Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive

Report date February 15 2009, 23:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * to Day care sex abuse hysteria diff and diff
 * to Project MKULTRA diff
 * to Pace memorandum diff
 * to List of satanic ritual abuse allegations diff, revert to this version of lead, which was written by User:Gosar10 (next entry)
 * to List of satanic ritual abuse allegations diff and Multiple personality controversy diff
 * to Pace memorandum diff
 * to Pace memorandum diff
 * to Multiple personality controversy diff
 * to Truddi Chase diff
 * to psychological trauma diff
 * to Lawrence Pazder diff
 * to Lawrence Pazder diff
 * to Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis diff
 * to Gerald Amirault diff
 * to Dale Akiki diff
 * to dissociation diff, also to same page, diff

has previously abused multiple sockpuppets multiple times (see here). A new set of single-purpose, low number of contributions accounts have appeared pushing the same POV. In addition, I'm seeking confirmation (and blocks) on a series of old accounts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by User:WLU
 * Added two more entries found on dissociation 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * CheckUser request


 * - Tiptoety  talk 05:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The rest are. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * The following are ✅:

All blocked and tagged. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Report date March 2 2009, 13:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User:WLU
 * For Mmerct, recreation of the now thrice-deleted extreme abuse surveys (new page is Abuse surveys, with mis-spellings to avoid the search engine; previous deletions are: deletion discussion, then recreated and deleted as the extreme abuse surveys and xtreme abuse survey).


 * For Henry James Fan, reverted to a version of Frederick Crews created by a sockpuppet, continuing to support a page version placing undue weight on the POV of ResearchEditor (that there are no false memories and all allegations of child abuse are true, even satanic ritual abuse). Also a single-purpose account as most of RE's socks are, though this one is unusual for actually engaging on the talk page.

ResearchEditor has an extensive history of sockpuppeting - see here and here. The last sock investigation resulted in accounts that I did not report being turned up and listed; that'd be useful, because RE likes to POV-push on a lot of pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * not under arbcom sanction. Please revise. Mayalld (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mayalld (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related to each other, and to the accounts found to be socks here: Sockpuppet investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive
 * All the confirmed socks are now blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All the confirmed socks are now blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All the confirmed socks are now blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All the confirmed socks are now blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All the confirmed socks are now blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 2 2009, 14:26 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex
 * ResearchEditor has a long history of sockpuppetting (Requests for checkuser/Case/ResearchEditor; Sockpuppet_investigations/ResearchEditor/Archive). Every two weeks a new set of socks seem to pop up, and these dates are about right.  Each account created exactly one article, on a book related to satanic ritual abuse (which was the topic that led to a community ban by RE for POV-pushing, which he then sockpuppeted around leading to a indefban).  No other articles were edited, and all have the same minimalist edit summaries, user page and talk page one-liner notes.  In cases where I have posted comments on the talk page, they were removed, which is characteristic of RE's previous socks.  I had initially assumed these were throwaway accounts like his previous socks, but several have returned to delete the prod notices I placed on several articles created by RE.  Checkuser evidence in the past has turned up accounts I didn't manage to find that re-created deleted material (see the deletion log for Extreme abuse surveys and Xtreme abuse survey).  Given the propensity for poorly-spelled alternative pages, it's quite possible that conventional searches wouldn't turn up other possibly G4 material that have been re-created.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * is – same user agent, different area. All others are . Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked the 3 likely socks indef. Please archive and tag. ——  nix eagle email me 22:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date May 1 2009, 11:54 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Please review the page histories of Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, Cult and Ritual Abuse and Ralph Underwager. All pages are now semiprotected, ResearchEditor appears to be creating an account, making ten banal edits with a purpose of bypassing semiprotection, then four days later editing the protected pages. I'm requesting an IP check because I'm betting another four-day timebomb has been set up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by WLU


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

The reported account has been blocked, but endorse for CU to check for further sleepers, and to look at a rangeblock. Mayalld (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

-- Avi (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ Currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that the following accounts are related:
 * all tagged Mayalld (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All blocked indef by me or others. Please tag/Archive. ——  nix eagle email me 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Arthur Rubin
Each user had (at the time of the original report, about 5 hours ago) only one edit, or one or two related edits, which add material favorable to the assertion that "ritual child abuse" is real or that abuse actually occured in the respective cases; usually based on interpretations of court testimony or unreliable sources.


