Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6: 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:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:26, 21 December 2015 editElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits →20 December 2015: +ISPs← Previous edit Revision as of 06:42, 21 December 2015 edit undoElvey (talk | contribs)9,497 edits ExpandNext edit →
Line 140: Line 140:
This account that used to be known as ''Formerly 98'' is the one I initially reported as ''Unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine '' This account that used to be known as ''Formerly 98'' is the one I initially reported as ''Unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine ''


⚫ '''Do take note''': the archived diffs show it's done abusive things socks typically are used to attempt/do - including avoid scrutiny, give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists, edit project space, avoid sanctions, contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people, editing logged out to mislead. EACH of these is a violation of POLICY ].


I am flummoxed by the statement, "I haven't seen ''convincing evidence'' of ] or other ] so far. I will add IPs below but will leave it to the ] or other investigators to show clear sockpuppetry if it exists". If it't not clear whether this user's behavior constitutes socking, I propose an RFC on that question. Posting from many different IPs on many different networks for months without disclosing, by a user who has had an account while violating our ] is socking.
⚫ '''Do take note''': the archived diffs show it's done abusive things socks typically are used to attempt/do - including avoid scrutiny, give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists, edit project space, avoid sanctions, contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people, editing logged out to mislead.

Here's one example, where in a 12-hour period, this one editor edits the same talk page using three different IPs: First, using two different IPs, the user posts , separately signed and attributed. With the edit marked (2), the sock, which is infamous for scrubbing articles of information critical of big pharma, '''claims''' that there '''is no controversy''' about this drug in the peer reviewed literature. And as another IP, with the edit marked (1), the sock, argues that the article is balanced if there is no coverage of controversy in it. ''However, I find controversy about this drug in the peer reviewed literature without difficulty and add it to the article very soon after.'' With , I revert the two edits, using the edit summary: "rv sock avoiding scrutiny" The user goes to war: the user , with a very threatening edit summary: {tq|"do not revert my additions to the talk page again unless you want to finish this convo at ANI."}} The socking user goes into hiding to avoid further scrutiny after I turn up the heat, by more loudly calling out the socking behavior by filing the first SPI on the user. It's also several HOURS after .


If anyone knows how to fix this page so the <u>User compare report</u> works properly, please do so. I'm giving it a shot. If anyone knows how to fix this page so the <u>User compare report</u> works properly, please do so. I'm giving it a shot.

Revision as of 06:42, 21 December 2015

Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6

Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6/Archive.



20 December 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets


Above appears to be giving inaccurate results!? shows 0 edits for all but 1 of the IPs.
Following appears to be giving inaccurate results too!? shows 0 edits for both of the IPv4s.

This case was formerly opened under the above listed IP and has been moved to the above named account of the vanished user. So far, the only thing that I have seen in their behavior which may be confirmed to be wrong is that they have not followed our vanishing guideline correctly but I'm not sure that would be something to block over. Some evidence has been presented in the archive but I haven't seen convincing evidence of IP socking or other illegitimate uses so far. I will add IPs below but will leave it to the original filer or other investigators to show clear sockpuppetry if it exists. One can compare this version of their deleted user page with their statements here as well as compare the articles that they edit to see that this is the same user.

Collection of IPs used by editor
Ranges
Single IPv6s taken from this range
  • There is a handful of distinct editors using this range anonymously; one edits plant articles, one is a game developer, one is a long term abuse vandal, one owns a sex enterprise, one edits German subjects (either the plant guy or our chemical doctor being looked at) and our Chem PhD that is the subject of the SPI. Some of ChemPhD's edits may still be in this range but with less certainty, I have not included those here. Those listed below are the ChemPhD unless otherwise noted.
  • This account used to be known as Formerly 98 but that is now an unregistered account so linking to it would do no good. I refer to him above as the ChemPhD guy. This is strictly about behavior and does not involve checkusers as I see nothing that they could do here.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This account that used to be known as Formerly 98 is the one I initially reported as Unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine when I first opened the first SPI on this user.

Do take note: the archived diffs show it's done abusive things socks typically are used to attempt/do - including avoid scrutiny, give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists, edit project space, avoid sanctions, contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people, editing logged out to mislead. EACH of these is a violation of POLICY WP:SOCK.

I am flummoxed by the statement, "I haven't seen convincing evidence of IP socking or other illegitimate uses so far. I will add IPs below but will leave it to the original filer or other investigators to show clear sockpuppetry if it exists". If it't not clear whether this user's behavior constitutes socking, I propose an RFC on that question. Posting from many different IPs on many different networks for months without disclosing, by a user who has had an account while violating our vanishing guideline is socking.

Here's one example, where in a 12-hour period, this one editor edits the same talk page using three different IPs: First, using two different IPs, the user posts these (1) comments (2), separately signed and attributed. With the edit marked (2), the sock, which is infamous for scrubbing articles of information critical of big pharma, claims that there is no controversy about this drug in the peer reviewed literature. And as another IP, with the edit marked (1), the sock, argues that the article is balanced if there is no coverage of controversy in it. However, I find controversy about this drug in the peer reviewed literature without difficulty and add it to the article very soon after. With this edit, I revert the two edits, using the edit summary: "rv sock avoiding scrutiny" The user goes to war: the user revert me, using yet another IP address, 5 minutes later, with a very threatening edit summary: {tq|"do not revert my additions to the talk page again unless you want to finish this convo at ANI."}} The socking user goes into hiding to avoid further scrutiny after I turn up the heat, by more loudly calling out the socking behavior by filing the first SPI on the user. It's also several HOURS after I've warned the user to stop socking.

If anyone knows how to fix this page so the User compare report works properly, please do so. I'm giving it a shot. Update: Adding entries like I just did up at the top with the 3 IPs that were in the very stale User compare report that was appearing improved it somewhat - to 7 entries - but the numbers still show as off e.g. still 0 for the 2600:1010: IPs (@archive/D68i8).

ISPs
  • 169.230.155.123 is AKA udp071243uds.ucsf.edu .
  • 2600:1010 is Verizon.
  • 73.162.132.47 is c-73-162-132-47.hsd1.ca.comcast is Comcast.
  • 2601::/20 is Comcast, but a different type of IP.

That's at *LEAST* three different ISPs this one user is using.

--Elvey 03:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6: Difference between revisions Add topic