Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eclipse Anesthesia/Archive

Report date June 16 2009, 01:50 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fuzbaby

This user(s) has repeatedly reverted substantial good faith edits I've made to two articles on Nurse anesthetist and Anesthesia to edits that are identical to those of User:Eclipse Anesthesia. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] All editors use similar personal attacks on their reverts and edit the same material in the same way to consistantly promote a single point of view, all have claimed ownership of the articles on their edit summaries and in the talk page, claiming they've been there for years and they won't allow other's to edit without their consent, all edit the pages to include a pro nurse provider bias and eliminate any references or content that doesn't support that (in fact, eliminating the exact same sources and external links added by different users), and all simply revert others' to maintain a single version of the page that they openly endorse and claim credit for; I believe all are the same user and ask that this be checked. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Aestiva is not a sock puppet, see my page. I actually exist and currently only contribute to articles where I am an expert in the topic. Eclipse Anesthesia is known personally by me. The community of Nurse Anesthetists in the US is small and quite cohesive, especially those who have served in the US military. In addition, I assure you Eclipse does not work for the AANA, however approx. 97% of the CRNAs in the US belong to that org., again cohesiveness. Please see my personal appeal to Fuzbaby on his talk page for more insight. Maybe some of reverts were a bit of a knee jerk reaction but there is a history of persons making biased and defamatory edits to this article. It has been protected at least once. If Fuzbaby had something verifiable and pertinent to add, and it was dismissed too quickly then I personally apologize. Otherwise, reverts may have been justified. Aestiva (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Fuzbaby (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Can you provide a link to the relevant arbcom motion, since you used checkuser code letter "A", and also at least 4 diffs showing edit warring over 3RR, since you used code letter "D"? Thanks, — Jake   Wartenberg  20:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Im not sure which letter to use, I think I used what I saw on another form; can you change it to whichever would be appropriate? Thank you.  Fuzbaby (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * to check for other active sock accounts for this user. Nathan  T 23:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Previous comment in error removed). Nathan  T 01:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * The IP addresses of the three named editors are geographically distinct, and the explanation that these are people who know each other in real life and share a common profession fits well with the underlying internet providers and their locations. -- Avi (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP addresses of the three named editors are geographically distinct, and the explanation that these are people who know each other in real life and share a common profession fits well with the underlying internet providers and their locations. -- Avi (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

--Avi (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)