Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nuklear/Archive

Evidence submitted by Literaturegeek
Both these accounts have a long history of making disruptive edits to the encyclopedia. I suspect that Editor182 is an alternate account of Nuklear which is now acting as a restart account to evade the indefinite ban placed on the Nuklear account. There are several familar behaviours of these accounts. For example if one is to review their contribs they have the same habit of marking all edits as "minor". Their edits are sometimes helpful but often harmful. Another similarity is when users raise problems or try to interact with the account on their tallk pages, their responses are always ignored eg with Nuklear and deleted aggressively in the case of Editor182. It is my experience that very few editors will repeatedly ignor any and all interaction on talk pages with other editors. On the methylphenidate page you can review here the similarities, eg marking major edits as minor. Another example. All edits of Nuklear and editor182 are marked as minor probably in preferences which is another unusual coincidence. Review the talk page of Nuklear who never interacted one time with any editor who tried to contact them and review the talk page history of Editor182 to see the aggressive deleting of any interaction or warnings by other wikipedia editors. In recent days, this editor engaged in a serious and harmful edit war where they attempted to enforce edits which were harmful to the article. See here,,, , , , , , , ,. This lead to the article being protected., Vandalising a rival editors user page,. Both of these accounts edit or have edited similarly across a wide range of psychopharmaceutiical articles with many of the edits being harmful.

Deleting citation,. Nuklear making harmful changes to inline citations which stripped full text urls. Both Nuklear and Editor182 make abreviations to drug names such as MPH for methhylphenidate. TMP (which few readers will know what it stands for) in the same article which no other editor has done.,, , ,.

Nuklear was blocked in relation to copyrighted pictures. Similarly complaints have been given to editor182 about similar issues.,,, , which he just blanks from his talk page. More blanking of warnings.,, , , , , ,. A user complains about abusive vandalism to his user page and Editor182 again just reverts the warning.

Some editors have tried to revert their warnings back but were reverted., Blanking talk pages and refusing to address his disruptive editing.

I can submit more similarities and evidence but I don't have the time right now, let me know if you want more evidence or not and I will make time and review their contribs in more depth. I hope that this disruption to the encyclopedia can be stopped. Thank you.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Literature geek  |  T@1k?  16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

– Looking at both users' contributions, I'm not quite convinced of duckery here, as both account use edit summaries quite differently. However, the evidence and range of articles edited surely do raise red flags. Requesting that CU look into this. –MuZemike 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
❌, without question. J.delanoy gabs adds 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
No action taken per CU results. –MuZemike 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

26 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Self-admission, at least for the user:Nuklear, the user:Yid and the user:Aschwole, per and according to the user:Aschwole, or and, or all three of the aforementioned. — KC9TV 05:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Although the self-admission should be sufficient, the Wikistalk report confirms that these three are the same editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalker report including Meodipt, who seems likely to be another sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn, with apologies, per the statements below and further investgation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to comment that Meodipt and El3ctr0nica are certainly not ducks, and should not be considered socks unless there is really solid checkuser evidence -- overlaps in editing are meaningless here. Looie496 (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stalker report including El3ctr0nica. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, it is approaching, or it has just past, half-past seven in the morning, and I have yet to retire for the day/"night". Further evidence may be supplied in due course, over the course of the next couple of days, or weeks. — KC9TV 06:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Concerning Meodipt and El3ctr0nica, the large number of pages these two editors have contributed to would indicate that there should be strong checkuser evidence to justify a sock-block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looie496 is right. There is nothing duckish about Meodipt and El3ctr0nica.  Both are primarily interested in pharmacology which explains the overlap in edits. Furthermore they have completely different editing styles.   Finally where is the motive?  There is relatively little controversy in the articles they have edited. Boghog (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boghog.


 * Hi everyone. Indeed, Meodipt and I certainly are not puppets of Nuklear/Yid/Aschwole. As Boghog mentioned, we each have completely different editing styles, and although there is quite a bit of overlap in the pages that the three of us have edited, if you look very closely at our edit histories you'll see that each of us has our own specific areas of major interest and that they inconsistently overlap with one another's. As examples, cannabinoids are a major area of interest for Meodipt, antidepressants and reuptake inhibitors are for Nuklear/etc (as well as myself in the past, though not so much nowadays), and (more recently) steroids/steroid hormones are for myself.




