Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:04, 15 October 2008 editTiptoety (talk | contribs)47,300 edits →ResearchEditor: clerk note - blocked← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:18, 4 April 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>
<!--
If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name.
-->

For sockpuppet investigations after January, 2009, see ]
<div style="background: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;">
<div style="text-align:center;">''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it'''</span>.''</div>
<!-- END ARCHIVE TEMPLATE -->
===]===
{{rfcu box|case=ResearchEditor|filed=18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)|clerknote=note}}
* {{checkuser|Brewopco}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Turtleshell2go}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Raspla42}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Msbvben}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Donrus22}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Reccaban2}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Nmpras}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Burgelt}} to ]
* {{checkuser|Tn25dog}} is the creator of the ] page, and may also be a sock.
* ''']:''' F

That seems to be the lot. Possible ResearchEditor sockpuppets. All added the exact same information and citations to multiple pages using a series of throwaway accounts. The POV and sources suggest RE, promoting the discredited idea that there's any weight to the ] moral panic, the use of the ] (G4 speedied as a recreation of the ] with an AFD ]) and Randy Noblitt's discredited beliefs about satanic ritual abuse. All are ] that have only one topic's worth of edits, and redlinked talk and user pages. If it's not RE, then I would be very surprised, and even if not I can't concieve that it's not someone else sockpuppeting. If not RFCU-ed, accounts should probably be blocked anyway for ]. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:The following are {{likely}} as ResearchEditor:
#{{vandal|Brewopco}}
#{{vandal|Turtleshell2go}}
#{{vandal|Raspla42}}
#{{vandal|Toswi82}}
#{{vandal|Reccaban2}}
#{{vandal|Nmpras}}
#{{vandal|Burgelt}}
#{{vandal|Tn25dog}}

The following are {{possible}}:
#{{vandal|Msbvben}}
#{{vandal|Donrus22}}
There's hardly any overlap between these accounts, but they all appear to be editing in the same general area. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

{{clerknote}} All accounts marked {{tl|likely}} have been indef blocked and tagged. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
:Msbvben and Donrus22 demonstrate knowledge of intricate ref formatting from their first edits. These two articles seem to fit in ResearchEditor's topics of interest, so I think a block can be made based on behavior. I haven't looked over the ArbCom decision involving ResearchEditor in its entirety, but does an indefinite block seem appropriate in light of the new sockpuppetry? <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
::I am currently reading over the ArbCom case, and will make that decision here shortly. Also, consider the other two accounts blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

{{clerknote}} {{User|ResearchEditor}} has been indef blocked, and ArbCom has been notified. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

=== ] === === ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=ResearchEditor|filed=14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)}} {{rfcu box|case=ResearchEditor|filed=14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)}}
Line 19: Line 63:
::IP {{unrelated}}. {{Confirmed}} that {{user|Attafire}} = {{user|Previewriver}} = {{user|Raorino}}. Highly {{likely}} that they are all {{user|ResearchEditor}} – same home ISP in same town. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC) ::IP {{unrelated}}. {{Confirmed}} that {{user|Attafire}} = {{user|Previewriver}} = {{user|Raorino}}. Highly {{likely}} that they are all {{user|ResearchEditor}} – same home ISP in same town. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
*{{clerknote}} Confirmed accounts blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC) *{{clerknote}} Confirmed accounts blocked. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
<div style="text-align:center;">''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span><br />Subsequent requests related to this user should be made ''above'', in a new section.''</div></div>
</br>
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 14:18, 4 April 2022


For sockpuppet investigations after January, 2009, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

ResearchEditor

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 18:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: note

That seems to be the lot. Possible ResearchEditor sockpuppets. All added the exact same information and citations to multiple pages using a series of throwaway accounts. The POV and sources suggest RE, promoting the discredited idea that there's any weight to the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, the use of the extreme abuse surveys (G4 speedied as a recreation of the Extreme Abuse Survey with an AFD here) and Randy Noblitt's discredited beliefs about satanic ritual abuse. All are single-purpose accounts that have only one topic's worth of edits, and redlinked talk and user pages. If it's not RE, then I would be very surprised, and even if not I can't concieve that it's not someone else sockpuppeting. If not RFCU-ed, accounts should probably be blocked anyway for spamming. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The following are  Likely as ResearchEditor:
  1. Brewopco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Turtleshell2go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Raspla42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Toswi82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Reccaban2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  6. Nmpras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  7. Burgelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  8. Tn25dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following are  Possible:

  1. Msbvben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Donrus22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's hardly any overlap between these accounts, but they all appear to be editing in the same general area. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: All accounts marked {{likely}} have been indef blocked and tagged. Tiptoety 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Msbvben and Donrus22 demonstrate knowledge of intricate ref formatting from their first edits. These two articles seem to fit in ResearchEditor's topics of interest, so I think a block can be made based on behavior. I haven't looked over the ArbCom decision involving ResearchEditor in its entirety, but does an indefinite block seem appropriate in light of the new sockpuppetry? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am currently reading over the ArbCom case, and will make that decision here shortly. Also, consider the other two accounts blocked. Tiptoety 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked, and ArbCom has been notified. Tiptoety 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ResearchEditor

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the talk page of the relevant entry, can you check out the following two users against all those listed above as well so we can clear the air completely regarding new single purpose accounts pushing RE's POV post ResearchEditor's topic ban.
Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
IP Red X Unrelated.  Confirmed that Attafire (talk · contribs) = Previewriver (talk · contribs) = Raorino (talk · contribs). Highly  Likely that they are all ResearchEditor (talk · contribs) – same home ISP in same town. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.