Mathsci

Mathsci (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date September 27 2009, 21:35 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Mister Collins
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Quite clear that there are several sockpuppets active on the deletion page for Franco Selleri. The accusation against me was totally frivolous and not particularly intelligent. Somebody who doesn't like senior establishment academics participating on wikipedia? Since Xxanthippe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone out of her way to mention this investigation on the AfD page [2]] and since there seems to be some coordination between her and Agricola44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it might be worth looking at these users as well. I don't know how Xxanthippe could have known about this SPI. Her diff was the only way I found out about it. Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently arrived Quotient group (talk · contribs) seems to have written some of the same things as Mister Collins on the AfD page (I suggest that the username stands for "Physics 0, Cold Fusion 1") [3], so is probably another of his sockpuppet accounts. Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do also appear to have been stalked recently by a sockpuppet account from Bristol, 213.48.162.2 (talk · contribs) and 213.48.162.4 (talk · contribs), who seems to be following my edits. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the IP of P0CF1A is revealed here as 130.76.32.23 (talk · contribs) in Seattle. There are other related edits from the same company (Boeing), eg 130.76.32.182 (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
CheckUser request
Checkuser request – code letter: C + F (Vote stacking affecting outcome and another reason)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention. This is going to need technical evidence to back up the behavioral evidence if sock puppetry is indeed going on. MuZemike 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a CU also do a check on User:Mister Collins? Something's not right here... MuZemike 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I'm taking a look, although I'm going to warn you now this will take a while. There's a lot of accounts here, and a lot of them seem to be related. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an update on this case? Specifically the accounts:

which don't have results listed above? Thanks, Nathan T 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're still waiting on opinions from other checkusers. Could any functionaries patrolling through here please comment on the func-en email thread "Re: P0CF1A"? Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • I'll take a look in just a moment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checkuser says they're all the same, but then CU isn't perfect. If you think they're unrelated, they're probably ok. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to leave them unblocked, but I would appreciate if the archiving administrator looks over my work. Feel free to block if you feel otherwise. NW (Talk) 01:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
05 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


(please note I'd have likely to get backlash if I brought this here under my real username, please don't ask for it.) Well since i've been outed now I might as well endorse. Dave Battencheo (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Sad. Close this and delete the SPI page itself, please. This has all the appearances of simple trolling/socking of some user that has had a beef with one or both of these long-established editors. 2 edits via IP 173.206.86.161 and a single one by a Dave Battencheo. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't simple trolling, have you seen the user comparison? 5000+ combined edits. they've shared views on 4(that i've counted so far) AfD's, this is real disruption. 173.206.86.161 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. Mathsci (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by AndyTheGrump

This is undoubtedly User:Magnonimous out to cause trouble. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Nice try. TNXMan 13:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Clear enough from names and the usage of subpages. The two alternative accounts are used only to store material relating to old grudges of Mathsci. Presumably this is to avoid legitimate scrutiny of battleground behavior. Southend sofa (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

WP:AGF, ok? If he wanted to disguise those account I'm guessing he could have picked better names for them. Hopefully this is just confusion on the part of the editor bringing this here. Alternative accounts are not forbidden. