Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor

For sockpuppet investigations after January, 2009, see Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

ResearchEditor

 * to physical abuse diff
 * to torture diff
 * to moral panic diff
 * to Psychological trauma diff
 * to brainwashing diff
 * to Psychology of torture diff
 * to Project MKULTRA diff
 * to religious abuse diff
 * is the creator of the now deleted Extreme abuse surveys page, and may also be a sock.
 * Code letter: 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 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) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The following are as ResearchEditor:



The following are : 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)

All accounts marked likely have been indef blocked and tagged. Tiptoety talk 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  talk 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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

ResearchEditor



 * Code letter: F


 * Supporting evidence: ResearchEditor (aka aka ) is topic-banned from Satanic ritual abuse articles (see his talk page). Recently a couple of SPAs have turned up at the SRA page, pushing exactly the same POV as Abuse truth did, and with suspicious knowledge of Wikipedia policy and terminology (Extrabreeze's first edit summary refers to a "cfork"). I call bullshit, and would like to have this CU-confirmed. Meatpuppetry I am convinced of: socking is perfectly plausible. If the former, I'll deal with this via revert restrictions: if the latter we can move straight to blocking. Moreschi (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * is ❌. that  =, based on geographical similarities.  that ResearchEditor = , same home ISP from same city. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have indef blocked seeing as the contributions confirm they are ResearchEditor. After looking over  I see nothing that would indicate they are involved. Also, I am going to leave ResearchEditor unblocked, but recommend a ANI thread be started to discuss any possible violations of the above stated topic-ban.  Tiptoety  talk 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking over a bit more, I have indef blocked that account as well.  Tiptoety  talk 22:30, 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 ❌. ✅ that =  = . Highly  that they are all  – same home ISP in same town. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IP ❌. ✅ that =  = . Highly  that they are all  – 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.''
 * Confirmed accounts blocked. Tiptoety  talk 01:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)