 * P.S.: Sorry for the wall of text! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 15:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Banning" and "blocking" are in fact two different things and acts upon Wikipedia; and it is also certainly not so according to the wikipedia:List of banned users. Furthermore, I am not sure that this is actually allowed and permissible upon Wikipedia; however, an uninvolved administrator is perhaps best placed and best qualified to comment and to judge upon this, instead. — KC9TV 18:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * *Banning then. My mistake. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Meodipt and El3ctr0nika have been long-term constructive editors. Filing a sock puppet report including them just because they edit similar types of articles is inappropriate. Since the other three accounts are self-admittedly the same individual, there is no need for checkuser in this case. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This seems a little spurious if you take even a cursory glance at mine and El3ctr0nika and Nuklear/Yid/Aschwole's edits, I would have thought the differences in language used, citation styles and topics of interest are pretty diverse, and I wouldn't have thought we even edit much of the same pages! Aside from that myself and El3ctr0nika sometimes come along later to clean up Nuklear/Yid/Aschwole's often messy edits and remove his unencyclopedic side comments. And yeah as El3ctr0nika says we all live on different continents, I'd imagine the editing times are quite different and the IP addresses will be not at all the same. Anyway I'm not sure what the issue is here, there isn't any history of sockpuppetry as such with Nuklear/Yid/Aschwole's accounts, more that each time he gets banned he just joins up again a few months later. His editing is often problematic and that is why he keeps getting banned, on the other hand he has created a lot of useful content which I would strongly defend. So I'd be ambivalent if there was a question of banning him again, overall I think his edits are positive and productive for the project, but on the other hand it does get a bit annoying how me or El3ctr0nika or some other editor has to come along later and clean up the badly written or inappropriate content that he adds along with the good stuff. Meodipt (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything Meodipt has said immediately above. Also, since there still seems to be some question of us being sockpuppets (or, alternatively, meatpuppets) of Nuklear/Yid/Aschwole by KC9TV, I've compiled a list of all the interactions between Meodipt, Nuklear/Yid/Aschwole, and/or myself that have taken place here on Wikipedia over the years to hopefully put to rest any doubt that any of us are the same person. Note that my username used to be Rocknroll714 but I had it changed (relevant because in some of these pages "Rocknroll714" is still listed instead of "El3ctr0nika"). Also note that the reason there is not as much discussion between Nuklear/etc and I is because we have talked mostly via AIM instead (proof). Anyway, here is the list:


 * Once again, sorry for the wall of text! el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