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This SPI report was the editor's first contribution in a year. Their contrib history is quite interesting - like an account that's been put away for a rainy day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I see no multiple account abuse here. One account is stale, the other fairly clearly identifies itself on its userpage. Is there some other issue which I've missed? TNXMan 13:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, both accounts clearly marked as alts, thereby not WP:ILLEGIT. If you are concerned about any pages, Southend sofa, I would suggest first talking to Mathsci. Amalthea 09:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26 May 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Used solely to gather accusations against opponents in various, now defunct cases. Linked back to Mathsci's main page but such an odd way as to defeat scrutiny. The oddity of the attribution and the use solely for storing attack pages makes it hard to assume good faith. Why does Mathsci need these multiple alternate accounts -- User:Altmathsci and User:Alternative-mathsci have already reported -- if not to avoid legitimate scrutiny of his main accout? Why does he not store this stuff on his own hard drive? Why is this out-of-date material still here? Jello carotids (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)  socking/banned user comments struck by Ohiostandard at 05:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci has produced no explanation of why this material needs to be under another user name or why it is retained beyond the end of the R&I Review. Clearly abuse (per WP:UP#POLEMIC) and of an alternate username. That is I believe the definition of sockpuppetry. As to the other accusations: no evidence beyonf Mathsci'own personal view was presented that User:Southend sofa was a sockpuppet of either of the users mentioned. Jello carotids (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)  socking/banned user comments struck by Ohiostandard at 05:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Collapsing my comments in light of MastCell's comments on the handling of this request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a legitimate general alternative account, clearly labelled on the user page, created to gather diffs during the arbcom review and efterwards. The reporter here, as before, is a sockpuppet of the banned editor Echigo mole, whnoto has been extensively trolling in the last few days on various high profile project pages. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet inves edittigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC) m[reply]

On the evidence page, I think I mentioned that rough diffs were being gathered on altery native accounts. The dots were to prevent Echigo mole (the indefinitely blocked user above) from creating more mischief, since the lsection and abelling of the previous alternative account allowed him to find it previously and advertise it. I have sent a detailed accountstopn to the arbcom mailing lists and do not wish to discuss this further here. Because so much evidence was submitted in private by thconducting e site banned party and her site banned partner, the only way of gathering diffs involving mutliple parties was in this fashion. You yourslef found out about this because of the trolling of Echigo mole and, instead of asking questions on my talk page or by email, have taken a confrontational position in which you assume extreme bad faith. You have not on the other hand carried out a checkuser on either of the two sockpuppet accounts (now blocked) of Echigo mole. Please could you do so and leave the discussion of these pages (for rough diffs) to the arbitration committee when they have received my mail? Just to correct Jclemens, evidence is not usually permitted on subpages. Roger Davies copied part of my response during the Requests for amendment to a subpage of the review. These pages for rough diffs were not evidence subpages, but pages for rough diffs. I hope that makes things clearer in your mind. But please could you look at the two accounts Krod Randoon and Jello carotids? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the subpages was mentioned explicitly and openly in this diff The first page is now a subpage of the review pages, which Roger Davies requested me to create. The other four pages were on Alternative-mathsci before Echigo mole started making mischief. Perhaps when you read the talk page of the evidence page, you accidentally missed that comment. I can't remember now exactly how Echigo mole trolled on the first alternative account Alternative-mathsci, but you can look at the deleted pages more easily than me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FPaS: I wrote an explanation slightly longer than the above to the arbcom mailing lists. At the end of the message which I sent before seeing your posting here, I stated, "Now that the amendment has passed, I would normally request that these pages be deleted." So yes if you can delete these pages (which were still in use during the request for amendment), that would be very kind. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@FPaS: presenting a case about proxy-editing involving 5 or more editors is too complicated for me to do off-wiki. I first gathered all the diffs, many of which were redundant, repetitive or of no signifiacnce, and then went through them several times clicking them to see which were particularly relevant. I don't know a way of seeing what's in a diff once I've recorded it off-wiki. In preparing the second set of evidence, I was in the midst of also writing an elaborate set of lectures to be given in early May at a conference in the USA, so was under tight time constraints (essentially no time, although I had to make time). Anyway I was quite open about how I prepared my evidence and arbitrators did not object to my statement that I was collecting rough diffs on an alternative account. Mathsci (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: this editor repeated edits of a confirmed sockpuppet of Echigo mole on WP:AN in a thread devoted to him, started by a completely different user. Elen of the Roads blocked this user before for similar edits without carrying out a checkuser and sympathised with me in private. But surely Jclemens must have looked at the archive page