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr Salsman, your harassing emails to my supervisor was a few years ago, late 2006. A coworker of mine and member of the RadSafe list informed of this truly sad charade you put on here.


 * I dont know who tdc or hempbilly are and frankly I could care less.


 * Normally I wouldn’t waste my time, but considering how widely used a reference Wikipedia has become, I cant sit back. Your continued antics both here and on other sites make you look positively pathetic. I suggest you seek professional help. RadTek (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of weird to have my name come up here. I have no idea who RadTek even is. To the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with him/her at all. I don't believe that I have ever edited any of the pages he/she lists above, nor their talk pages.

I also have no idea who User:Noren is below, but my one and only ever edit to Cold Fusion is here,, where I fix a problem with the bibliography. I have edited the talk page for Cold Fusion but never to address any significant content questions, although I may have weighed in on a few points here and there. My involvement there was mostly tangential at best and had to do with procedural issues related to the purported topic ban of User:JedRothwell, which I later described here:.

Feel free to run your checkuser on me if you wish and report the results back here. I have nothing to hide. --GoRight (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

User:Splargo has showed up at Talk:Cold_fusion with massive knowledge of what has been going at the article despite being a new account that had never previously contributed to the article. He is defending the text that was inserted by User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams, who started editing in 18 November 2008, eight days after thelast checkuser in LossIsNotMore, and has stopped editing in 1 June 2009. Splargo has started editing in 14 June 2009. Checkusered User:IwRnHaA also defended lots of primary sources in Talk:Cold fusion to try to contradict secondary sources, just like these two users did. I would advice a checkuser to catch the whole sock farm. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GoRight arrived as an apparently experienced editor a few months after Nrcprm2026 was banned, taking a very active position in Global Warming topics as Nrcprm2026 did, and also later acting in the Cold Fusion article similarly to how Nrcprm2026 and later his sock IwRnHaA edited Cold Fusion. None of this is conclusive, but I do think a check would be worthwhile. --Noren (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RadTek is an SPA, quite possibly a sock, registered to file this report,apparently bringing here an off-wiki dispute. Enric Naval, above, has tossed in a number of accounts he'd like to check out, on the thin or zero evidence. One or two of the accounts originally listed by RadTek may indeed be Salsman socks. GoRight is extremely unlikely to be one, his politics are about the opposite of Salsman in areas I'm familiar with, and he's quite a long-term editor. (I have long experience with Salsman, I cut my teeth on socks of his, see my block record, first block.) Given the above, I'd suggest that RadTek be immediately blocked, even if he's right about Salsman and a sock or two. At the very least, this editor should be strongly warned. --Abd (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, I have responded to you on your page. Block me if you want, but I am not posting as a sockpuppet and my intentions are good. The user in question needs to have his activities here curtailed and he needs to get some help. RadTek (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a reasonable surmise that is Nrcprm2026, likewise, they are worthy of checkuser.  seems quite unlikely.  seems unlikely, but, hey, there's one under every bed.  seems almost impossible to me. With the IP editor, I'd noticed , which would be a typical Salsman edit on that topic, though not improper in itself. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The parties haven't been notified, BTW [redacted some unnecessary comment] I have no content involvement here. --Abd (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have seen cases where both the accuser and the accused were sockmasters. They turn each other in because they hate their mutual guts. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

KeepinReal's is obviously someone's sock. First edit is showing up to support GetLinkPrimitiveParams saying "peer-reviewed secondary sources", a term that newbies don't know about. Second edit is making his userpage a blue link. Third and fourth edits are massive reversals with reference to a banned editor. He has also managed to find the SPI case before being warned or notified anywhere, so he knew how to look up RadTek's contributions when his first edit was only some 8 hours ago.

More evidence that they old users that know what they are doing: GetLinkPrimitiveParams created his userpage in his first edit, Splargo created it in his sixth edit, GoRight created it in his first and he protected his identity with a hash string


 * Well, this is sort of humorous if you think that this is evidence of my having been an experienced user at the time I created my account. Humor me and actually do the following: 1) Logout, 2) Hit the login / create link on the topic right corner of the page which should bring your to, 3) Read the information on the last bullet of the suggestions provided on the bottom of the page.  Hopefully this explains why I would (a) commit to my identify in my first act after creating my account, and (b) do so when obviously NOBODY really ever does this that I am aware of.  I was "so experienced" that I had no idea how unimportant it actually was!  Not to mention the fact that I was actually reading those instructions.  Carry on.  :)  --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Splargo edits a template in his first edit, most newbies can't even find them let alone make meaningful changes to them. And his septh edit was to a policy proposal. Three days after registration he already knows to change the date in the signature so it fits the last edit to his own comment

Also, compare the initial userpages of IwRnHaA "Nothing to say here, yet...." and Splargo "Nothing to see here....". Another checkuserd sock of Nrcprm2026 created his userpage in his first edit, another in the second edit, another in first edit, another one in first edit, etc. All of them with one sentence. Too many coincidences. This is full of socks, the checkuser is just to find the correct sockmasters. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing GetLinkPrimitiveParams to other socks. He makes minor edit to Wind power like checkusered socks User:Antiparthenic and T._Boone_Pickens. His first edit is making a one sentence user page where he delimitates his area of interest, like checkusered socksUser:RCRF_Wiz, User:Pannag_Salmon and many other Nrcprm2026 from the last checkuser that was performed.

GetLinkPrimitiveParams says in his user page that he is interesed in the Gulf War Syndrome, and he removed the stress as a cause of that syndrome, with subtle tweaks to put blame in Depleted Uranium (implying relationship nerve gas, moving the most recent research out of the end of the section to bury it in the middle, etc.). Nrcprm2026 has long been obsessed with Depleted Uranium being the causant of health problems to US soldiers (this is just one example from June 2007, depleted uranium is one of the main areas of interest of this sockmaster)

GetLinkPrimitiveParams link to Splargo: insisting in that the text of the patents themselves should used as a source. Compare to, both in the same talk page. Both started a new section to defend the same idea. They proposed different patents as an example, GetLinkPrimitiveParams proposes 7381368 and Splargo proposes 6764561 adn another one. Both patents have the same authors (Miles and Imam).

GetLinkPrimitiveParams says in his user page that he is interested in Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 and has edited the article. It was also edited by Splargo and Nopetro.

Splargo and Nopetro, crossing in areas of interests: he edited Template:GalvanicCells and checkusered sock User:Neut Nuttinbutter created an article on a galvanic cell.

Similar claims of ideological persecution: Splargo, Nopetro, GoRight. And of censorship by admins: GetLinkPrimitiveParams, GoRight.