To KC9TV: I'm sorry, but I'm having a really hard time understanding your writing, as I believe others are as well based on the lack of replies to this post. In any case, Meodipt and I are not the same person, nor are either of us Nuklear/etc. See my last post below. I suppose it could be argued that we are simply very good at talking to "ourself", but that'd be quite a stretch if I do say so myself! In addition, we are not part of a "cabal" or "editing syndicate" either. Supporting this statement is the fact that there are multiple instances of us speaking negatively of one another (Meodipt of I and Nuklear/etc and I of Nuklear/etc). Finally, if it can be agreed that either Meodipt or I are not each other or Nuklear, I and Meodipt (speaking on his behalf here, but I'm sure he would agree/not mind in this case) can both anecdotally confirm that we are all different people as we all know one another outside of Wikipedia (Meodipt and I are friends on Facebook, we know each other and Nuklear/etc from internet forums, and I used to have Nuklear on AIM but no longer do due to, well, constant random and nonsensical messages). el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are supposed to make your replies at here, and not directly, under "evidence". I shall be most grateful indeed if you were to let the investigation run its due course, my dear friend. Our nationalities might be different from one another, and that probably partly explains our slight differences in writing. I am neither an American, a Canadian nor otherwise a North American. My writing is probably a little conservative and slightly old-fashioned in style, perhaps a little verbose as well. — KC9TV 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My mistake. And just providing additional evidence. I am allowed to defend myself after all. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 00:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Keilana - I'm not KC, but I'll give you my read on the totality of the evidence presented here: It appearss to be that the overlaps of El3tr0nika and Meodipt with Yid/Aschwole/Nuklear arise merely because of a commonality of interest, and that their editing and writing styles do not point to them being socks. My suggestion would be to block Yid/Aschwole/Nuklear based on the editor's self-confession, and run a checkuser for any additional socks of that editor. I see no need or reason to run E. or M. that's my opinion, anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I'd note that KC9TV only joined wikipedia 5 weeks ago, yet in that time they have used some form of the official complaints services here at least 5 times by my count, showing a good grasp of citing policy and so on. Seems a bit weird. Besides, I don't even see what supports the allegation of sockpuppetry against Yid/Aschwole/Nuklear, I thought the rule was against using more than one account at a time, and disclosing if you have used more than one. Looks like he has adhered to this rule, and I don't see anything obviously problematic about his recent edits, there have not been any warnings given about anything on his talk page. Not sure if the rules say he should be banned just for having been banned in the past and signing up again, but he seems to be doing his best to contribute constructively for the time being? Meodipt (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KC9TV puzzles me somewhat too. I don't understand why he/she is so concerned about this matter in the first place. In any case, pretty sure that registering again under a different username after being banned (or blocked, whichever it is) is ban (or block) evading and hence against the rules. I could be wrong though. That being said, I do agree with you; Nuklear/etc's recent edits seem to be fine. No plagiarism or other issues as far as I've noticed. Furthermore, I've yet to see a single example of him committing sockpuppetry of any sort. As far as I know, it is a completely baseless accusation.


 * Personally, I think this whole discussion is basically unnecessary. Nuklear/etc has broken the rules multiple times in the past, certainly, but his edits no longer appear to be problematic, and hence, there is not actually an issue with him that needs to be solved at present. In other words, I think he has learned his lesson, and I think giving him a second chance should at least be considered. After all, it's more than likely that he'll just register yet another new account once again if his current one is also banned/blocked. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-CheckUser Comment. The case against the latter two is now hereby withdrawn, with my apologies. Whether that they should be checked anyway shall no longer be my concern. This is just fast descending into a farce of possible meatpuppetry, and dubious counter-accusations, the aggravation is anyway just not worth the effort. This may be a letter "F" request for CheckUser, for the remaining three. I say, but I must say that this is very strange indeed that the User:Nuklear/User:Aschwole would somehow voluntarily own up to be running sock-puppets or evading blocks. A check should be run on the remaining three, anyway; yes, for both persistent copyright violations (one of the original blocking reasons for the user:Nuklear) and for repeated sock-pupetry. The User:Aschwole, with the name being a portmanteau of the name Auschwitz and the word asshole, should anyway also be "usernamehardblock"-ed. A very strange company for them to keep indeed! — KC9TV 09:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would never block on that rather fanciful interpretation of the user name. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Non-CheckUser Comment. But then his previous and predecessor account was the "unfortunately-named" "Yid"! (and he had even been to the Yiddish Wikipedia, without even bothering to log-out .) He knew, and knows full well what he was, and is up to. See Special:Contributions/Yid, especially the last edits before his blocking. Well, as far as I am concerned, albeit not being an administrator, that he might just as well go and call himself and his user-name "Zyklon-B", "Dachau" or the name of some other "camps" in Poland, the Belarus, &c.! — KC9TV 04:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What is it you think he is "up to" then? Sure he made a few anti-Semetic comments years ago, but arguably this was why he was banned at the time. Joining up under a different username later on may be a technical violation of the rules, but I just don't see any evidence of inappropriate editing under the Aschwole username. Looking at his edit history recently I just see lots of additions to the same pharmacology articles he has always been interested in, some of it is good content, and some of it is poorly written or irrelevant and will eventually get moved or deleted. But no off-topic rants, or even material that is unencylopedic in nature. I see nothing more than a formerly problematic editor making an honest attempt to contribute productively, and it seems to me like KC9TV is trying to get Aschwole banned because they are offended by anti-Semetic comments he made years ago, even though there doesn't seem to be any relevance to his current editing practices. Meodipt (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've collapsed some of the longer material and am still frankly confused as to what's going on. KC, can you please clarify why exactly you think these two are socks? Diffs would be very helpful. Thanks. Keilana | Parlez ici 00:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * - Keilana | Parlez ici 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, let's sum up. Aschwole admits to being Nuklear. Nuklear is blocked. Aschwole appears to be contributing constructively. Personally, I think they should be allowed to continue to do so. However, since they are technically in violation of the rules, I will open a thread at AN for discussion. In the meantime, I'll mark this for close. TN X Man  18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

