I'm not positive this is the right place to post this, but after years of disinterest in contributing because of an initial sour, unfair experience contributing to Depleted_uranium, I have tried logging back in to find my user is still showing as a suspected "sockpuppet", based on the suspicions of someone- User:TDC who seemed to accuse anyone he disagreed with on the subject of DU of being a sockpuppet, and someone who is long since banned. I'm sure there was no evidence because it was not true, but IP addresses or anything else was not enough, and there was no clear route to resolve the issue with anyone else, so I walked away from wikipedia completely until now. My question is, how to clear this, or do people just use a new username on wikipedia if they get erroneous claims which can never be cleared? My user is part of a long list of "suspects" towards the bottom of this page. It's was very hard for me to take Wikipedia seriously after User:TDC's persistent and wildly unfair accusations of being a fraud- a fairly terrible experience, and the way, regardless if anyone really was a sockpuppet, he simply invalidated debate, preferring instead to focus on the credibility of anyone who he disagreed with. JLeclerc (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
((Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore))
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

IwRnHaA[edit]

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

In a thread at ANI [1] the named user has been blocked and had their unblock denied. Thatcher has stated that there is use of multiple account and an IP overlap with a banned user, and requested that the case be listed here.[2] So here it is. Jehochman Talk 21:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. IwRnHaA (talk · contribs)
  2. Orange Knight of Passion (talk · contribs)
  3. Antiparthenic (talk · contribs)
  4. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk · contribs)
  5. Aminosucroglycosone (talk · contribs)
  6. Pannag Salmon (talk · contribs)
  7. RCRF Wiz (talk · contribs)
  8. Spring Back (talk · contribs)
  9. Sprocket 2008 (talk · contribs)

In case you don't see it, here is the answer in Rot13: YbffVfAbgZber . Thatcher 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: Merge to the appropriate main case, please (after a short interval to see if anyone guesses). Thatcher 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Heh heh, merged from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/IwRnHaA. All blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missed one, Bow Shock Turb (talk · contribs). Thatcher 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 11[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

James Salsman's favorite editing targets include Plug-in hybrid, Gulf War Syndrome, Ron Paul, and he has also edited usury. The listed editors meet the general criterion for his socks: new editors since last flush; very single-minded debate magnets; dismissive edit summaries.

Proof of prior steps: I reported Mountainsarehigh to ANI who was immediately blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I also requested help from Alison, who has not had a chance to respond; but I decided to go ahead anyway as Archilles has notched up activity, possibly in response to my request.

Please also include an IP check to ferret out any additional socks that may have slipped past. Thank you for your consideration. I will be happy to answer any questions and address any omissions. JJB 16:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Zillionical (talk · contribs)
  2. Shakedown Bluff (talk · contribs)
  3. $uper $tar (talk · contribs)
  4. Pyron Alpha (talk · contribs)
  5. Normal Standard (talk · contribs)
  6. Smithers Ltd. (talk · contribs)
  7. Imnotatmyprivateterminal (talk · contribs)
  8. New Image Uploader 929 (talk · contribs)
  9. Semipress (talk · contribs)
  10. PiRcubed (talk · contribs)

-- Thatcher 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks so much Thatcher! I'm heartened to know that the pattern of activity of this sock farm is less invasive than I had thought. JJB 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LossIsNotMore - 10[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Comment

Editors Listing Port, SBPrakash, Crossfire21 and Johnfos all have an overlapping interest in the same articles as the now banned Nrcprm2026 including Gulf War Syndrome, Depleted Uranium, Iraq War, Plug-in hybrid‎, and Capital punishment‎. Editors are making near verbatim arguments on these pages that James Salsman has been, I would also request an IP Check to ferret out any additional socks that may have slipped past. 70.63.105.250 (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Dream Academy (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. SBPrakash (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Listing Port (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Crossfire21 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. CKCortez (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Wide and Slow (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

JamesS' various accounts are too old to check, but ask Alison or one of the other checkusers who checked him previously if they can help. Thatcher 03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All confirmed accounts blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 9[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Acct4 (contribs) and BenB4 (contribs)) were active with Voting systems articles. Yellowbeard (contribs) registered July 23, 2006 (log) and immediately AfD'd Schentrup method,[11] properly deleted; however, this showed interest in an active opponent of Instant-runoff voting, Clay Shentrup, "I will call it the Schentrup method, in honor of myself.". Yellowbeard then used redirection and AfDs to hide or delete many Voting systems articles, some quite arguably deletable, with, originally, high success, because they were effectively unwatched; many AfDs show no participation by anyone knowledgeable. Targeted early on were articles relevant to Range voting: Center for Range Voting, which is definitely notable now and may have been marginally so then, and Bayesian regret, which had long been mentioned in peer-reviewed publications. Favorite betrayal criterion was AfD'd. A sock of Nrcprm2026, based on the behavior of Acct4 and BenB4, could be expected to attempt to remove content from Wikipedia which can be used in arguments against Instant-runoff voting or in favor of alternate reforms.