 * I am a self-professed SPA who is skeptical of global warming. It would be difficult for anyone in that position not to feel ideologically persecuted when they first started editing here.  Besides, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get me.  Just review Raul's pursuit of me, see .  After having been around the block for a while now I recognize that it is just my minority views bumping into the majority at work.  --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I now see that Enric has actually linked to my comment about Raul. Please, by all means, read that section thoroughly if you put any weight on this point at all.  Read the examples in Raul's attack page referenced therein and my actual edits in context and decide for yourself if he is being truthful in his claims.  --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Without additional evidence in the form of diffs, this request will be declined. As a general note, this is not a noticeboard for freeform discussion or the continuation of content disputes. All comments that are not both concise and specifically aimed at investigating or refuting the allegation of sockpuppetry will be removed without additional warning. Nathan  T 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I notified the parties (save GoRight, who has edited this page). Nathan  T 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence is a little thin here; making the case that these users have edited before is not the same as providing evidence that they are connected to each other. Nonetheless, since Cold fusion is the subject of arbitration cases and other enforcement and since it does appear there is some socking going on, I'll defer judgment on this one to a checkuser. Nathan  T 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RadTek, McGuiness, Fairbank Editing Man, and Pecker Checker are TDC. that Splargo and KeepinReal are Nrcprm2026. Pending further evidence, I haven't checked the other three editors. Dominic·t 05:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The four editors that are not yet checkusered are Nopetro, GetLinkPrimitiveParams, GoRight and 75.36.154.125. If I had to guess who the IP editor might be, I would say Splargo, because they both avoid capital letters in their edit summaries. He and Splargo have both edited Instant-runoff voting. I notice that User:Nopetro has been quite active lately and it would be worthwhile to check for simultaneous editing between him and some of the others that are already blocked. Simultaneous editing would tend to exclude him being a conventional sock, though he could still be a meatpuppet. (Keeping in mind that the TDC socks and the Nrcprm2026 socks are two different clubs).
 * Here are the editors who look to be the same based on lack of capital letters in edit summaries: The IP, Splargo, GetLinkPrimitiveParams and KeepinReal. GoRight looks different, since he employs capital letters freely. Nopetro seems to not use edit summaries at all. GoRight has been in plenty of trouble in the past, but the evidence for him being either TDC or Nrcprm2026 seems to be the weakest, out of all the accounts listed here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that GetLinkPrimitiveParams is Nrcprm2026. GoRight and Nopetro are ❌. Dominic·t 08:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date August 6 2009, 15:49 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Nrcprm2026 likes leaving clues about his socks, and this username is descriptive of the topics covered by the last two socks at the same page (User:GetLinkPrimitiveParams and User:Splargo at Talk:Cold fusion from the last SPI). I told him at his talkpage that, since he was raising a possibly valid point, I wouldn't send to WP:SPI unless he started caused disruption. Now I notice that a few days ago he presented evidence to an arbitration case, invoking WP:IAR to justify irreasonable actions like Nrcprm2026 does. In that case one sock of a different user had already posted evidence and it had been removed, and another editor was being researched to use if it was an inappropriate sock. I think that this user is experienced enough to know that is crossing the line in disruption, so here we are. Checkuser requested since Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore had a few sockfarms.
 * Evidence submitted by Enric Naval


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * for CU attention. NW ( Talk ) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, as well as . IPs blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Tiptoety  talk 00:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
The IP address showed up as a "new" user at Cold Fusion pushing the same fringe sources. Geolocates to the known location of Nrcprm2026. This article is under ArbCom sanction. It's being ovverun with "new" users as IP addresses, and users who needed to create new accounts because their old accounts were associated with their IDs. Proven socks of James Salsman are subject to immediate indefinite block; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026.

The Dual Use user is less certain - while the edits to Nutrition and Cold Fusion mark it as a possible Nrcprm2026, it seems more likely to be an editor banned by ArbCom returning to the article on their expiry of their ban. If located in Belgium, the Dual Use user is in the clear ArbComwise (but needs to stick with one username as opposed to using logged-out IP socks), while if not, it appears to be more likely Nrcprm2026. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
This accusation is being made primarily because the accuser is unable or unwilling to discuss improvements to the Cold fusion article on the merits. Hipocrite makes undiscussed reverts to that article, and has refused to become familiar with the peer-reviewed literature, as evidenced by the fact that Hipocrite was unaware that Shanahan was the last to publish a peer-reviewed report on his side of the issue, and by the fact that Hipocrite is referring to the U.S. Navy SPAWAR center and Naturwissenschaften as fringe sources, by implication on Talk:Cold fusion, and explicitly here in this accusation, contrary to mediation findings in which the accuser participated.

I strongly object to this attempt to expose my identity, and ask that my privacy be protected. Whatever the results for either of the accused, please keep their identities confidential, and please do not share them beyond the checkuser functionaries investigating. Also please state the false positive and false negative rates for these sorts of investigations, if possible, so that people have a better understanding of how to interpret the results. Thank you. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Above, Hipocrite states "the same fringe sources" but does not specify. That's an accusation equivalent to "witchcraft!" (worthless without details) Not to mention, as far as I can see in the Cold Fusion Talk page, the actual sources being "pushed" by the accused user are grouped under the European "Springer Link" brand, which actually is generally well-regarded and not at all "fringe". There was an attempt some months ago, simply because a Springer journal like "Naturwissenschaften" dared to publish a CF-related article, to declare that the journal had become "fringe", but that attempt was overruled, and Hipocrite was an active user at that time, so should know this. In consequence the current accusation looks to me like an unwarranted/baseless/false smear campaign, an inappropriate thing for any unbiased Wikipedia editor to be doing. V (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Hipocrite has recently more than once on the Cold Fusion Talk page made this statement: "Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory." --but he has not defined "fringe theory". I speculated (in the "Deuteron tunnelling at electron-volt energies" section) that he was regarding the entirety of the CF field as fringe, and (in a couple places on the talk page, not necessarily only responding to Hipocrite) tried to show that the field can be divided into two parts: Reports of production of anomalous energy, and Interpretations of that as being caused by fusion. I agree that the interpretation aspect can be fringe, but the reports aspect appears to have become more and more solid in recent years ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2009.06.061 was only published about six months ago and is in one of the most highly respected of physics journals). The problem is that if the anomalous energy is real, then it needs an explanation, and despite being labeled "fringe", the interpretation that fusion is involved is far-and-away the most-offered explanation (a kind of consensus), in a multitude of hypotheses. Each one of those hypotheses might also be labeled "fringe", entirely due to lack of consensus about its details.

So, what is Hipocrite trying to achieve by making the remark quoted at the start of the previous paragraph? To the extent that anomalous energy production is real, it cannot be "fringe", and to the extent there is consensus that the most reasonable explanation is fusion (by whatever unknown mechanism), that aspect of the CF field begins to less-and-less qualify as "fringe"! What can Wikipedia allow, in terms of covering relevant research, when the CF field is almost at the point where it needs to theorize about detailed energy production mechanisms, and expermentally figure out which hypothesis is correct? Note that until consensus is reached, every single proposal would continue to qualify as "fringe", and could on those grounds be excluded from being mentioned in the article. But that would leave the article completely unable to keep up with developing events. I have therefore stated that all the hypotheses could be mentioned, which gives none of them more "weight" than any of the others (and could have historical record-value later). Hipocrite never bothered to reply, to explain his position in more detail. I'm still waiting.... V (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

– Rest assured that the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy ensures that information brought up by CheckUsers remain confidential. MuZemike 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I'm just going to close this case, since saying anything "official" would be difficult. I will say that the checkuser results are.... rather interesting. Any parties who are gaming the system here know who they are, and what they are doing. Please stop using multiple accounts, or you will leave me no choice but to block all of you, or publicly connect you with your underlying IP addresses so that blocks may be placed against creating more accounts. J.delanoy gabs adds 22:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by WVBluefield
Nrcprm2026 is blocked for edit warring and using sockpuppets. It seems that all of his edits revolve around depleted uranium and articles relating to it.