 * Cocotree
 * Birdpoet
 * Remetta
 * Helpingalla
 * Bookwormer2
 * Fhetter
 * DrHineman

The next-to-last one may be a sensible edit, although not supported by the URL, and the last one appears to be a sensible edit. However, it fits the pattern, so may still be the banned editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * . NW ( Talk ) 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅



J.delanoy gabs adds 23:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * All accounts listed blocked indefinitely and tagged as sockpuppet of ResearchEditor. NW ( Talk ) 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Arthur Rubin
The only articlespace edit fits the category; adding contentious material saying that children were molested. That's the only one I noticed at this time, but my watchlist is getting too large to be sure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC) The edit is also very similar to this one by a previously blocked sock,. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅. Also. J.delanoy gabs adds 05:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Blocked and tagged. MuZemike 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Arthur Rubin
Each has one edit restoring or inserting pro-child-abuse-existance edits, per previous RE socks. Requesting checkuser to see if and I missed any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅



All blocked and tagged. - blocked two IPs that he had created most of his accounts on. He may or may not have access to more... J.delanoy gabs adds 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (may not meet the criteria exactly, as he/she attacked me, in addition to making questionable reversions to Satanic ritual abuse) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (probably the same as ClimateGate above, whether or not in the RE cluster However, probably not reportable unless in the RE cluster or having other multiple violations)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Biker Biker
Looks like this is another sockpuppet - identical edits to previous sockpuppets of this user at Wenatchee sex ring. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Also edits to Faith Chapel Church ritual abuse case and Fells Acres Day Care Center preschool trial, Gerald Amirault, again repeating edits by another confirmed sock. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * for checkuser attention. Possible sleeper socks, and an IP block would be nice if possible. NW ( Talk ) 16:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

✅ =



IP blocks would almost certainly be ineffective.

I'm not sure about, as they don't have the same technical pattern the others do. I'd probably call it. No comment on the IP. J.delanoy gabs adds 19:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, CG is definitely ❌. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  19:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Blocked and tagged appropriately. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by WLU
User:ResearchEditor has a very, very long history of sockpuppeting repeatedly over months and years. A special article of interest is satanic ritual abuse. Recently a new editor showed up at on both SRA and talk:SRA, pushing for the same changes as ResearchEditor in the past - that SRA actually exists and that it was not a moral panic. It's mostly behavioural, but given the extensive, repeated history of sockpuppeting (see here, at this point I'm guessing it's more than 50 separate throwaway accounts) it's a reasonable precaution that'll ultimately save a lot of time. A checkuser is pretty much inevitable so might as well get it out of the way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is the only reasonable way of figuring out if it's the same IP address and therefore the same user. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

we've only got a day or so left before this all goes, so a speedy check would be appreciated, latest confirmed ResearchEditor sock: Thank you very much, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * same geographic area/ISP, differing user agents. Brandon (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've blocked, the edits seem to pass the duck test anyway. --  At am a  頭 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Report date April 4 2010, 05:55 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

This user has been editing Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and Talk:Satanic ritual abuse/FAQ, and all have been reverted. Looking at what he wrote, he obviously had some sort of connection with the article; He has noted about previously blocked users and has criticized User: WLU of his actions.
 * Evidence submitted by  Pep per mint   Chi lls 


 * WLU warned this user on April 2 if he continues he will sock him, here . Look at the bottom. the user eventually removed this notice.


 * There is also a strange similarity between this user and User:Teniwiker37 on their User page.