In one AfD, Yellowbeard voted twice[12][13], rejected warning[14], portrayed the AfD as being "hijacked by Warren Smith devotees,"[15] and a source in the article as being "Obviously ... written by a Mike Ossipoff devotee."[16] Smith and Ossipoff are, I assert, widely-known experts in the field.

Evidence is more fully laid out at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nrcprm2026 (4th).

Again, this RFCU is not about content dispute. The issue is the participation of a sock puppet. That Yellowbeard is a sock is quite clear from his contributions; that he is a sock of Nrcprm2026 is a reasonable speculation, hence the RFCU. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No further administrative action seems necessary here at this time. For the record, however, Yellowbeard below claims bad faith, content dispute, and trolling, though there is no active dispute as far as I know (there are AfDs and Merge tags pending, but no apparent edit warring or even continued comment from Yellowbeard as this is written. I specifically deny trolling). Yellowbeard is welcome to pursue complaint about my behavior regarding the serious charges he makes). This RFCU was filed to rule out one reasonable possibility which would have made other possible actions moot, and RFCUs do not reveal personal information to requesters, other than a possible positive finding. "Possible" sock puppetry was confirmed by admin, who requested I file RFCU, it was not my idea.[17] Yellowbeard's claims below contradict my knowledge, memory, and the record, detailed and referenced above and in the SSP report, and should be verified carefully and in context before assuming they are true. Further process will ensue consistent with this finding of "unrelated." --Abd (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Blnguyen, it would have been better if you had simply rejected Abd's RFCU. It is clear that there is no reason to believe that I was a sock puppet of James Salsman. Abd admits this. Here, Abd writes: "There is only circumstantial evidence, based on interest and to some extent on more subtle characteristics of his behavior, that Yellowbeard is James Salsman." I believe that Abd started this RFCU in the hope that he could gather private information about me.
On 14 December 2007, Abd re-inserted an AfD tag into the "simple majority voting" article although the corresponding discussion had already been closed on 11 December 2007 [18]. From Abd's comments, I concluded that he questioned the decision to merge the "simple majority voting" article into the "plurality voting system" article. Therefore, I replaced the incorrect AfD tag by the correct Merge tag [19]. Immediately, Abd started an SSP and an RFCU. This suggests that Abd made an incorrect edit only to be reverted immediately, so that he can use this reversion as a pretext to start an RFCU in the hope of getting private information about one of his discutants. Yellowbeard (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 8[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch

Comment

 Clerk note: suggest blocking all the IPs we can find that aren't shared, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely - in future, we're going to need a little more evidence than just this here. It's okay to have dissenting opinion, however I'm not seeing abusive editing here whatsoever - Alison ❤ 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 7[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch

Comment

 Confirmed - plus other probable socks;
- Alison ❤ 21:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: all blocked and tagged, the probs as suspected. Moving to completed section. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As User:TDC hinted, is there any way an admin might just, say, run this test against Nrcprm2026 automatically every week or two? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no. That's not really technically possible, nor is it within policy - Alison ❤ 23:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 IP blocked - for quite some time. That should help - Alison ❤ 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Whoa whoa! Don't close yet! Act now and you also get:

Again, thanks and please expedite. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Unlikely , however, new sock EthanP2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is confirmed - Alison ❤ 02:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alison. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 6[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would wager to say that James has many, many accounts and they will continue popping up for the foreseeable future. It makes sense to check these out anyways. He said the following to me in an email: "The worst thing I did, from my perspective, was to unify my watchlist and not wait a full month for checkuser records to go stale.".

Obviously, he understands how to game the system now, and it might be worth while to log his IP and keep a record of it, instead of getting rid of it after the checkuser.