After a significant rewrite of Gulf War syndrome to bring it up to FA or at least GA status, an anonymous IP made several edits (many of them productive and constructive I might add) and singled out changes in the article to the portion pertaining to uranium munitions. After going through the article history and looking into the IP's contributions, I came to the conclusion that the IP's were Nrcprm2026 and he has admitted as much over at ANI.

He has also accused me of being both users User:Hempbilly and User:TDC, which I am not, but if it puts everyone at ease and as long as none of my personal information is made public then I have no problem with my link with these accounts being investigated. WVBluefield (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
WVBluefield is making this accusation immediately after breaking 3RR and removing a dispute tag and several peer reviewed secondary sources from Gulf War syndrome. I recommend taking WVBluefield's advice and investigating his edit history overlap with Hempbilly and the much older account TDC. Please keep any personal information you might find out about me private. I have filed a report of the dispute at WP:3O per the instructions at WP:AN3. Thank you. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Re the 3O request: Per WP:3O, "The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors in the discussion." In light of the accusations of sockpuppetry and edit warring made both here and at Talk:Gulf War syndrome, this dispute does not currently meet the good faith and civility standards required for a 3O opinion and has been removed from the list of active disputes at WP:3O. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 16:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Under that theory, 3O could never be used to de-escalate a conflict. Every step of conflict resolution should have the ability to de-escalate. If you don't believe me, ask Ward Cunningham. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

99.27.201.92 is also hitting Talk:cold fusion, another typical target of Nrcprm2026. All IPs probably from same editor:
 * notice "(...) that anyone (that) has ever been banned from this article for trying to represent in the article"
 * This IP has edited the "uranium exposure" section in Gulf War syndrome and Talk:Cold fusion and a depleted uranium discussion in another article. Total WP:DUCK.

Please check if it overlaps with user "Dual Use" above. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by WVBluefield (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * per WP:DUCK, as MastCell says below. The Dual Use account appears to have ceased editing; if that changes, we can ask J.delanoy to follow up with his previous findings. Nathan  T 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * This one is quacking in a deafening fashion. It looks like one user on a dynamic IP, so I've blocked the most recent one,, for 24 hours. No sense hitting them all with blocks since the IP is changing; probably more fruitful to semiprotect the target articles and/or talk pages. MastCell Talk 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Closed with the recommendation that semiprotection be used on the small number of articles targeted. Nathan  T 22:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
. Quack. Can we get a range block and/or a one-year semi of all the affected articles and talk pages at this point? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Dual Use has begun editing again. I have pinged J. Delanoy in his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * J. Delanoy has already answered, and I'm satisfied with this answer. This can probably be closed now. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
For convenience, can you provide a full list (here or on my talk page) of articles that need the protection? I will implement a six-month semi-protection on all of the articles and associated talk pages. The IPs change too often for blocks to be effective and semi-protection would have relatively little collateral damage. Vassyana (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Holding off action on the named account until J. Delanoy can chime in. Vassyana (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are looking for... J.delanoy gabs adds  19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The named account has almost certainly edited while logged out, but I am not sure if he did anything really wrong with it. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  18:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions
Semi-protected and, and associated talk pages, for six months. Watchlisted and  to watch for returns of this editors. (The former because the collateral damage from semi-protection would be too high to be justified currently. The latter because it is too low traffic.) Vassyana (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Why was this closed - "Holding off action on the named account until J. Delanoy can chime in," from above. Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't read the above correctly. –MuZemike 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Report date February 2 2010, 15:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Seems likely from this possible identifying information and the contributions of the sock to Depleted uranium and cold fusion (two places this user was problematically editing before being banned). ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ScienceApologist (talk)
 * diff from 99.56.138.51 about depleted uraniumdiff from Nrcprm2026 about depleted uranium
 * accusatory diff about cold fusion from Nrcprm2026 accusatory diff to kirk shanahan about cold fusion by 99.56.138.51

Also see Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore for more background.
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I confirm that, in the diff provided by SA, the identifying information for "off-campus volunteer" is the one corresponding to the person behind the Nrcprm2026 account. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users

The IP has continued a discussion that Nrcprm2026 started back in December (using the IP 99.27.134.160 ). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested by ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

99.27.134.160 hasn't done anything in over a month, so there's no point looking there. 99.56.138.51 hasn't done much particularly evil but the link to meta combined with the RFCU link strongly suggests this is JamesS, so blocking for a week. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Query -- isn't a community ban evasion considered problematic? I'm all for redemption, but there are proper channels to do this that would be more than obvious to a seasoned editor such as this one. This user is not supposed to be editing Wikipedia at all and is, in fact, continuing to fight old fights that he was banned from editing Wikipedia for fighting. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things that I note:
 * You are right that banned editors should not edit.
 * This user has hopped way past any /16 range that is safe to block (either anon-only or hardblocked). Technically, we can only do so much (unless there are other IPs in there in between that have edited this month) to try and prevent further socking, while at the same time, allow other uninvolved users to edit. –MuZemike 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
Bay area, Cold fusion, Gulf War Syndrome/Uranium.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

no need for checkuser here, it's a duck. The range is far too wide for a range block (as has been previously noted), may achieve something to block the current IP though, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 03:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
California. Uranium. Quack. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
quack, quack. Block, block. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
99.56.136.0/22 is a bit busy for a rangeblock. An edit filter is suggested for stuff like this as this user is known to hop across many /16 ranges, making it impossible to pin down one single block (not to mention the potential collateral damage). –MuZemike 20:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
California. Depleated Uranium. Cold Fusion. Quack. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Quacks. Furthermore, they already admitted who they were. IP looks stable, so blocked for 1 month. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:medium; color:#4682B4;"> E lockid</b>  ( Talk ) 14:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

24 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

SPA for Cold Fusion, just like User:IwRnHaA. Note that they give the same excuse in the user pages for not revealing their other accounts is the same excuse given for other cold fusion socks: IwRnHaA, KeepinReal and Dual Use.

The block on the last sock expired in 21 June 2010, this user is created a month later in 23 July 2010.

Quacks like a WP:DUCK: same interest in Mossier-Boss, use of conference papers and recent papers to POV push pro-fusion edits (compare #ARL to old sock #Some_RS_and_Non-RS_news), wikilawyering weak sources to replace stronger ones, wikilawyering experimental details, OR, etc. Quack, quack.

Please block him per WP:DUCK, and then run a checkuser to find his sock farm. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Enric Naval (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hum, could this be related to Sockpuppet investigations/Mac? His sock User:Nopetro was blocked in 27 June 2010, and these three accounts were created two days before the block, in 25 June. I see that Mac edited renewable energy and car articles, and the "Why Other" sock edits articles related to those topics.


