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)
request links:
view •
•
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)
In case you don't see it, here is the answer in Rot13: YbffVfAbgZber . Thatcher 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
request links:
main •
•
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)
-- Thatcher 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
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)
request links:
main •
•
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)
request links: main • • 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)
request links: main • • links • history • watch |
Comment
Clerk note: all blocked and tagged, the probs as suspected. Moving to completed section. —
Rlevse •
Talk •
22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
request links:
main •
•
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)
(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)
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)
9 diffs appear here. Also: 209.77.205.2 [28], BenB4 [29], Squee23 [30].
13 diffs appear here.
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.
8 diffs appear here. See also 209 above. These are the most conclusive of the set IMHO.
4 diffs appear here. This account has protested the accusation believably.
John J. Bulten 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
Results:
++ Lar: t/ c 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
Likely.
Voice-of-All
03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Clerk note: Could you provide some diffs of the suspected violations? --
Srikeit (
Talk |
Email)
14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
request links:
view •
•
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)
In case you don't see it, here is the answer in Rot13: YbffVfAbgZber . Thatcher 23:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
request links:
main •
•
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)
-- Thatcher 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
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)
request links:
main •
•
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)
request links: main • • 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)
request links: main • • links • history • watch |
Comment
Clerk note: all blocked and tagged, the probs as suspected. Moving to completed section. —
Rlevse •
Talk •
22:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
request links:
main •
•
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)
(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)
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)
9 diffs appear here. Also: 209.77.205.2 [28], BenB4 [29], Squee23 [30].
13 diffs appear here.
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.
8 diffs appear here. See also 209 above. These are the most conclusive of the set IMHO.
4 diffs appear here. This account has protested the accusation believably.
John J. Bulten 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
Results:
++ Lar: t/ c 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
Likely.
Voice-of-All
03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
request links:
main •
•
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Clerk note: Could you provide some diffs of the suspected violations? --
Srikeit (
Talk |
Email)
14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)