31 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

WP:DUCK: Deass is carrying out the same type of edits - adding copyrighted material about the synthesis of pharmaceutical drugs - as previous incarnations. Since Deass has already been blocked for the copyright violations, I'm filing this more to get it on record than for any other reason. ChemNerd (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (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;  &spades; 23:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

23 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

New IP is editing User:Nuklear/SNDRI User:Deass has long history of copy and paste issues with copy and pasting from the same sources as the first two IPs. Have more evidence from emails. All accounts are very much interested in the synthesis of chemicals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Another one to add to the list, from Imatinib article... (sorry if I am supposed to add to list above, not sure how this works) Jytdog (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Blocked that one too. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

another one. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC) another one. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All are already blocked. Leaving for the record archive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  04:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

29 November 2014

 * Just a comment, as I notice this person has signed up and been blocked yet again as User:Lukashenk0. It seems likely, based on prior behaviour, that this guy will continue registering new accounts and making similar kinds of edits pretty much indefinitely. At least in the last few incarnations, I simply don't see any problematic editing that would justify a ban. His edits now days seem to be largely limited to posting properly referenced synthetic routes for pharmaceutical drugs which don't yet have a synthesis section. I believe this was discussed some years back and there was consensus that if a drug is notable enough to have a wikipedia page in the first place, then it is encyclopedic to have a brief summary of how it is made, so long as this is not unduly long and is properly referenced. I fail to understand why someone making constructive edits, especially edits of a somewhat tedious nature that no one else can be bothered to do, should be blocked for this behaviour. Several of these posted synthesis routes have been deleted simply on the grounds that it was this guy who added them, and this seems a bit petty when they were correctly referenced additions that are agreed by consensus to be encyclopedic in nature. Some other synthesis routes he has posted were incorrect and perhaps should be deleted if no one else has time to correct them, but when I notified him of one such mistake on ropinirole he quickly corrected the mistake, shortly before being banned again. I appreciate that policy dictates that re-registering a different account after a ban is considered ban evading, but surely there should be some grounds for flexibility when a user has made a genuine effort to reform their behaviour? Maybe everyone will disagree with me on this, but I would have thought next time he signs up again it might be more helpful just telling him that he is only allowed to add properly referenced synthetic routes and if he restrains his edits to this productive nature then he should be allowed to carry on. Otherwise this cycle of him being banned and then signing up again a few months later seems like it will just continue for ever, and this seems to be to be a bit of a waste of everyones time. Meodipt (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Meodipt The initial issue was lots and lots of copyright violations. Which still continue to some extent. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Doc James - Per Boghog, below, recent edits that might seem to be copyright violations, probably aren't. So can you provide a diff to support the accusation?


 * Comment: I just noticed that Nuklear asked to be unblocked recently. I'm thinking it would be good for Nuklear to be unblocked, say, for a trial period (or several) if Nuklear agrees to just "add properly referenced synthetic routes" to articles for the trial period. It seems like an alternative worth trying, instead of the whack-a-mole that's been going on and on and on.  In other words, let's help build an encyclopedia by directing the user toward constructive edits?  I'd want to see a more responsive unblock request from Nuklear first though - agree with the denial of the last request.     --Elvey(t•c) 00:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Or not. Consensus remains that his edits are still more disruptive than helpful.   --Elvey(t•c) 19:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