 * Ah, whatever, there are too many similarities with Nrcprm2026, like versus . --Enric Naval (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Whether this is a new incarnation or an old incarnation, the fact that this particular user is using multiple accounts whether to WP:AVOID or to WP:SOCK seems unacceptable to me. They need to pick one account and stay with it, at the very least. Two of those accounts have been active at cold fusion which is unacceptable. jps (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Why Other" only made 1 edit to Cold fusion shortly after his cold fusion sock. I think that Nrcprm2026 simply slipped and edited under the wrong sock. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While that idea might have merit, which alternative is likely to lead to better improvements in the encyclopedia in a case like this when emotions become involved? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Nrcprm2026 is a POV pusher who had already been topic-banned from Climate Change because he damaged the encyclopedia. He also relentlessly POV pushed in other articles. No emotions are involved here, let's not pretend that he was unjustly banned or anything like that. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Nrcprm2026 was banned for violating ArbCom restrictions on editing Depleted uranium back when there was a controversy about its toxicity. That controversy was resolved by various medical and military authorities, some of which were already published in the secondary sources during the controversy. There was never a topic ban of Nrcprm2026 from any climate change articles. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: Hum. Hello, Nrcprm2026. Let me get this into context. Let's see, in the Depleted Uranium case you were only banned from Depleted uranium. But about a year later you were topic banned from the Climate change article for 3 months (proof). I note that you were topic banned so swiftly because the arb case had placed you under probation. Five months later, when the Climate change topic ban had already expired, you were indefinitely blocked for sockpuppeting while being under probation, with the aggravation that you already had a history of sockpupetting (P.D. Sorry, yes, the sock was editing Depleted uranium, so, technically, you are right in that the violation of your topic ban played a role in your ban). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: P.D. Oh, and, look the sock that got you fully banned used the same excuse that the socks above. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ADDED AFTER ARCHIVAL: P.D.D.: Yes, and maybe you were right in some of your Depleted Uranium edits, but you were topic banned because of behaviour reasons. From the arb case "Obsessive or tendentious editors may be banned (...) Tendentious editing 2) [name removed by me] has engaged in sustained and aggressive point of view editing to depleted uranium and associated articles (...) Edit warring 4) [name removed by me] ([16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22], etc.) and TDC ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27], etc.) have engaged in edit warring on Depleted uranium and related articles. Others have engaged in edit warring to a lesser degree.". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ the following three users are the same person: Please note, however, that all of the accounts in the archive are. Furthermore, looking at the logs, these accounts appear ❌ to Nrcprm2026 (as that account existed last time checkuser was run). TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 15:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a comment on which of the three is the sockmaster? Nakon  10:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, but only because it was created first. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't tagged them while people are deciding on who to class as the master and the like, but I've indefed all three editors.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I went with Why Other. All tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

15 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This idiot again, hitting the same pages. He is either User:Nrcprm2026 or User:Why Other. *Sigh* I mean. Judging by his contributions, and comparing to past socks that have edited the same pages, this person appears to be the person behind User:Nrcprm2026. It's also similar to, who had a different sockmaster.

I am not going to bother wasting my time again with OR-filled discussions. After several polite discussions with him, I ended up concluding that it wasn't worth my time discussing his original research with him. He disrupts the talk page with continuous POV-pushing of some theory or other, trying to use primary sources to POV-push stuff. He has been unrepentantly pushing crackpot theories in Wikipedia for years (proof).

Run a checkuser to find his usual sock farm. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

I can easily refute these claims. I have nothing to hide and am perfectly willing to disclose my identity and credentials to the appropriate Wikipedia authorities. As a practicing scientist in the field of materials chemistry I am eminently qualified to comment on the research I recommended be included in the cold fusion article. I have performed related electro-deposition experiments for the purpose of generating rough metals films for electronic device applications. I have no theory of cold-fusion to propose and do not wish to mention theory at all. I simply stated that the reproducible experimental observation of high energy particles from an electrochemical experiment that has been refined and repeated for more than 5 years be updated (earlier references are already included in the article).

My interest in this topic originated with the recent claims of cold fusion made in Italy. The outrageous nature of the announcements made in mid January spurred me to examine the subject of cold fusion. After plowing through much of the available information I have determined that there is some strong peer-reviewed evidence for the phenomenon. In science repeatable experimental evidence trumps mathematical models and opinion. The fact that no one has refuted the claims of high energy particle tracks observed over the past several years and published repeatedly in the European Physical Journal of Applied Physics, is telling and should be included in the cold fusion article more prominently. The fact that it is not is a condemnation of the quality of the editors of the article.

As the topic of cold fusion gains a more sound experimental footing, divorced from absurd open system calorimetric measurements, and focused on direct measurement of high energy particles generated in reproducible experimental apparatus, perhaps it is time that a higher class of editor take over deciding what research is appropriate to include.

A science article should present information using a science based approach. This approach is sorely lacking in the article. The discussion page is dominated by people who appear unable accept or recognize solid experimental evidence when they see it (as evidenced by the fact that this investigation was begun on whim by some other person on the cold fusion discussion page)

I have already shared the fruits of my investigations into cold fusion with several of my colleagues the unanimous conclusion was that the high energy particles observed in the experiments I mentioned on the discussion page cannot arise from regular chemical reactions. You can expect a lot more activity on this page in the coming years from more professional minds. Please consider some form of sanction against the originator of this baseless complaint to discourage this type of behavior in the future as it detracts from the quality of editor the article is likely to attract.

I won't make any changes to the article until you rule on this investigation. Should you rule that I am not a "sockpuppet", please consider barring my accuser from reverting the small changes I proposed to the article.Crawdaddy74 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - T. Canens (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks ❌. Tiptoety  talk 02:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

16 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It's just a hunch, but Admiral Bimbo showed up right after Dualus was blocked and he went to the same user talk page and posted a similar notice. Being a new user, it is strange that he went to the Dualus talk page and posted there. He had never interacted with Dualus before because Dualus was blocked, so it is highly unlikely that he would have known Dualus existed. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2011 (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

 * They appear ❌ to one another. The edits are highly suspicious though. Tiptoety  talk 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Suspicious, but I think it more likely that they're friends. Take it to AIV if they get disruptive. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

20 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

At 9:56 7 November 2011, user Dualus was indefinitely blocked for Disruptive editing: Tendentious Editing. Most of these edits were with respect to 99 Percent Declaration and other related pages (e.g. Health care reform in the United States). User Dualus then made several edits to his/her talk page on 7 November appealing his/her block. That appeal failed.

At 20:11 11 November 2011, new user user 67.6.160.67 made an edit to User Jimbo Whales’s talk page   This edit was determined to be an attempt by Dualus to circumvent his block. It was reversed at 1:33 12 November 2011

Five hours later at 6:44 12 November 2011, user 24.161.123.221 made the first of several edits to 99 Percent Declaration and its talk page. Prior to this edit, user 24.161.123.221 had not made an  edit to Wikipedia since two edits made in 2006. These two edits were vandalism of Joshua Bolton.

