Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richardmalter/Archive

01 March 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 " ~ "''

He's at it again, this time pushing a dubious "study" (hardly even a case report of ONE patient) he has done in a pseudoscience journal he claims is peer-reviewed, but it's self-published by a bunch of known pseudoscientists, so "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean much. He claims he's not Richard Malter, but we know he's done this before. The IP also locates to his area. The source doesn't come anywhere close to our MEDRS requirements for making stupendously fantastic claims of a 100% cancer cure using involving BDORT, but the cure supposedly effectuated using flax seed. Even if he's not Malter, it's clear meatpuppetry to push Malter's dubious "study". See thread. Brangifer (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Newyorkbrad posted the notice from ArbCom at the top of Talk:BDORT that Malter is banned from the article and talk page indefinitely, he's obviously not going to admit to a registered account, so such a request doesn't make sense. Nor is "editing at the same time relevant". Editing the article at all is the problem. The IP locates to the same area as Malter's previously blocked IPs. I guess he should just be blocked per DUCK. Will you do it or do we have to take this to ArbCom? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What am I missing here? We have a very clear case of block evasion> article ban violation by an editor who is banned by ArbCom itself from the article and talk page. To not deal with it is to insult an ArbCom decision. That's pretty serious.


 * It makes no difference if Malter is logged in or not, he has been editing the article, using the talk page, and also using RS/N to push the inclusion of his dubious primary study of one person whom he claims to have cured 100% from cancer with BDORT. Malter has done this type of block evasion> article ban violation before from the same location. Check the other IPs he's used. The IP isn't from NYC, LA, London, or some other far distant place. It's from within his general location and it's HIS study.


 * The whole purpose of filing an SPI is to draw attention to socks and to block evasion. A banned editor has violated his ArbCom ban. There is no need for any overlapping of edits. What's going on here? Have the rules been changed? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Notice: Richardmalter is banned from editing this article or its talk page indefinitely." is pretty clear to me. He's article banned, but not blocked. Rather than saying "block evasion" (which I have carelessly done), we are talking about a violation of his indefinite article ban. That applies to him whether he's logged in or not. Any admin should be able to do this without an eye being lifted. I'll refactor my misstatements above. Evasion of an indefinite article should lead to consequences in the form of a ban from all of Wikipedia. The time length is up to the blocking admin.

If anyone's in doubt about Malter's location, check the two addresses listed on his website. User:202.63.58.223 is from the Melbourne area and these two addresses are both in that area, as are the SPI-listed IPs he has previously used. Who else would be seeking to include HIS obscure case study here? Do we need to present DNA samples before this can be settled? Come to think of it, we don't even need CU evidence here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking care of this matter. It looks like this is ready for the archive. Resolved nicely. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 4 March 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

 * - CU won't connect an IP to an account - and that account is really stale, anyway. And it's not like the two accounts are editing at the same time. Has anyone notified the IP that if they have an account, they should log in? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * taken as no overlap in edits and no block evasion. (Aka logged out user. Feel free to notify about logged out status.) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My screwup here, missed the ArbCom fact/evasion. Reopened per User Talk:DeltaQuad. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that the IP is really User:Richardmalter, based on behavior. I've semiprotected BDORT and will log this at Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Thanks to DeltaQuad for reopening this. A more complete discussion can be seen at BullRangifer's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done now? -- DQ  (t)   (e)  06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)