Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syntacticus

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

Syntacticus



 * E:

Syntacticus is a user that frequently edits in US politics articles, and with great consistency seeks to use opinion articles from the right-wing Capital Research Center as reliable sources for matters of fact. He has been asked repeatedly to desist (most recently here [] and here []. Recently the IP named above, which is registered to the capital research center, joined Syntacticus in edit warring in a dispute over the non-use of a CRC opinion-piece as a reliable source for something extremely controversial (here []. For a rather exhaustive review of Syntacticus recent behavior you can go here []. Action should be taken against this apparent use of the IP to edit war, coupled with the seeming conflict of interest this extremely combative user Syntacticus has (some recent diffs involving him and the CRC here: [] [] [] [] []. There are many more.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting evidence:

The edit warring diffs: Though these edits aren't all within a 24-hour period, they seem to indicate the use of the IP to avoid the appearance of a 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 00:22, December 7
 * 16:34, December 7
 * 17:03, December 7
 * 02:37, December 8
 * 03:19, December 8
 * 21:30, December 8
 * If this is to happen, perhaps it could happen soon before it is too stale to investigate.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The editor continues to edit war to insert unreliable citations to the CRC website in support of the POV / BLPVIO CRC political positions (accusing people of electoral fraud, ACORN of paying workers in crack cocaine, etc), while badmouthing other editors as "bad faith" (among other things), and concerns over the COI as bluffing and "McCarthyism." The editor seems to have been editing from the IP address, and if so he is making untrue claims and hiding a COI.  Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here Cometh the Milkman -, an WP:SPA and obvious WP:SOCK, created solely to edit war on several articles, was editing in tandem with Syntacticus on identical material in the ACCORN article. See discussion of this editor here: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive498 and Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive498.  At the AN/I report it was suggested that HCTM is a sockpuppet of  or , both of whom were earlier socking on the ACORN article (see here and Requests for checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine).  If Syntacitus is connected via HCTM to these other sockpuppets this could be a serious problem.  The tone of some of the POV pushing, personal attacks, bringing up grudges against users that a legitimate account would not know about, etc., is awfully familiar.  Wikidemon (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which "grudges against users that a legitimate account would not know about" are you referring to? This all very Star Chamber like. Syntacticus (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how disagreement over facts has led to this. Many news reports indicated that ACORN had paid in crack in Defiance County, Ohio in the 2004 election cycle. It wasn't made up. It turns out it was the NAACP Voter Fund, not ACORN, that made the payment, but in order to figure this out one had to wade through a dozen or more media reports that erroneously reported ACORN as the perp, including, most notably, the Wall Street Journal report/op-ed from around that time. Wikidemon, according to his/her user page has been involved in many content disputes previously and has been accused of many improprieties on same and therefore his/her credibility is diminished. Wikidemon refuses to provide specific evidence as to the lack or trustworthiness of Capital Research Center research despite my repeated requests for same and instead responds with this invented fantasy about COI and sock puppetry. Syntacticus (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the realm of content disagreements, but as a matter of fact: Weeks of searching turned up not one single reliable source making this cocaine claim. All of it led back to M. Vadum at the Capital Research Ceneter. This fact was pointed out to Syntacticus long ago. Ah, never mind. Just realized i'm participating in his distraction.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That couldn't have been much of a search that Bali ultimate conducted. From what I recall I relied on Vadum's blog entry at http://www.capitalresearch.org/blog/?p=2190 that shows the contents of a Nexis search. Buried in there is an article saying the crack cocaine incident involved the NAACP entity. But there are many articles from credible sources that associate ACORN with crack cocaine or that confuse the issue by making the crack allegation in one part of the article without immediately identifying the perpetrating group and that then later in the article mention ACORN. I read the lot of them and came away with the impression that multiple media outlets were reporting that ACORN had involvement in the crack allegation. Here are just a few of the articles listed:

1) The Acorn Indictments A union-backed outfit faces charges of election fraud. WSJ, November 3, 2006 2) Complications, Challenges Abound, Newsday, October 31, 2004 3) Nightline TV show, October 29, 2004 4) Partisan Suspicions Run High in Swing States Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2004 These are all highly credible sources, so it's not quite as clear cut as Bali ultimate claims. The facts, as reported by reliable sources, appeared to implicate ACORN in the crack incident. After reading the material with a more critical eye it became apparent that the NAACP voter group was the real alleged culprit. Bali's statement that "Weeks of searching turned up not one single reliable source making this cocaine claim" is therefore very hard to believe. I'm sorry I put the crack info in the ACORN article but was acting in good faith so I don't see why I should be punished for that. (I'm not even sure if this is the right forum to be discussing this but I felt Bali's statement above cried out for a reply and wanted to get this on the record.) Syntacticus (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an RfCU against a likely sockpuppet of a COI editor - not about me, not about POV pushing in an article, and not about the merits of a partisan political organization. Those things are evidence of sockpuppetry, not something to argue here on the merits.  The evidence is sufficiently strong, and the editor's ongoing disruption bad enough (In the past few minutes removing an AfD tag on a WP:COAT article, a new mediation request, reverting a BLP vio, and who knows what other mischief?) that to avoid drama and trouble we ought to try to answer the sockpuppetry question sooner rather than later.
 * My credibility is fine and my track record consistent. Those accusations on my talk page have come mostly from problem accounts that are no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia.  Most or all of those I suspected were abusive sockuppets were confirmed later, and blocked accordingly.  Same with vandals and trolls.  Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

/ While currently available technical evidence indicates that the edits are coming from IPs in the same basic geographic area, there is no further evidence linking the accounts to each other. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 22 December 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.''