The current edits by user 24.161.123.221 are of the same tone and subject matter as prior Dualus edits. They include continual pushing of unreliable sources, non response to other editor inquiries, repeatedly linking to 99 percent declaration promotional material (upcoming TV ad) and a legal threat to another Wikipedia editor. See Nowa (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2011 (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

 * - CU won't connect IPs to an account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The 67 IP is more or less stale, but the 24 IP isn't. Blocked three days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

10 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I suspect the above IPs are socks of the (indefinitely blocked) user Dualus. I've been engaged in a discussion with 67.6.175.184 regarding material in the articles on dark matter and cold dark matter. This material concerns a very obscure theory by a specific individual (a physicist named Paul Frampton). Looking back at the edit history, I see that it was Dualus that added this material in the first place, before his/her ban. Dualus also edited the intermediate mass black holes page, adding material very similar to some that 67.6.175.184 added here (scroll down). 67.6.145.217 made similar edits (to Frampton's page, and to the dark matter article). By itself this is only suggestive. Digging deeper I see that Dualus is interested in the effects of certain pesticides on insects, specifically bees, another rather obscure subject. Here 67.6.175.184 edited an article on, you guessed it, the effects of a pesticide on bees. Here's another diff of Dualus' interest in pesticides (this time on ticks). I think that's enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a check-user/sock-puppet case. In addition, the tendentious editing style seems very similar. EDIT - more evidence (as if it was needed). I see that here (scroll down to the edit by Chzz under the last appeal box) there is a link to a block evasion edit by a sock of Dualus. The IP used was 67.6.160.67.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 04:25, 10 February 2012 (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

 * CU will not connect IPs to an account, and Dualus is more or less stale anyway. Still, I've blocked both IPs for a week each on behavioral grounds. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

07 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Showed up on 6 March 2012, immediately continued a stale thread (follow-on to this one) pushing an interpretation of dark matter (MACHOs) that is mostly ruled out. Also seems to have started a reference desk thread to push the same thing. This has been the vast majority of their activity on Wikipedia (only three unrelated edits). Knowing where to go for all of this is very suspicious, and doing this right after a couple of IPs were blocked as socks of a previous editor pushing this is very suspicious. Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2012 (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
--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * . Please provide diffs to support your request for checkuser. Please provide two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided (around one sentence is enough for this).


 * Closing: No further evidence has been presented, and Npmay has actually edited several other topics now now which weakens the original argument. Amalthea  13:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

03 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Summary: Npmay acknowledges using frequently changing IP addresses to avoid scrutiny. Dozens of IPs can be easily identified. I have singled out three below, as they are unambiguously connected to Npmay, and telltale features of their talk page comments are strong evidence that they are the same person as indef-blocked editor Dualus. Disruption is primarily through repetitive, tendentious activity and misrepresentation of sources on talk pages. Please excuse the length of the evidence. The amount of raw data is staggering, and I've tried to boil it down to a minimum that clearly establishes the current misuse of IPs and the connection to Dualus. Can provide more info on any point if needed.

The Dualus account edited 2011-05-08 through 2011-05-26 and again 2011-09-13 until indef blocked by Spartaz on 2011-11-07. The user reported half a decade of prior editing, mostly as an IP, implying that there are likely one or more previous accounts. After being indef blocked as Dualus, the user continued to edit as an IP (see discussion at []). Some characteristic features of the Dualus account's edits:
 * Tendentious misuse and misrepresentation of sources, which are presented again and again without any apparent understanding of other editors' opposition. See the history at Talk:Occupy Wall Street ca. 2011-11-4.

This last point usually leads to a few idiosyncrasies that are very telling:
 * Reversing the burden of proof by asking other editors to specifically show how the sources don't support his reading, (with the curious phrase "Are there any sources which you think don't match the claims?")
 * A curious line of reasoning that, because WP:LEAD says to include controversies in the lead, and there are two points of view about item X, item X must be mentioned in the lead. This is used to push inclusion of very minor viewpoints in the lead. ,
 * Characterizes uniform consensus against his edits as tag-teaming [].

The Npmay account edited 2012-03-06 through 2012-03-19; again 2012-04-02 and 2012-04-18; and again since 2012-07-30. Npmay acknowledges editing while logged out and deliberately changing IP addresses frequently. It's easy to make likely connections with a number of the IP's, but I'll include only two that are relevant and unambiguous.
 * Responds directly to a direct question for Special:Contributions/71.212.231.71 at Talk:Clothianidin. This links Npmay clearly to the series of IPs at Talk:Clothianidin that follow the same tendentious editing practices that got Dualus blocked.
 * The 71.212 IP uses the characteristic "Which source doesn't mention X?"
 * An earlier IP incarnation in the same thread, Special:Contributions/222.165.255.198, uses both the "Which sources don't..." formula and the odd WP:LEAD argument to get around dodgy sourcing .  IP was blocked after discussion at [SPI page].  Note Tiptoety's comment suggesting a link to an unknown, previous arbcom-banned account.
 * makes talk page post very similar to Special:Contributions/207.224.43.139's post less than one hour apart.  Both posts acknowledge the underlying fact: Npmay uses IP addresses to try to hide from scrutiny where a large number of unrelated editors have found problems with his edits across many articles.  Later response at SarahStierch's user talk  acknowledges deliberately changing IPs to hide tracks.
 * Same IP responds to Npmay's post at Talk:Dark matter.  There is a history on this page at least of keeping Npmay as a separate persona from the IPs. Amble (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very tellingly: Same IP, on Jimbo's talk, advocates IAR as justification for creating a new account to evade an indef block. --Amble (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: Dualus, Npmay, and the IPs are certainly all User:Nrcprm2026 / User:LossIsNotMore, an arbcom-banned user who is already known to have used a large number of sock puppets and IP addresses. I think this connection can be established from edit histories. However, I also happened across unambiguous proof of this that reveals the user's real name, so I'm hesitant to post it. On the other hand, he has publicly linked his accounts to his real name on many occasions, so perhaps it's OK for me to do the same. Advice? (My attempt to add Nrcprm2026 to the suspected sock list didn't take. Perhaps you can't add after the fact?)  --Amble (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Added live IP sock User:70.59.11.32. --Amble (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the current IPs are causing very similar trouble at Gulf War syndrome to Nrcprm2026's edits from 2007 . --Amble (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's the uranium trioxide stuff again, it's time to go to Arbitration Enforcement, as that's a large part of what got him in trouble in the first place (per WP:Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium). Pointers about the AE process are in the thread on my talk page already. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see uranium trioxide on the current talk page. I'm not very familiar with the topic and would not venture to judge the subject matter.  The similarities I can see are in use of sources, style of argument, and equating GWS with depleted uranium toxicity.  The specific trioxide claims seem to have gone out with the Nrcprm2026 account, but the current IP edits looks similar to other aspects of the Nrcprm2026 edits and to subsequent socks such as LossIsNotMore.  --Amble (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: Now also returning to Talk:Cold fusion, where Nrcprm2026, identified Nrcprm2026 sock Selery and suspected sock Dual Use (and perhaps others?) previously got into trouble. --Amble (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just adding a comment here in case you miss my reply elsewhere: Even under those conditions, revealing a name or other identity information is a big no-no. If I understand correctly, the right way to present this evidence is to pick an arbcom member, then use wiki-email to say that you _have_ this information (and give the link to this SPI), and wait for _them_ to instruct you on how to present it to them. If I'm mistaken about the procedure, they'll give you the correct one. Thanks again for your diligent work collecting IP sock information! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Update
 * Adding Special:Contributions/71.215.68.200 to the mix. This user replied in a thread on Talk:Cold fusion picking up on comment aimed at 75.166.207.214, casually continuing the conversation. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Update
 * The same person is continuing to cause exactly the same type of disruption at Talk:Gulf War syndrome, as 71.212.250.193. --Amble (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And new IPs and accounts are appearing as needed to carry on Nrcprm2026's revert warring at Gulf War syndrome. --Amble (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I had flagged as a possible sockpuppet on 7 March 2012 (per the archive linked at the top of this page). I am only familiar with the threads at Talk:Dark matter, but there appears to be a never-ending stream of IP editors who show up to push the same minority view (that dark matter is in the form of black holes, usually pushing the views of a researcher named Frampton). Npmay exhibited similar behavior at the time of my previous report, and has returned to Talk:Dark matter recently. Beyond that, Amble's analysis is much more comprehensive than my own. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After a brief check online, I too found circumstantial evidence that the threads I was involved with were being pushed by User:Nrcprm2026. Due to WP:OUTING concerns, I'll refrain from citing it here. Arbcom can ping me if it's needed (or arbitrators can post a note here if Amble is correct about Nrcprm2026's identity being public knowledge). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * . Mdann52 (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Right from the start this guy looked like an old banned editor who cannot stay away. That impression just strengthens with every edit. Block the socks and let's move on. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amble's evidence is strong, especially and . Time to send this guy to the showers. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Sven Manguard: I don't immediately see how to make an edit filter that would help, but I'll think about it. There are a few existing edit filters designed for specific sock masters, but they are (sensibly) out of public view.  --Amble (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO it would be very difficult to make a regex that would catch the talk:dark matter edits without also having a lot of false positives (catching anyone who talked about primordial black holes, intermediate mass black holes, or Frampton, for example). It would also be easy to circumvent most such filters through careful choice of words. My impression is that filters like this are most useful against editors who repeatedly cut-and-paste the same screeds or who use very specific phrases obsessively, and that doesn't seem to be the case for the slice of edits that I've had direct experience with. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Let's check for sleepers. Note that the CU will not link the named accounts to IPs.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, considering the circumstances, have you explored the feasibility of an edit filter targeted at this user's specific abuses? I'm not read in enough to know if it would work, but it's one way of proactively dealing with IP hopping problem users.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Npmay has no sleepers, everything else is . -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  22:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