and noticed that Echigo mole has played the same game before with Altmathsci, an alternative account that was used for recording details of his abuse of vodafone accounts? That report was made by Southend sofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), eventually indefinitely blocked and also certainly a sockpuppet of Echigo mole (from the comments he made. Jclemens seems now to be in denial about the wikistalking. Multiple editors have removing the trolling edits of Echigo mole on sight at WP:AN. FPaS has blocked several socks on sight per WP:DUCK. The reasonable thing to do in the circumstances would for Jclemens to run a checkuser on the two accounts I have mentioned, both of he sleeper accounts created in 2009. The preliminary edits are the hallmarks of a sockpuppet account (10 edits to article space to render the account autoconfirmed). But I have made a full presentation to the arbcom committee including details of Jclemens' comments on my talk pabout his own involvement. Mathsci (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Altmathsci is concerned, Echigo mole already made the following edits to User:Altmathsci/vodafone as Old Crobuzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): [9]. that MfD nomination was deleted by AGK,[10] who blocked Old Crobuzon as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole. That disruptive conduct is being repeated here by the user who made a series of disruptive edits on WP:AN, which could only have been made by Echigo mole. What doubt is there in cases like this? Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the behaviour of Old Crobuzon, the SPI report of Southend sofa and the repeated disruption by Echigo mole during the requests for amendment, I declared the account Aixoisie in exactly the same way as Alternative-mathsci and Altmathsci, i.e. on the alternative account page. Jclemens presumably read the arbcom review page to which I referred above when I placed my comment there.[11] "There are also four subpages elsewhere on an alternative account where diffs were gathered." So Jclemens must have read that statement 2 months ago on 27 March. He raised no objections then, either by email, on my talk page or on the review pages. He did nothing at all. Nor did any other arbitrator. Nor did any arbitrators request to know what the alternative account was. (Roger Davies, because of his background, would notice the deprecating pun in the last created alternative account username, since I happen to be the editor who has most edits on Aix, nothing was being hidden.) However, nobody requested to know the name of the alternative account which was moved to the second account when Echigo mole made similar edits as he had while socking as Old Crobuzon. Certianly if Jclemens or anybody had requested the name of the account by email, I would have supplied it. However, unlike Ferahgo and Occam I did not communicate in private to arbcom mailing lists during the review, except in response to emails from Roger Davies. If Jclemens wishes to invent new rules after the event, I suppose he can, but it doesn't seem to be reasonable or related to the way in which wikipedia functions. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 March Southend sofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an SPI request here listing the accounts Alternative-mathsci and Altmathsci. That request were turned out by checkusers. Several administrators commented. The files existed at that point also, since Aixoisie was only created on April 1, 3 days after the report was made. (Perhaps I was even unaware of the report.) Jclemens could again have expressed his strong objections there but did not. I don't understand why each time this disruptive editor/wikihounder Echigo mole trolls on wikipedia an increasingly elaborate account has to be given. Jclemens seems to be out of kilter with AGK, Elen of the Roads, Newyorkbrad, Casliber and Shell Kinney at least, as well as a whole series of other checkusers. Presumably he has his personal reasons in seemingly wanting to "write me out of the equation" by capitalising on my long term harrassment by a wikihounder. It is not particularly pleasant, since this editor also has made several attempts to out me on wikipedia, having determined my RL identity. Jclemens seems to show no empathy at all. Mathsci (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also: The subpage User:Alternative-mathsci/subpage still exists. I had forgotten about it: I have requested speedy deletion. The other subpages were User:Alternative-mathsci/subpage1, User:Alternative-mathsci/subpage2, User:Alternative-mathsci/subpage3 and User:Alternative-mathsci/subpage4, all speedy deleted on the 1 April by JohnCD, shortly after my request. Just before that I had amalgamated the numbered subpages into one file and placed that in the user space of Aixoisie. Note that the account that created the problems was Southend sofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked later as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole by DeltaQuad 2 weeks later, after more evidence came to light. Alternative-mathsci (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)/Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition FPaS reverted the fresh report on this page as "rv sock edits",[12] half an hour before blocking the sockpuppet. What has changed since 29 March and Southend sofa's report? Jclemens unwillingness to investigate sockpuppets and his own double standard for FPaS and the reversion and for me and the trolling edits of Jello carotids on the SPI page for Echigo mole that I requested.