Obviously using SPI to go fishing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...ations/Mattisse

But the evidence is very strong. And I'm sure there's some stuff in the CU wiki on Rlevse already :-)

from the discussion:
B is expressing the old-timer position. Actual wiki practice moved on to "a ban is a ban, a rule violation is a rule violation." At some point someone should have the cojones to deprecate WP:Ignore all rules

My sock EnergyNeutral (T-C-L-K-R-D) was making helpful contributions, facilitating consensus, working interactively with other editors, albeit in an area where I'd been banned, and when I was checkusered, apparently spontaneously, by an arbitrator and blocked, an edit to a BLP was reverted (by JzG) as having made by a sock. It was reverted back by an admin who was actually one of my nemeses as Abd.

No, now, being a sock of a banned user is a Very Big Deal, all by itself. No evidence of misbehavior needed. No evidence of "harm" required. Socking is itself considered harm, which is preposterous, making sense only to heavy drinkers of the Kool-Aid.

By the way, there is another acknowledged WP sock of mine. An extra point to anyone who identifies this sock and adds it to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Abd.

Finding my unacknowledged socks is going to be a tad more difficult. Some have already apparently escaped checkuser attention, though I obviously can't be sure of that. They would come up as "probable" if examined closely, but finding them as a needle in a haystack would be the problem. Others would come up as "unlikely," and some as "not related."

None of these accounts have been actually disruptive, other than insofar as any block/ban evasion is disruptive.

Well, at least we know it's not Malleus!

I'd do that, but I'm stuck behind an IP hardblock and my meatpuppet has just RTV'ed and been blocked as a sock of Access Denied.

Yep, I'd never have said that.

Aw, shucks. Let me know who it is, here, and I'll make the edit for you. Heh! This could be fun!

Always keep WP:DGAF in mind, one of the true guiding lights of the project.

'Tis not User:74.106.77.23, is it? Or need I look elsewhere?

Yes, look elsewhere, for a registered account that openly reveals that it's me.

But only if you find this to be fun.

I've made many edits by IP, disclosing identity. All of them, AFAIK, are listed on Wikiversity..

Well the jury is back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...ations/Mattisse

Talking out the side of their mouths, but seems to me that they've decided to allow Rlevse to return and want the "community" to decide if his prior identity should be disclosed.

I wonder if he's still plagiarizing.

Maybe. Are you still whacking off in the closet at work?

Melloden, if BarkingMoon (T-C-L-K-R-D) is plagiarizing, if you suspect this, you have a ready remedy that would actually improve the project. Follow BarkingMoon's contributions, look for plagiarism, and, if you find some, fix it.

But it's far easier to condemn with potshots, eh?

If it's hard to find plagiarism or other problems in BarkingMoon's contributions, I'd call this prima facie evidence that they are, overall, good, in that respect, and occasional errors would still mean that BarkingMoon is better than IP. If this is Rlevse, that might be much better than IP. Some balance, here, folks!

Brilliant, Abd. Absolute, one-hundred-per-cent genius. Why don't you do that yourself, surely precious Rlevse is worth spending some time following again now, eh?

I don't think they do want the community to decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=437946467

That seems to have already been decided. Perhaps it is not Rlevse, but it seems we underlings are destined never to know.

Giacomo

So the ex-arb's sock gets away with it. Predictable.