29 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User has large knowledge of Wikipedia policy and editing despite being a new user, which would normally be no cause for alarm, had some other behaviors not have triggered the suspection of sockpuppetry. I looked over the histories of both users after I read an accusation on his talk page of him being "selery", and first noticed both users extreme hatred and willingness to remove the GNAA article and those who edit it in a neutral light. No matter what you think of the subject, this was evidence enough to keep looking (on User talk:Selery he swears he'll have it removed, i.e. make more socks). I then noticed that Cupco edits the same type of pages that Selery and his socks have, those relating to engery, enviornment, health, etc., just look over Special:Contributions/Nrcprm2026, Special:Contributions/Selery, and Special:Contributions/Cupco. I believe this is enough for the case to be looked into. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that I only discovered this after Cupco stated I was a sockpuppet of banned user LiteralKa, which I deny. Maractus (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I testify that Maractus is not a sockpuppet. He is an independent editor. Cupco has exhibited all the traits of being a sockpuppet. Cupco went as far as accusing me of being a sockpuppet when I delivered the accusations.His extreme prejudice against the existence of the GNAA article and his harassment of me proves that he has bad intentions. Basedircrory (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a retaliatory fishing expedition for Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa. I came across the GNAA article because it was nominated for GA status. I failed it, but did not try to delete it. Initially I worked trying to improve it. I am not a new editor, but my previous abandoned account was associated with my name, location, and employer, which I want to avoid for reasons which should be obvious here. I have no mainspace or article talk page overlaps with Selery per, just village pump, noticeboards, and the like. I do share editing on Alternative fuel, Carbon tax, Climate change mitigation, Economics of global warming, Progressive tax, Renewable energy, Sustainable energy, and Wind power with Nrcprm2029, but those are all very high-traffic articles in broadly overlapping areas of interest, out of several thousands of edits between us. My interest in those articles has been carbon neutral fuels such as synthetic methane (e.g., ) and current statistics while Nrcprm2026's was more general (, , .) &mdash; Cup co  15:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yeah, -, sorry, and there isn't enough evidence to run a case here -  A l is o n  ❤ 00:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

03 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaeldsuarez/Sockpuppetry Basedircrory (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC) In this page User:Michaeldsuarez proves that Cupco is a sockpuppet of Dualus and Nrcprm2026. Read the page. Excerpt from the page is as follows: "Cupco is a relatively new account. The account was created in late August 2012. Early on, Cupco contributed heavily to en:Birth_control. Cupco's first revision to his or her user talk page hints at Cupco formerly being an anonymous (IP address) user. Which anonymous user? Let's start by examining the anonymous contributors to en:Birth_control from before August 28th:


 * 70.59.11.32 – Qwest, Reference desk.
 * 75.166.200.250 – Qwest, Reference desk.

Both IP addresses belong to Qwest. Both participated in en:Talk:Birth_control. Both contribute to enwiki's Reference desk. Now, compare these IP addresses to Cupco. They look very similar, don't they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basedircrory (talk • contribs)

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

I have two articlespace overlaps with the IP addresses in question above ("they look very similar, don't they") -- that's 1/4 as many as with the previous retaliatory fishing expedition from an a GNAA sympathizer. Now the banned GNAA members and/or sympathizers are going after me in retaliation for whatever reason. See, , , and. &mdash; Cup co  02:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The 75.166.200.250 editor is very clearly Dualus / Npmay / Nrcprm2026 / LessIsNotMore. The IP's very first edit very clearly establishes this, as it is part of a long series of exchanges pushing some unique ideas about dark matter. I believe the series of edits at birth control and the talk page are enough to establish that Cupco is the same as 75.166.200.250. --Amble (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also not hard to find evidence to tie Cupco directly to the person behind the Dualus / Npmay / Nrcprm2026 / LessIsNotMore accounts, which as before I hesitate to post because it could be personally identifying. --Amble (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this information, I had previously opened an SPI but it was dismissed without CU. Maractus (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: - Cupco has since quit over, "off-wiki harassment of family". I advise the CU go on regardless. Maractus (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He's done something very similar with previous accounts (e.g. Npmay). It usually means he'll move to rotating IPs, but he sometimes does come back to the account later (e.g.  Npmay again).  We should block the identified sock accounts and be on the lookout for new IPs.  --Amble (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * If you wish to make a case, please provide your evidence here, including the name of the suspect. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Running a check - I have evidence provided by email --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do believe Cupco is Npmay, although the CU evidence is only . No comment on the IPs other than back through the sock history, there are repeated incidents of IP editors with the same ISP and geo who do nothing but haunt the reference desks, although Npmay/Cupco were not of that habit. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Added tag and block notice. Declining action on IPs at this time as they are likely stale.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

09 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I've been on Wikipedia for more than 7 years, 16,000+ edits. I believe this is the first time I've ever submitted a Sockpuppet report. The editors activity very closely resembles the activity and editing behavior of User:Cupco (talk · contribs), aka Dualus. I primarily watch tax and gov spending articles. It's a fairly limited group, so you get to know the behavior and editors. In particular, images / graphs for such articles is an even smaller group. Cupco had a very unique discussion style and a repetitive pattern when placing images and defending the use of images. These user accounts exhibit identical behaviors and in the same articles and images. Cupco was banned on 6 October and Paum89 pops up on 7 October. As seen by the history, Dualus is adept at using multiple accounts at once (more than one computer). I believe the check user is necessary because I'm not aware of another way to confirm the sock - the pattern of evidence is strong, but can only go so far before a check is needed, which is where I think we're at. Morphh  (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 18:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Dualus almost drove me to the brink of insanity. I wasted hundreds of hours because of him. If you want to see some of his behavior look at the early pages of the Occupy Wall Street article. Gandydancer (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Dualus and Cupco were both determined to be sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026/Npmay/LossIsNotMore, who has a history of sockpuppetry going back several years to block evasion regarding Requests for arbitration/Depleted uranium. He has since then operated a hundred or so different accounts. Note also that Paum89's account was created within 24 hours of Cupco being blocked. Gabbe (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Ok, is ✅ as being a sock of Cupco/Nrcprm2026.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing Paum89 with tag and closing.