 * Sknc83 edits --, look at the edit summery.
 * Teniwiker37 edits--, look at his first 10 edits.  Pep per mint   Chi lls  05:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Also an admin, User:Arthur Rubin has expressed the possibility this user is a sock, look at the edit summery --  Pep per mint    Chi lls  06:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * Based on contribution history, talk page behaviour and other behavioural indicators, almost certainly a ResearchEditor sock. If the IP address matches Teniwiker but not RE's old socks, it's possible s/he switched to a new IP.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 21:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by WLU
The recent edit to satanic ritual abuse placing 100 unnecessary references on the page, after making 10 edits to userspace necessary for autoconfirmation. Twice. ,. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ResearchEditor and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ResearchEditor for more than 100 examples of this type of behaviour. Usually creates multiple sockpuppets at the same time to edit multiple separate pages without linking the accounts, hence the checkuser. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I would have made it B+E, rather than A+E; I don't recall an ArbCom ban of this editor. But I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it wasn't a full arbitration hearing, but arb did endorse the ban -, . Still very possible that the code letter is wrong, I should probably stick to just community ban in the future.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Areftipo -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this is the only one. Let's get a check on this. Auntie E. (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Checkuser isn't helpful here; a range check of Areftipo shows nothing useful. Behavioral evidence will have to suffice. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Account appears to have been blocked by Jpgordon, seems there is little left to do here. SpitfireTally-ho! 05:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Note from OTRS
OTRS ticket 2010041910020176 is related to this case. There was a case of outing of ResearchEditor's real name and address on a user's talk page; the email was a request for the information to be deleted, which it was. Interested users should contact an OTRS volunteer for more information on the email, however, the contents of the email, and the name/address itself, are confidential. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by WLU
ResearchEditor has a history of making socks, particularly when I'm on wikibreak. These particular edits have been made repeatedly by RE socks, see the original set, versus previous sock edits , ,. I am requesting a checkuser because RE tends to create several sock puppets at once in order to recreate previously deleted pages or make edits like this one to various pet pages. I think the last checkuser also came back that their IP had changed, so this may be mostly behavioural. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
– First off, CheckUser won't yield much as there is virtually nothing else to base off of as everything is. Also, I'm fairly convinced this is ResearchEditor per the behavioral evidence and patterns. Tretter28 indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 00:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
See below

Evidence submitted by Spitfire
opened as a blank template for MuZemike SpitfireTally-ho! 23:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * Possible one of many users who are pissed off at my editing habits. Any chance of someone letting me know what the deleted articles were?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ of each other:



I have no previous confirmed ResearchEditor socks to compare against, but based on behavioral evidence and editing patterns, one can easily make the connection. Another admin should take appropriate actions as warranted. –MuZemike 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All users tagged and blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

01 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This is the exact same source and information added by ResearchEditor sockpuppets in numerous previous occasions - see here for the history of sockpuppeting and these discussions with JPGordon: 1, 2, 3. Ideally I'd like to do a further check on the IP address to see if any other information has been added by RE on pages my search didn't turn up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All ✅, blocked, and tagged. No others detected. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

29 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Needs IP block. Comes in under each username for one or two edits to add linkspam pointing to the same book, "Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder". Named sockmaster is just another alias, so checkuser might find the real master. Could easily be more by the time this report is reviewed, but easy to find with this search TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS: To give credit where credit is due, this was first caught and reported by M.boli. TransporterMan ( TALK ) 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Zowie! This is the first time I brought anything to the Administrators' Noticeboard, and you folks are truly impressive. I did notice that this book has been the subject of link spam in the past and on several occasions seems to have been caught by an automated process. I thank you muchly. M.boli (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ and blocked the following:
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm relisting this for another run to see if there's a connection between these accounts and Researcheditor, a fairly prolific socker. should still be usable to check against. Note that this relisting is based on behavioral evidence, such as these two edits. (As a side point, I may merge the two cases together based on evidence even if the CU comes back negative.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is. The useragent's close enough given the time difference, same ISP and general geographic area. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool. I've merged the cases and updated all the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm relisting this for another run to see if there's a connection between these accounts and Researcheditor, a fairly prolific socker. should still be usable to check against. Note that this relisting is based on behavioral evidence, such as these two edits. (As a side point, I may merge the two cases together based on evidence even if the CU comes back negative.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is. The useragent's close enough given the time difference, same ISP and general geographic area. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool. I've merged the cases and updated all the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 20:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm relisting this for another run to see if there's a connection between these accounts and Researcheditor, a fairly prolific socker. should still be usable to check against. Note that this relisting is based on behavioral evidence, such as these two edits. (As a side point, I may merge the two cases together based on evidence even if the CU comes back negative.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is. The useragent's close enough given the time difference, same ISP and general geographic area. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool. I've merged the cases and updated all the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm relisting this for another run to see if there's a connection between these accounts and Researcheditor, a fairly prolific socker. should still be usable to check against. Note that this relisting is based on behavioral evidence, such as these two edits. (As a side point, I may merge the two cases together based on evidence even if the CU comes back negative.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is. The useragent's close enough given the time difference, same ISP and general geographic area. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool. I've merged the cases and updated all the tags. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)