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Which new user does Jclemens think made this edit in support of another indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. the same editor creating a false consensus through tag-teaming?[13] It is very hard to describe that kind of edit as anything other than blatant trolling by Echigo mole. Jclemens seems to be suggesting otherwise and it is unclear why. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that during the Muhammad images case, I prepared a list of rough annotated diffs in response to a question from Elonka on the workshop page. At the request of NuclearWarfare, that was moved gradually to the evidence page.[14] The subpage was deleted at my request a little while after a selection of those diffs had been transferred to the evidence page (21 January). Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens writes below that "Mathsci sent no such missives to the committee". I am afraid that is not correct. I sent two emails through the normal wikipedia software (i.e. the "email this user" facility at User:Arbitration Committee). I received automatic copies in my mailbox at 20.28 and 21:17 French time on 26 May. There were no arbcom-l bounces, however. I sent a third email just now asking a question about what has happened to the software and offering to resend the copies that were automatically sent to me. With the third email I have received my automatic copy and am still waiting to receive an arbcom-l bounce. I hope that I am not being held responsible for problems with the software :) Mathsci (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no record of you ever mentioning the account Aixoisie in any correspondence to Arbcom. I did not say you sent no messages to ArbCom; in fact, I have quite a number more than the two that I believe you to be mentioning above (I assume they're the same two; I didn't check the timezones to be certain), neither of which mentions Aixoisie, or any alternative account usage whatsoever. Please provide the date when you mentioned the Aixoisie account name in an email to ArbCom, and I will be happy to confer with my colleagues to find out why I don't have a copy of that email. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first email sent prior to 20:28 French time contained this sentence, "When Echigo mole advertised the account Alternative-mathsci, I deleted all the sent files and copied one of them to a new file on a declared account Aixoisie." Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I most definitely do not have any email containing that text. I will ask my colleagues (I am not a mailing list administrator) to see if they can find it. Obviously, if that was sent but unreceived, that would change things entirely. Jclemens (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will not reproduce the whole letter here as that would be entirely inappropriate. But please could you stop this discussion now as it is not in any way appropriate here either? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Investigation to date has shown that you sent two emails to ArbCom at the times you listed. No arbitrator has seen either one yet. Both messages appear to have been sent after the allegations of impropriety were initiated on this page, presumably as explanations of the matters raised here. The list administrators are trying to track down where the messages went, since missing (lost or grossly delayed) ArbCom email, especially through the MediaWiki interface, and especially from a user known to the committee who has sent us email in the past, is exceptionally concerning: having those messages with your explanation would have certainly cut down on the back-and-forth here. At any rate, I or another arbitrator will follow up with you on the missing messages once we have more information, and your request for an end to the discussion on this page will be accommodated. Jclemens (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been a bounce from the message I sent today. Please do not continue this discussion here. Do it by email if you must. Further discussion just feeds the troll, Echigo mole, who is now listed as a banned user. Meanwhile, as far as these pages are concerned, the SPI requests on User:Leon Gonsalez and User:Jello carotids are still waiting checkuser attention. Please could you look into those, if you have a spare moment? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

While MathSci admits User:Aixoisie is his, use of this account is problematic and merits further investigation:

A separate problem is that MathSci edited this page to remove an accusation against him. He did this after he had indicated his belief that the account making the accusation was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but before that accusation had been objectively investigated by any administrator. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, Per this I find no mention on the Aixoisie account anywhere. I've searched the ArbCom email for mention of that account, without finding it. The diff you listed above doesn't seem to note that evidence was subsequently moved to an undisclosed sock account. Were you perhaps meaning to note something else? Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem about reverting the sock. Obvious harassment socks get reverted on sight, by anybody. There is no need to wait for prior administrator investigation in such a case – having such a requirement would have the effect of enabling the abusers. To Mathsci: do you agree those pages can be removed now? –