There needs to be a better way to deal with him, and admins really need to keep a better eye on the articles he edits. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100% agreement with T.D. Cudgel! See my request.
I think the evidence is sufficient in the cases of 1of3 and 209.77.205.2 without CU, but let's please get a couple admins to keep a watch out for this crittur. John J. Bulten 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) refactored by John J. Bulten 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) :I identified User:Acct4 as a sock of User:BenB4 back at the end of September and notified [User:TDC|Torturous Devastating Cudgel]] of this. There is another sock not in the list above, not that it is terribly important, since it was an SPA sacrificed to attempt to get me sanctioned, that would be P-j-t-a. User:Acct4 was trivial to identify by the articles edited; User:Acct4 was created just before User:BenB4 was blocked, and simply continued editing the same articles. P-j-t-a was likewise easy to identify. Since when does a newly registered user, as their only two actions, warn me and file a 3RR report? That's not proof, it is merely a big red flag waving that this is *probably* a sock or meat puppet, like 99.9%. Ah, yes, and the 3RR report had a typographical error in it, which was fixed 2 hours later by User:Acct4, see Special:Contributions/Acct4. Oops! The red flag waving had User:Acct4 on it in big letters. In any case, this is a known liberal creator of sock puppets, and watching articles known to be of interest to him for suspicious edits isn't "fishing" in any reprehensible sense. Nobody should be blocked on suspicion. However, the damage a sock can do is mostly to new users, so we should indeed be careful to avoid or ameliorate it. A new user gets fired up about an article, puts several hours into editing it, and comes back the next day and all the work has gone missing. The new user does not necessarily know how to figure out what happened, I'd wager that most new users don't know what History does. And so they go away with the impression that Wikipedia is controlled by somebody who does not like what they would contribute, and that it is all a waste of time. But if "we" are watching articles, and take pains to support new users who are massively reverted (even if it was legitimate to revert, but I'm not talking about vandalism, merely an inappropriate edit by a new user), then we can avoid most of the damage. When User:BenB4 reverted material he did not like, he did not put it on the Talk page, and his reasons, if he stated any, would often be of a kind to confound new users, and he certainly did not attempt to help the new user to understand the guidelines and work within them. We should not depend on administrators to do the work of identifying sock puppets, and if we do it, i.e., the general user community, we will, I'm sure, make mistakes. But if administrators, in particular, treat suspected socks with courtesy, there will be little problem from these mistakes. What I found in my own process, though, was that it was extraordinarily difficult to get anything done about what I had found. I now know better how to proceed, but I have had to figure it out piecemeal. I was given patronizing advice about "Assume Good Faith," which would have been fine if I did not already assume that unless there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Administrators are overworked and underfed. Underfed administrators will, I'm sure, get cranky and they must make snap decisions. This can be fixed, actually. --Abd 19:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks to User:Morven for indef-blocking 1of3. I think Starkrm definitely needs indef block CU, and Pdilla and JLeclerc and the IPs need CU. John J. Bulten 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the main account here? Please make this clear. --Deskana (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main account is James S, but since that has gone stale, I put BenB4 up as well, as he was recently confirmed as a James' socukpuupet. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana, I'd appreciate it if you could add Squee23 to the mix, which looks like a new puppet of somebody. And since 209.77.205.2 is now the active account making James-type edits, and both it and Squee23 are editing the fundraising template, I think I know who too. I'll probably make a new SSP request, which may show up here. John J. Bulten 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also added Dlabtot. John J. Bulten 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While awaiting the checkuser, I've also posted a clarifying response. John J. Bulten 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without more evidence, this looks like fishing to me. This is added to by the fact that the two IPs you've provided resolve to two different locations; it's highly unlikely the same person is editing from both locations, and checkuser probably couldn't establish that as a fact even if it was the case. Please provide additional evidence linking the accounts together, in diff form with sections for each account, and linking them to the banned editor in question. --Deskana (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Heaving sigh) OK, will throw something together. I'd appreciate it if TDC (and perhaps Starkrm) would handle the evidence pertaining to uranium while I do the political evidence. Sorry to throw this back, but I am regulating myself away from too much more accusation. John J. Bulten 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
209.77.205.2

9 diffs appear here. Also: 209.77.205.2 [28], BenB4 [29], Squee23 [30].

66.56.206.68

13 diffs appear here.

Dlabtot

4 diffs appear here. Also: 209.77.205.2 [31], Dlabtot [32]. BenB4 has made 14 Stossel-related edits. This account has protested the accusation somewhat.

Squee23

8 diffs appear here. See also 209 above. These are the most conclusive of the set IMHO.

Starkrm

4 diffs appear here. This account has protested the accusation believably.

