ILuckyGuyI is part of an alt farm that has been cheating contests for years

[nutildah]

I found one case of the same prediction. I haven't checked thoroughly though, just the first few pages of results (I started with the newest ones).  

27 goals

27 goals

Well, that does count toward something. I started at the other end, looked through the first 5 pages, then skipped to the middle from 2022-2024, and stopped mid 2024. Thats like 25-30 pages.

Ultimately what it comes down to is whether or not you want to participate in contests with these accounts, knowing everything compiled in this thread.

I don't know enough about the IP stuff to comment on it, but I do know that if you drill down into any one particular area of evidence (timestamps, blockchain/social media connections, similar posting styles & subjects, or shared IP addresses), it is damning on its own (IMO). This is why I considered the case closed even before the IP revelations.

I feel any further attempt to explain the blockchain connections in detail wouldn't serve much value as everyone has already made up their mind one way or the other about that.

To whoever thinks the tags are unfair, there are 3 things you can do:

1) Convince me that the tags are wrong.
2) Exclude me from your trust list.

and if you actually trust them,

3) Leave a green trust as a counter.

I wouldn't recommend 3 unless you otherwise think they deserve a positive trust.

Just for clarity, are you not giving a signature ban to CLS63 on the basis that the posts made using that account were not substandard in quality but the ILuckyGuyI, jakdanyel and Distraction accounts were making substandard quality posts?

Yes, that's correct. He definitely put more time into that account than the others, although they all share several similarities.

[theymos]

Can you, with certainty, connect CLS63 with the other accounts?

It can never be certain. But in this case, I'd say that the IP-log picture alone makes me 80% confident that they're linked, and that's on top of the other stuff.

There are ways that two different people could share the same exact IPv6 address. They could use the same Tor exit node, the same web proxy, the same public WiFi, the same library computer, etc. That's why I didn't just find a matching IPv6, but manually looked through each full IP log (with geolocation data going back years), looking at the picture in its totality. It is important when identifying alts to approach it carefully and skillfully, because false positives are very common. For example, Pakistan is a very tricky region to identify alts in because it's common for tens of thousands of different people to get the same IPv4 address; so if you're identifying alts among Pakistani users, you have to know this and apply special care. (That's not to say that it's impossible to identify Pakistani alts: you just have to pay more attention to timing and shifts, rather than pure shared IPs.) The possibility of creating false initial impressions is why I generally like to only look at IP logs after there's already some sort of preexisting suspicion for a pair of users.

That said, it's not ever normal for unrelated users to repeatedly share the same 128-bit IPv6 address, even if it's not totally impossible for it to happen. CLS63 shared the exact same 128-bit IPv6 address with 7 users (in a sliding +/- 7-day window), often repeatedly. Most likely these are all alts, though I only posted the ones that I had very high confidence in. If I do the same check but matching on the /64, it'd be 270 users. Looking at all forum IP logs over the last 90 days, the specific /64s used by CLS63 have an average of 1.0247 distinct users per 128-bit IPv6: so it's not at all common for users on his networks to share complete IPv6 addresses.

Also, can we now expect such involvement from you in similar cases in the future?

I have historically published alt-check info in these sorts of investigations from time to time, and I'll continue to do so from time to time. Though like I mentioned above, IP evidence should ideally be used as a final step to confirm something that is already strongly suspected.