Moreover, since the only conceivable purpose of an evidence list is to prepare for submitting that evidence for review at some later point, at which time its very purpose is that of inviting "scrutiny", a charge of trying to "avoid scrutiny" seems misled. I honestly don't quite understand why he felt the need to hide the list away temporarily under a throwaway account like this (if he was concerned he'd get disruptive trolling from harassment socks if they found out about it, which seems to be a very realistic concern indeed, then why not simply assemble them off-wiki?), but a charge of sock abuse appears tenuous at best to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the one other arbitrator who's reviewed this so far believes the removal of an accusation against an editor by an alleged but not-independently-assessed sock, regardless of how obvious that sock is, by the accused editor, is improper. Since MathSci has already been recently admonished by ArbCom for battleground conduct, this is more than an "oops, my bad, let me remove those" situation. I've locked the evidence subpages in place; ArbCom will remove them when appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I want to formally register my serious disapproval and concern at Jclemens' comments in this thread, which in my opinion show both a substitution of his own beliefs for unambiguous site policy and an inability to distinguish serious, good-faith concerns from obvious disruption and trolling. MastCell Talk 00:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that I'd protected both pages as an ArbCom action? I'm sure you must have missed that. I'm sure you didn't actually mean to hide evidence of wrongdoing preserved for an ArbCom review... At any rate, I'll drop you a note on your talk page so you can undo it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every Arbitrator is an administrator and can view-deleted pages. I hardly think that this is a significant issue (in fact, it is enforcing the remedy—isn't that what you wanted?). But in any case, there is no reason to continue discussing this here. SPI is not Arbitration Enforcement and Mathsci's "obfuscation" is hardly that, especially if, as he said, he has "sent a detailed account to the arbcom mailing lists". NW (Talk) 02:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci sent no such missive to the committee. If you like, I can close this as an admitted case of inappropriate use of alternate accounts, and note that the consequences of such are still being discussed by the committee. I'll probably do that in a few hours unless another checkuser objects. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you actually can't do that. There are three admins with extensive experience in handling sockpuppetry telling you that there is no abuse of alternate accounts here. Your position on the Committee does not give you the executive power to override an administrative consensus on an SPI case. If the Committee (as opposed to you as an individual Arbitrator) has a concern, then they are free to comment and they can of course override the consensus here. But if you disregard the administrative consensus here without the clear consensus of the Committee, then I will pursue it as I find your handling of this case extremely concerning. MastCell Talk 03:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So three admin non-checkuser, non-clerks can overrule a checkuser on when an SPI case is to be closed? I really don't see that in the process documentation. DQ, being an actual clerk, actually clearly has the authority to say this has reached a logical conclusion, and while I don't entirely agree with his opinions on the matter, I still agree that this isn't really a place for non-obvious decisions. Since it really isn't built for such, I can see why there wouldn't be much documentation on how checkusers should take non-party input into account. The Arbitration committee will discuss its next steps, and I personally hope I can hand this off to someone else to shepherd to completion. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is curious. The page says (and has done for a long time) "Alternative account of m·a·t·h·s·c·i." so there is no need for an SPI. I would immediately think then, that the reporting user was deserving a boomerang. I am not familiar, of course, with the matchsci case, but I think I am familiar enough with Wikipedia to think this is a strange reaction. And "freezing for arbcom inspection"? We have this thing called history, you know. What's going on here? Rich Farmbrough, 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The only person who has said on this page that they believe that this is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy is yourself and a banned user. Two other administrators not including myself have stated the opposite. ArbCom can handle this by a formal motion voted upon by a majority of the Committee or you can bring the matter up at the Administrators' Noticeboard for consultation with your fellow editors and administrators. Whichever you choose is OK with me, though I would obviously prefer public discussion. A unilateral block or other sanction at this time would be unhelpful. NW (Talk) 03:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the history of Mathsci sockpuppet accusations and can say that there seems no doubt to me that his assertion of the identity and motivation of the reporting party are in good faith, and very probably correct. I would be inclined to boomerang checkuser the accuser, and close this. Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
More