John J. Bulten 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Becongito = Squee23 = CME94 = Publicola = Lots of other accounts blocked socks. Other accounts unrelated. --Deskana (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But are you are not even the slightest bit suspicious that Starkm is not a sockpuppet of James Salsman? Did you take into account the nature of the edits to Depleted Uranium? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot is not a sockpuppet of James Salsman?
Unrelated means unrelated. The case is closed. --Deskana (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore 5[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 15:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope I am not going out on a limb here, but BenB4 has been making the same edits and arguments, nearly verbatim, on the Depleted Uranium article. After a little bit of digging, I have found that James Salsman and BenB4 have a few too many shared interests, and this is what made me suspicious of possible sockpuupetry: Shared Edits on Speciation, Gulf War syndrome, Nutrition Plug-in hybrid‎, Iraqi insurgency, Battery electric vehicle, Iraq War, Uranium, Nutrition, Art.Net, Wrongful execution, Capital punishment, Global Warming, Uranium and Depleted Uranium. The diversity and sheer number of articles that both James and BenB4 have spent time editing seem to be to much of a coincidence. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results:

++Lar: t/c 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the stale IP ... I screwed up a while back when listing these all as LossIsNotMore (an admitted sock of Nrcprm2026), when I should have listed all cases as Nrcprm2026 (the puppeteer). With all the time here, I dont understand why I fudge all these templates up. Amazing that James has been able to get away as BenB4 for so long. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on the template, mostly I'm teasing all and sundry, especially those lazy clerks :). But just look at any other case to see how it should look, or read the doc for ((rfcu)). As for the case name... since previous cases tied Clerkbird and Starcare to Nrcprm2026 etc, the chain is sound, these are very likely/certainly all the same guy. As for getting away with things like BenB4 did, we tend to let sockpuppets slide as long as they behave themselves and don't give away their identity by reverting to old edit patterns, old damaging behaviours. (and I'm personally fine with that...) The sleeper I refer to has no edits at all yet. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that, and have not decided whether I will continue on the path of WP:IAR. The fact remains that TDC has, for example, called a number of reports used to support his position on Talk:Depleted uranium peer-reviewed when they are not. And edited the article in the corresponding inaccurate way. WP:IAR is very clear. When the truth is being played so fast and loose, I do not see the downside of using socks to try to point out what other editors have neither the time nor inclination to. Now that it is down to the point of where I will probably be banned indefinitely, I must ask, what incentive is there to follow the arbitrators' rules when that would be essentially be a violation of WP:IAR? I don't see any. ←BenB4 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much like the US Constitution, WP:IAR is not a suicide pact, and arbitration rulings are binding on all users of the English Wikipedia. We must have some enforceable order, or the whole project will implode. Crockspot 22:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 4[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Nrcprm2026 SPA for evading his edit ban. Follows the standard editing habits of his other SPA socks, create an account, make an edit to user page, user talk page and then to the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely. Voice-of-All 03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore - 3[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Nrcprm2026 SPA for evading his edit ban. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


 Likely. Nrcprm2026 = Rtt71 = LossIsNotMore. GVWilson's edits are stale Also, see LossIsNotMore's contribs along with [33]. Voice-of-All 19:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC

LossIsNotMore - 2[edit]

Editing as IP’s and one registered account on Depleted Uranium

James Salsman has once again used an IP to edit an article he is banned from editing. This is not the first time he has done this (prior Checkuser) and he might have even been able to get away with it had I found a peculiar edit by one of the anons. It seems that the anon was correcting James’ spelling mistake [34]. Physbang's first edit was also a correction on one of James' previous posts. [35] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All likely Red X Unrelated. I did find this violation [36], but it's old. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: The edit you flagged by 75.35.112.95 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a SWBell dsl address. So is 75.18.207.177 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) listed above. (75.18.207.177 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Qwest in Denver) If 75.35 was James S/LossIsNotMore, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the edits from 75.18 were likely his as well? Second, if the named accounts were not from SW Bell, is it possible to check them as open proxies, given Mackensen's findings in the non-transcluded section of the page below? Thatcher131 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about those IPs, I only looked at the accounts. Of course, it's the same ISP with dynamic IPs (and no actual overlap in specific IP) so based on the IP evidence I can't really say it's more than  Possible. It's likely the behavior makes the violation obvious though. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accused note: Firstly, thank you for clearing me as much as you have so far. I logged in today for the first time in a week to see all this, all very familiar, except this time it's substantially better than it usually is. Also, about that so-called open proxy in Plano, Texas which Mackensen apparently said Peter Cheung was editing from is actually part of a DSL pool. Are there any known instances of open proxy servers existing in dynamic DHCP pools? Would someone please look back into that?! Thank you. LossIsNotMore 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Open proxies can definitely exist in DHCP pools. It just makes them harder to block. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LossIsNotMore[edit]

