Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Uruk2008

ANI
I have taken this problem to ANI, where it should have gone in the first place. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The first thing they'd have done is suggested that we go through WP:DR. I don't see the problem with User:BenRG creating the RFC. Thank you for forwarding it there, however. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another alias?
User:MessiahBenDavid appears to edit the same set of articles as Uruk, and has a similar modus operandi of inserting pseudoscientific sources that appear to have been google-mined. The connection is a little less clear, though. It may warrant further investigation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A thread here also suggests that the two editors are acting in concert with each other, in addition to the fact that they share a similar MO, and edit a similar set of articles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They have a similar habit of blanking their talk page, and of using a random possibly-googled snippet as their user page. Can you provide a delta of the thread contribution you're talking about, though? I'm having trouble finding it (all I'm finding is a discussion about thermobaric weapons). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the thread Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing/Archive_2 was what I was referring to. I will compile shortly a list of articles edited by both parties, with a similar agenda. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some articles edited by both parties, with a similar editing pattern:
 * 1993 World Trade Center bombing
 * Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
 * Elohim
 * Khobar Towers bombing
 * Oklahoma City bombing
 * Nuclear fusion
 * Shaped charge
 * Thermobaric weapon
 * Zero point energy
 * There are possibly more such articles. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Looie496 has pointed out that the edit patterns aren't as unambiguously similar as I'd thought (diff showing the conversation thread). Rather than try to build an ironclad case, I've just split it off into a "maybe - see talk page" section so that the two of you can present your cases here. I'm unfortunately not able to devote much time to Wikipedia nowadays (that's why I didn't ask for a checkuser myself a little while back, among other things). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look at the earliest contributions of Uruk alongside those of MessiahBenDavid. They use similar edit summaries, edit exactly the same set of articles, and seem to back one another up.  In the Oklahoma City bombing article, for instance, immediately after edits by User:Uruk2008 were removed by User:Kralizec!, they were restored by User:MessiahBenDavid.  Similarly, on the article Zero-point energy, material added by MessiahBenDavid was removed by User:Pvkeller, only to be restored a little while later by User:Uruk2008.  Granted, the edits don't fall into the recent pattern of just adding Google-mined pseudoreferences to articles, however both MessiahBenDavid and Uruk in the past had exactly the same MO of posting dubious content sourced to extremely unreliable self-published sources.  Many of the earlier edit summaries are also quite similar: "Cite references" or "Cite reference" appears far more often than usual in the contributions list of both accounts.  Finally, until the recent Google-mining incident, the two accounts were active on almost exactly the same set of articles.  Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a final thought, there is certainly enough evidence at the RfC that a checkuser request should be made. Perhaps then, other possible redflag accounts may emerge.  I have no idea how to go about doing this, however: to me WP:RFCU looks quite intimidating. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The evidence here has gone a long way toward convincing me, but the key point as far as RFCU goes is that MessiahBenDavid hasn't edited since April. I took this matter to ANI last week, and the editor promised to behave in the future.  My guess is that an RFCU won't be accepted unless there is evidence of recent socking, meaning after the ANI thread.  I'm not an admin so I could be wrong, but my experience is that it's hard to get a CU carried out in the best of cases. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note, as further checkuser evidence, the pattern in the usernames of a Word followed by 3 to 4 numbers: Gil987, Casimir999, Three887, Uruk2008, (apologies to Looie496 :) ) -- &oelig; &trade; 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Those four quack too loudly to justify a checkuser -- it's blatantly obvious that they are all the same person. As far as I know, though, there hasn't been any socking since the editor was taken to ANI and promised to stop.  The only question is whether MessiahBenDavid is another sock -- the lack of numbers is one way this account doesn't fit the pattern, but on the other hand it's the oldest of all the accounts. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Still going at it
Gil987 has restored fringe pseudoscience links to Zero-point energy. One of the links had already been added by Casimir999. The article had also been edited by Uruk2008 and Three887, who have been reverted in multiple occassions. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest starting a new AN/I thread, then, as the user is still causing problems. Maybe also point out that they'd said they'd remove their previous additions last time this was brought to AN/I, and didn't. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And Gil987 is still at it, , , . Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reported this to ANI, at WP:ANI. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)