Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FeelUs/Archive
FeelUs
- FeelUs (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 July 2016[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets[edit]
- PseudoScientist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
PseudoScientist and the IP are backing each other up on the showcasing of a particular mathematical paper related to "A surprisingly simple and exact formula", on arithmetic–geometric mean and ellipse (concerning a good way to evaluate an elliptic integral); all of their recent edits (e.g. July 16) are about this edit warring on those two articles, and both refer to work of the rest of us as "vandalism". For example in this diff PseudoScientist essentially claims they are two votes against the rest of us (edit summary contains "Not all editors opposed to vandalism are necessarily one and same editors. I am glad to see others who support my edits."). The original basis for this conflict, the section on the Modified AGM (MAGM), came in the this edit by FeelUs, who edits in support of the same mathematical paper e.g. here. The IP started on this topic today (July 16), and the other two on July 10, though the FeelUs account has a little bit of prior history (and has not been very active in this dispute). I'm not so sure about FeelUs (this one suggests similar style), but the strident language of PseudoScientist and the IP are a good match, as are their editing pattern and mutual support. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- See also Tesseract. FeelUs added a link to a crude cartoon by someone called FeelUs, then edit warred over it. It was re-added by 2a00:1370:8128:73e:bc26:273:9d2f:65fd, expanded by FeelUs, then re-added by PseudoScientist with the comment "Unjust deletion of other contributions is a untactful if not vandalous". The last three edits took place on the same day, so it’s not a case of an editor returning and creating a new account after forgetting their login.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 04:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
- The following accounts are
Confirmed:
- PseudoScientist (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- J20160628 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- FeelUs is
Possible to the other two accounts. - FeelUs is the oldest account, J20160628 the second oldest, and PseudoScientist the youngest. I've blocked the two confirmed accounts without tags and will leave it up to a clerk to determine the master and the tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- I moved the case to the name of the oldest account (FeelUs) and blocked the master for a month. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
18 July 2016[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets[edit]
- JmWlsMoron (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
Looking at when one of the changes edited by this group was added I came across this blocked account. Nothing needs doing – the account is already blocked – but noting for reference. Blocked for their user name which ties in with their behaviour disparaging all editors that disagree with them. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.