Admin Nandesuka and others have accused Peter Cheung, who was editing as 69.228.65.174, of being me, James Salsman, User:LossIsNotMore (formerly User:Nrcprm2026) concerning edits on Depleted uranium which I am prevented by ArbCom sanctions from editing. [37] [38] [39]. So, as I have been accused of violating ArbCom sanctions, and Peter Cheung has been accused of being a sockpuppet of mine in doing so, please CheckUser to clear us both from these accusations. LossIsNotMore 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if James recruited this guy or if he is using a proxy server or what, but several facts have to be taken into consideration here:
  1. Depleted Uranium this is the first article Peter Cheung has edited
  2. Peter Cheung is attempting to add the same discredited information, verbatim, that James Salsman was
  3. Peter Cheung's second edit was an explanation on his talk page that he was not James Salsman and this could be verified by looking at his IP
  4. Peter Cheung found and utilized the survey tool a bit too quickly
  5. Neither of these editors have made contributions within the same time frame
  6. James Salsman cannot drop this debate.
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was an AP article on depleted uranium which came out over the weekend and appeared in hundreds of newspapers. There are a lot more new users than just Peter Cheung editing that article today and yesterday. LossIsNotMore 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is interesting. "Peter Cheung" is editing from an open proxy, and based on IP evidence I'd say it's pretty likely that if you aren't him you certainly know who he is. No matter. The proxy is blocked indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why in the world is James Salslman editing article space related to uranium trioxide, when there is an Arbcom decision forbidding him from doing so? Nandesuka 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nrcprm2026[edit]

James Salsman has been editing Depelted Uranium articles in violation of 1.1 of his arbitration ruling, through the use of various IP addresses, and sockpuppets.

Please investigate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Could you provide some diffs of the suspected violations? --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JamesS was prohibited form editing articles haveing anything to do with depleted uranium following his arbcom ruling. Some examples are: [40], [41], and [42]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive. Nrcprm2026 hasn't edited since May 1, too far back to check. The IPs listed are all from SBC/PacBell, while Gayrights is on a completely different ISP. Unless there is a record from the Arbitration Case or a previous checkuser of Nrcprm2026's IPs, there's no way to check this one. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Nrcprm2026 did make a few edits from an IP, 71.141.107.41 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and later signed them an example. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood what I linked to. The above links are from edits Nrcprm2026 made several moths ago while not logged in, edits he later signed. I provided it as a point of reference. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


information Note: In that case, there really is no need for checkuser; just report it on WP:AN/AE with a layout of the evidence. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured this was just a formality because the IP's were not exactly the same. Are, you saying then that although the IP's are not the same, that it is indeed the same user, Nrcprm2026? Please see above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are all in the same range, and it is dynamic (PPPOX pool). Therefore the IPs are likely one person. I don't have checkuser, so I can't tell you about the registered users. Prodego talk 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

71.141.107.41 is in SBC's PPPOX pool "Rback36.SNFCCA" (71.141.96.0 - 71.141.127.255 60) while those 71.132 addresses are all in PPPOX pool "-bras16.pltnca" (71.132.128.0 - 71.132.143.255). SBC is a huge ISP, so it shouldn't be difficult for admins with checkuser to see whether those two blocks share users. 69.228.65.171 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: This is no longer a matter for checkuser. There is no way, based on the information available in the database, for me to confirm that the IPs are related to the user. The job of checkusers is to report on suspected sockpuppets based on the evidence available by checkuser; we are not default sockpuppet investigators, and do not handle cases that don't require checkuser. I've already reported that checkuser is inconclusive, if you want someone to look at edits by similar IPs that claimed to be the user and conclude that the IPs in question are him, then take it to the Administrators Noticeboard and ask someone to look into it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:BSbuster and User:Nrcprm2026[edit]

BSb recently added a comment to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Depleted_uranium_and_related_articles in support of Nrcprm2026. Since this is the users *only* edit [43] she is obviously a sock of someone; the obvious possibility is Nrcprm2026. William M. Connolley 16:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOL user. Nothing we can do, given the AOL megaproxy behaviour. Nrcprm2026 has never used AOL in the period I can check.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ho. Thanks for checking! William M. Connolley 17:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.


More