Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremyraves4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 17 March 2018 (→‎14 March 2018: cu results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Elseford

Elseford (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Please note that a case was originally opened under Jeremyraves4 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elseford. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elseford.

14 March 2018

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

All SPIs that have edited only either Shinichi Mochizuki (a mathematician) or Inter-universal Teichmüller theory (the somewhat controversial theory for which he is known). Each account edits only for one day. Account naming follows a variety of predictable patterns (sometimes a single mathematical word or phrase, sometimes something that resembles a name, often with a few digits at the end). Edit summaries are rare but when present they are often "(minor)", in addition to marking edits as minor regardless of whether they are or not. Content of edits (puffery, particularly use of the word "fundamental") is often duplicated. See discussion here for more background. Because each has a short editing history, I am not 100% certain that all of these (as opposed to most) really are socks; but I am also not certain that this list is comprehensive. (In particular, there are certainly more members of this family going back in time: I cut off my search at the beginning of 2017, although I see that the IP user from whom I got part of this list went back further.) JBL (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Here is a chronological list. The accounts are used sequentially, never simultaneously, in most cases for for no more than a day. In response to the clerk request, does this mean that they are all "stale"? The characterization of substantial edits as minor is a persistent feature, and many edits are pushing a similar point of view, namely that Mochizuki's work on the ABC conjecture is accepted by knowledgeable experts and that statements to the contrary come from unqualified people. In addition to the edits to Shinichi Mochizuki and Inter-universal Teichmüller theory, there have been edits in the same style to articles on related topics in number theory going back a few more years. The list below starts in 2015, which is when the edits to IUT-related articles began.

Will Orrick (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I have moved the page. I agree with Will Orrick that it is not clear what "stale" means in this context. --JBL (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the question "is the second list the same as the first?", it is a superset of the first, and so the first list could be replaced by the second. (Although at this point I am hesitant to do so myself, for obvious reasons!) --JBL (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk assistance requested: Please organize this case properly. First, move the case to the oldest account. Second, separate the suspected puppets into two lists, one non-stale and one stale. Finally, please decide whether to endorse the CU request. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Will Orrick and Joel B. Lewis: Both of you have in good faith made a mess of an already messy filing. FYI, CheckUser data is retained for 90 days. If a user hasn't edited in the last 90 days, their account is stale. I still need a clerk (no one else) to fix all this. First, review the move that JBL should not have performed and fix it if it needs fixing. Second, make sure that Elseford is the oldest account. Third, I don't know if the second list added by Will is the same as the first list. We need that sorted out. There is NO reason to keep two lists - it's just clutter. Finally, I don't care about chronological; I want the stale and non-stale alleged puppets separated. Two lists for that purpose will be helpful. And, as before, please decide whether to endorse the CU request. I will ping a few clerks who may be able to do this sooner rather than later: @Vanjagenije, Ivanvector, and Sir Sputnik: Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The move was mostly okay, assuming Elseford is a sock; they are the oldest of the listed accounts. However, because of the throwaway nature of this case and the long period of disruption, it seems likely that it's gone on for longer than the two filers have investigated, and it will be impossible to determine the actual odest account. I suggest it be moved to the name of whichever is the oldest confirmed sock after the following request. A clerk will take care of this at the appropriate time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed for the following non-stale accounts, of which Jeremyraves4 is the oldest:

I consider these behaviourally confirmed but would like a CheckUser to check for sleepers, and see if any additional technical countermeasures can be implemented. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jeremyraves4&oldid=830953626"