08 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets






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


 * All this user does is add copy and pasted content regarding the synthesis of drugs to articles. User has created many accounts and also edits a great deal as an IP.
 * Luklear account has already been indeffed by admin  here
 * Doc James filed an ANI on Nov 2 here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861.
 * Admin has been also been dealing with this editor.
 * I wanted to log these IP addresses and the username into the SPI log for this sockmaster and get these IP addresses indeffed too.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Another sock here User:Lukashenk0 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding new sock to list above and reopening so the account may be evaluated. I'm not familiar with this master and don't have time to look at it on my own (with no diffs, particularly).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:Lukashenk0 can be blocked per WP:DUCK. The same editor has an account at Commons and he has been madly uploading chemistry diagrams since 6 November. I wonder how practical it would be to check the diagrams for copyright violations. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of what they add is copied and pasted from sources. That is how they got blocked in the first place. The question is can these diagrams be copyrighted? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless they are an exact reproduction of a figure from a copyrighted work (that is "traced"), drawings of individual chemical structures or synthetic routes cannot be copyrighted. As stated previously:
 * "... facts cannot be copyrighted. Thus synthetic schemes are largely exempt from copyright restrictions because you cannot communicate the content of a synthetic route without drawing out the intermediate structures." –
 * "The relevant part of copyright law is the merger doctrine which states that the "expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea". –
 * A chemical structure is an idea and hence according to the merger doctrine, the expression of that idea (i.e., a chemical structure drawing) cannot be copyrighted. Boghog (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * fwiw, the bigger problem in my view is that he often didn't/doesn't cite sources at all, and when he does, the sources are WP:PRIMARY. The synthetic information appears random - no context as to why it should be in an encylopedia article (is it the method used commercially? the first way the compound was made? some notable obstacle overcome?) Nuklear and his socks have refused to deal with that, and then would try to edit war the content back in.  He does adds random syntheses to many, many articles, and creates stub articles on many non-notable compounds as well (drug candidates that appear in maybe one primary source, or a patent). He resisted all efforts to talk and instead just mocked us. He is WP:NOTHERE but is obsessed with chemistry. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He by the way was initially blocked for copy and pasting text. Was not blocked for the images. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations and sock puppetry is grounds for blocking/banning. While annoying, adding low relevance material supported only by primary sources is not. Boghog (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that he refuses to interact, so we have no way of knowing whether these are copyright violations are not. Give that it takes time to draw these out and the volume of the submissions, he may be getting them by scanning sources and then cutting them out. Is the drawing style consistent from one addition to another? If it is varying widely I'd call it a red flag. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. The drawing style looks very consistent (same font, etc.). There is also three examples where the editor corrected a mistake in the structure drawing (Apraclonidine synthesis.png,  Sufotidine.png, and Vapiprost.png).  This looks very much like the editor is drawing these diagrams from scratch. Boghog (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well at least that is good. The text was mostly copied and pasted from old textbooks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I added NuklearBomb, who has a related name and identical editing habits. ChemNerd (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes there are likely more. As they change IPs every day or two and user names there is likely little we can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
IP addresses are very rarely indefinitely blocked. These IPs are dynamic and blocking them now would only affect unintended individuals. (The most recent edit is from October 25.) Usually a block of 24-48 hours is sufficient. Mike V •  Talk  21:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the question is there anything we can do to address this issue? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked into the contributions of the IP range above and issued a 2 week anon only block for 82.26.80.0/20. There's fair amount of noise coming from this individual to justify the block, but there are a handful of constructive editors as well, so I wouldn't support an extended block. Mike V  •  Talk  03:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As all accounts have been blocked and there's no further activity on the IPs, I'm closing the case. If additional accounts appear, feel free to open a new section for this case. Mike V  •  Talk  19:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This just started socking. Can we look at blocking a range? Or would that be too aggressive?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

16 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Contribs are exactly the pattern of Nuklear - adding content solely on the synthesis of drugs, generally with a figure. Often without a citation. Even revisited articles where he had previously posted synthesis information and it had been reverted, and re-added it. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2014 (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

 * ✅ with the archives, but a rangeblock is going to be pretty much impossible here. Courcelles 15:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

13 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_local_anesthetics&oldid=685530688 Lerd the nerd  wiki defender  12:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Yes that is Nuklear. Have blocked for three days. They will be onto a new IP by than. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nothing to do. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)