14 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It didn't take long. Paum89 banned on Nov 11th, Vilonermo created on Nov 12th and right back to it. Can't anything more be done? This guy just keeps creating new accounts. I believe a checkuser is probably needed to verify, but it's him, no doubt. Morphh  (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 17:05, 14 November 2012 (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

 * Yeah, ✅, and time to start applying rangeblocks. 70.59.0.0/20 softblocked for 1 month - A l is o n  ❤ 19:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked and tagged Vilonermo. Gabbe (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

14 November 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

by user is a question of why we are deleting the edits from the sockmaster (see second link). Gabbe (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2012 (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

 * ✅ - possible rangeblock to follow if this starts to get out of hand again - A l is o n  ❤ 21:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Jafeluv (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

17 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I am most familiar with this user's sock, Cupco. He seems to have reemerged as Neo Poz. The Neo Poz accounted started five days ago and has contributed 190 edits, which demonstrate a facility with Wikipedia markup and Wikiproject features. Neo Poz has claimed to have had previous account "years ago" (see User:Neo Poz), but the editor's facility with Wikipedia markup and procedures raises suspicion for someone who claims not to have edited recently. Neo Poz's interests are substantially similar to the socks of Nrcprm2026: he edits on renewable energy, climate change, healthcare, corporate profits, corporate taxes, and tax havens.

Neo Poz has added charts uploaded by Cupco to articles (File:US employment 1995-2012.png)here and here.

Cupco dumped he same text on corporate profits, tax havens, and unemployment on multiple economics pages (see Macroeconomics). Neo Poz has exhibited a similar pattern, dumping text on corporate taxes and profits on Aggregate demand, Business cycle, Economic growth, Economics, and Macroeconomics (See example).

Both Cupco and Neo Poz  exhibit an interest in emphasizing "effective" tax rates on corporate tax in the United States.

Neo Poz, with no other edits on the page, moves graphs originally added by Cupco (File:US_household_wealth_by_education.png and File:US household income by education.png).

Both Cupco (File:US bank deposits 1995-2012.png) and Neo Poz (File:US corporate profits and business investment.png) upload graphs from the Fed's FRED tool and label them as public domain when the Federal Reserve is not part of the federal government, and it's works are not subject to this license (IMO, FRED graph copyrights would belong to the creator, but the point is the same mistake is made by both accounts). Bkwillwm (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noticed Cupco was banned under another sock, Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus. --Bkwillwm (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, the user compare report, which shows other similarities, shows that Neo Poz and Cupco  used WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Cupco used this extensively, over 20 edits on the page.--Bkwillwm (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think is in error. Cupco has already been confirmed to be a sock of Nrcprm2026 and blocked accordingly. The question is whether Neo Poz is a sockpuppet of Cupco/Dualus/Nrcprm2026. Gabbe (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Unfortunately Cupco is so a check would not generate anything useful here. Use behavior. Rschen7754 04:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cupco has not edited since October, so a CU would be useless as the servers do not retain CU data for that long. --Rschen7754 11:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

26 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I recognize this guy instantly, reviewed his edits - this guy is Cupco / Nrcprm2026 / Dualus. (Note that the Dualus archive should be moved to Nrcprm2026). More recent sock accounts for CU verification are Pltr6, Vilonermo, Paum89. His pattern is unique and easy to identify. I hadn't even realized someone else had reported the same thing until I got here to report it. The guy is constantly creating socks and getting around the system. I don't think this is fishing, this is what he does - please stop him. Alison mentioned a range block last time (Dualus page). Morphh  (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC) 04:42, 26 February 2013 (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

 * Since I've been asked to look over this case. Ok, the following are ✅, with links to Cupco/Dualus;




 * plus constant logging out and in to make controversial edits on certain popular pages (like Jimbo's talk page) - A l is o n  ❤ 07:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All blocked and tagged as Nrcprm2026. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

03 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

After Neo Poz was blocked as a sockpuppet of Nrcprm2026, Apr38 joined a discussion thread at Talk:Socialism, supporting Neo Poz's view that the term socialism has acquired a different meaning from that described in the article.
 * Why is an intro which no beginner or student can understand because it describes socialism as the term was used in 1950 better? Neo Poz (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your definition of socialism is no longer relevant to what the word means in English today. The continual attempts by communists to POV-push are blatant, pathetic, against policy, and serve no purpose but to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Apr38 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note also that Apr38's comments show a knowledge of policy and abrasiveness unusual for a new editor's second edit. TFD (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2013 (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

 * ✅ - also -  A l is o n  ❤ 22:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged both socks identified by CU. Closing. NativeForeigner Talk 04:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

09 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This ip is sock of User:Neo Poz and I just wanted to document it somewhere for future checkuser actions. Mirror activity of   Similar content was posted on other articles by another sock of this user User:Cupco - an correlation / causality example that higher taxes increases economic growth by contrasting 1950 tax rate to 2012 - it's a common cut / paste for the user. Morphh  (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC) 01:59, 9 May 2013 (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

 * , closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 00:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

16 October 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The user joined in July 2013 with familiarity of Wikipedia. This timeline fits with bans of Nrcprm2026, who is known for creating new accounts regularly - evading detection for a period, then creating a new account. I've identified this user on more than one occasion trying to insert a particular graph (as well as being the one that created it) and certain content into taxation related articles (you can see this from the sockpuppet archive history, but here are some examples ). This material has come up again recently by an editor EllenCT in a couple articles. MilesMoney got into the discussion and makes similar arguments as prior socks of Nrcprm2026 along with those same content additions Another flag was that he oddly referenced my criticism of the graph causality as a personal attack, which makes the most sense if he was the author of the graph (Cupco/Nrcprm2026). MilesMoney also appears to edit similar articles to those of the socks by looking at the archive history, socks history and the edit history. . Morphh   (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC) 04:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi, all. I ran into this by accident because I was checking up on Morphh to see if he was continuing to WP:CANVASS. This is the second time I've been falsely accused of being a sock, and I'm starting to get annoyed. There's no connection, no similarity, no point. This is just another case of an editor filing a false report vindictively. MilesMoney (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no vindictiveness. I'd be happy to hear you're not the sock.  I can relax and better converse without thinking about it the entire time.  It hurts me if I falsely report someone, not you.  The sock has repeatedly pulled the wool over our eyes for years, so forgive if I'm a bit paranoid - I've been tricked, double tricked and triple tricked by this user.  You exhibit the same behavior, which is I outlined. If it's not you, then I apologize for making the improper connection.  Clearly, I'm in the same debate (and more so) with EllenCT and I'm not reporting her - she doesn't fit the sock's profile, but you do.   Morphh   (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The pair who falsely reported me last time were unhurt, but I was subject to the risk of a false positive. Now, if you'll agree to stop editing Wikipedia once my name is cleared, then we'd have parity. MilesMoney (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

OP has provided no probable cause for this investigation. Morph has only provided the cause of her suspicion. This should be withdrawn by OP or closed with prejudice. It's unfortunate that WP does not hold accusers such as Morph to some standard of care and competence in making such a charge. Morph's subjective reaction to coincidences which are very widespread on WP is not evidence. As I remarked to Morph elsewhere, one might as will claim that Morph is a sock of (trusted Admin) Adjwilley because they both have brought specious SPI claims based on similar defective reasoning. It's not right for users to bring these unfounded SPI's which, in the random event of a false positive outcome will end Miles' WP career but in the event of exoneration will impose no penalty on Morph for his careless accusation. SPECIFICO talk  17:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The coincidences are not widespread - they're very narrow. Beside one other user, excluding MilesMoney, that content has only been inserted by the sock (using at least 4 different accounts).  I wonder why you're involved here - as you're not involved with the debate.  I've never had a discussion with you prior to you launching a personal attack on me today regarding this topic.   Morphh   (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, your entire claim comes down to the fact that, on this particular issue, I agree with EllenCT and disagree with you. Has it ever occurred to you that the explanation for this is that I find her sources reliable? MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I made my case above. You fit multiple patterns of the sock.  As for EllenCT, her sources are reliable, they just don't support the content that's being inserted, which has been stated by half a dozen other editors, but let's not get into that here.   Morphh   (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As someone uninvolved with the content dispute, I agree that this case is fairly weak, not a duck case, and is disruptive to consensus-building on the relevant article talk pages. Miles argued that Morphh made a poor comparison in regards to a disputed graph.  It's an awfully big leap between "he disagreed about whether the graph was appropriate or not" and "he is the creator of the graph."  I don't think routine spats about personal attacks in relation to this disagreement are indicative of anything other than escalating heat.  Furthermore, this argument on the basis of "historical facts" bears no resemblance to the arguments Miles has been making.  Miles has argued on the basis of the strength of arguments related to WP:OR on Talk:Progressive_tax (e.g. ).  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 17:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The personal attack comment was added in later and is just an example (additional circumstantial evidence). The sock has made many arguments for the content - that was just one of them.  And to your furthermore point, he did make the argument presented in your link.  The reliable sources he's talking about is the historical data, which have been combined in the graph to show a correlation.  It's the same argument.  Morphh   (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey Morph, while you're defending yourself perhaps you'd like to explain your remark to me "I wonder why you're involved here..." The views of uninvolved editors are valuable to the WP process.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not an uninvolved editor.   Morphh   (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? I saw your posting on Miles' talk page, which is on my watchlist.  I have had nothing to say about the disputed graph.  In fact, despite my respect for both Miles and Ellen, I'm uneasy about the graph.  Furthermore, if you have a specific concern about my participation, you should state it.  Your indirect and elliptical remark is doesn't promote discussion, collaboration, and consensus, which are our goals here on WP.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I said you were not involved in the discussion in my first comment. But you're involved with MilesMoney as evidence by his talk page and the prior SPI in which you defended him.  So you're not an uninvolved editor like User:I JethroBT.  That was my comment - you asked.  My messages are curt because I don't want this discussion to deviate from the point of the page and digress into a back and forth about how you are or are not involved or about the graph and text that was under dispute.  My concern with your participation was that it appeared you were just jumping in to help your friend and attacking me in the process.  I agree that the information is circumstantial, but no more so than when MilesMoney suspected Orlady or many of the SPI investigations that lead to correct assumptions.  That's why the process is here.  I'm not being vindictive, I'm not being a coward, and I don't think I'm being irresponsible.  I believe the case of false positives, that he would have the same IP (from billions) as the sock-puppet and the same edits and not be the sock puppet, is extremely unlikely.  Dealing with mass repeat sock puppet offenders is stressful and difficult, something I hope you never have to deal with, unfortunately sometimes these bad apples put a shadow on legit users.  I hate it and I hate submitting people I suspect.   But Nrcprm2026 is on Wikipedia using a new account - that much is very likely based on his history.  Leaving it be creates an atmosphere of suspicion and bad faith when you think you might be dealing with the same user over and over again in a different guise.  I hope to just get it over and move on.   Morphh   (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "My friend" ?? What?  Really, there must be some standard of clear communication, truthfulness, and honesty in communication here. The concern which you only stated after I called you on your snarky and provocative innuendo is preposterous.  There is little chance of collaborative discussion among strangers on a site such as WP if editors' attention is diverted to decoding and debunking implied accusations, attacks and denigrations from other users.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Jethro's not entirely uninvolved. He closed an RfC on Ayn Rand, sort of at my request. I criticized him quite severely for the policy aspects of how he handled it. MilesMoney (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * the evidence is not explained in an adequately clear or concise manner, and in any event the named master is . Please resolve this matter using behavioural evidence only. AGK  [•] 12:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Nrcprm2026 revealed their IP as -- Valjean (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that was in 2007 - if that's still their IP I'd be...rather impressed. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! OMG, I didn't notice. Thanks. -- Valjean (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The en.wiki CU team was alerted that EllenCT was ✅ to by a meta wiki CU. I've examined the evidence, and concur. Salsman is blocked as a sock of Nrcprm2026, whose behaviour also matches EllenCT. Additionally, EllenCT is editing logged out, and has created a sleeper account and used a sleeper account while being under active sanctions, all of these being violations of the sockpuppetry policy. As such, all accounts are. Keeping this open so the community can see, but a clerk can close after a reasonable period of time. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Restored content to Criticism of Google, a page followed & edited by EllenCT (one of James Salsman / Nrcprm2026's confirmed sockpuppets), that had been originally added by EllenCT (recent diff, EllenCT's diff) despite the deletion being some time ago and the user / IP never editing this article before. Harmless alone, but BobK31416 comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales a lot, as Salsman / EllenCT is known to do (recent diff, diff from 107.242.121.60 setting up above Criticism of Google edit, Bob's reply (to himself?)) with seemingly no awareness of what is an appropriate topic in a section (somehow lack of IP vandalism = time to talk about corporate criticism? Too many examples to count for here, Salsman was similar). More generally, Salsman created many sleeper accounts (this Bob K31416 account was inactive from 2018- May 2020 or so), and this article's editing pattern is suspicious and matches Salsman - high knowledge of Wikipedia, interest in math topics (see IP 107. edit here, Bob K31416's edit here, or Salsman's old talk page wherein he claims to be an older computer programmer, which also fits with the above Google edit), bloggy edits on Jimbo's talk in June, July, May, a lot of Jimbotalk edits in 2017, etc. See Bob K31416's User Talk contributions, almost all on Jimbo's talk going back to 2013 with thousands of them and compare with EllenCT's Jimbotalk edits or the like. Note that James Salsman is now a globally blocked user, not merely English Wikipedia blocked as well.

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 comment on the IP, but it's mobile so not much use in blocking if it is them. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

Stumbled across this link when performing regular CU duties. In addition to the CU evidence, there's a behavioural overlap. Both accounts target Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost pages, for example. There's also substantial overlap when the user is editing signed out, which of course I cannot post here. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 18 July 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 can't confirm with certainty as much of the data is stale. Additionally, there's been WP:LOUTSOCK happening here, too. No comment on the IP address(es) involved. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You've tagged both of these accounts as socks of Nrcprm2026. Was that intentional? If so, should this be merged before I archive it? Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oooh, yes please. Sorry, I forgot to ask for this. Based on CU log data, both accounts are all but certainly Nrcprm2026 socks. --Yamla (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)