Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LossIsNotMore}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] LossIsNotMore - 2

Editing as IP’s and one registered account on Depleted Uranium

James Salsman has once again used an IP to edit an article he is banned from editing. This is not the first time he has done this (prior Checkuser) and he might have even been able to get away with it had I found a peculiar edit by one of the anons. It seems that the anon was correcting James’ spelling mistake [1]. Physbang's first edit was also a correction on one of James' previous posts. [2] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All likely Unrelated. I did find this violation [3], but it's old. Dmcdevit·t 03:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Clerk note: The edit you flagged by 75.35.112.95 (talk • contribs) is a SWBell dsl address. So is 75.18.207.177 (talk • contribs) listed above. (75.18.207.177 (talk • contribs) is Qwest in Denver) If 75.35 was James S/LossIsNotMore, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the edits from 75.18 were likely his as well? Second, if the named accounts were not from SW Bell, is it possible to check them as open proxies, given Mackensen's findings in the non-transcluded section of the page below? Thatcher131 03:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You're right about those IPs, I only looked at the accounts. Of course, it's the same ISP with dynamic IPs (and no actual overlap in specific IP) so based on the IP evidence I can't really say it's more than Possible. It's likely the behavior makes the violation obvious though. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Accused note: Firstly, thank you for clearing me as much as you have so far. I logged in today for the first time in a week to see all this, all very familiar, except this time it's substantially better than it usually is. Also, about that so-called open proxy in Plano, Texas which Mackensen apparently said Peter Cheung was editing from is actually part of a DSL pool. Are there any known instances of open proxy servers existing in dynamic DHCP pools? Would someone please look back into that?! Thank you. LossIsNotMore 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Open proxies can definitely exist in DHCP pools. It just makes them harder to block. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LossIsNotMore

Admin Nandesuka and others have accused Peter Cheung, who was editing as 69.228.65.174, of being me, James Salsman, User:LossIsNotMore (formerly User:Nrcprm2026) concerning edits on Depleted uranium which I am prevented by ArbCom sanctions from editing. [4] [5] [6]. So, as I have been accused of violating ArbCom sanctions, and Peter Cheung has been accused of being a sockpuppet of mine in doing so, please CheckUser to clear us both from these accusations. LossIsNotMore 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know if James recruited this guy or if he is using a proxy server or what, but several facts have to be taken into consideration here:
  1. Depleted Uranium this is the first article Peter Cheung has edited
  2. Peter Cheung is attempting to add the same discredited information, verbatim, that James Salsman was
  3. Peter Cheung's second edit was an explanation on his talk page that he was not James Salsman and this could be verified by looking at his IP
  4. Peter Cheung found and utilized the survey tool a bit too quickly
  5. Neither of these editors have made contributions within the same time frame
  6. James Salsman cannot drop this debate.
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There was an AP article on depleted uranium which came out over the weekend and appeared in hundreds of newspapers. There are a lot more new users than just Peter Cheung editing that article today and yesterday. LossIsNotMore 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. "Peter Cheung" is editing from an open proxy, and based on IP evidence I'd say it's pretty likely that if you aren't him you certainly know who he is. No matter. The proxy is blocked indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, why in the world is James Salslman editing article space related to uranium trioxide, when there is an Arbcom decision forbidding him from doing so? Nandesuka 04:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nrcprm2026

James Salsman has been editing Depelted Uranium articles in violation of 1.1 of his arbitration ruling, through the use of various IP addresses, and sockpuppets.

Please investigate. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk note: Could you provide some diffs of the suspected violations? --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

JamesS was prohibited form editing articles haveing anything to do with depleted uranium following his arbcom ruling. Some examples are: [7], [8], and [9]. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconclusive. Nrcprm2026 hasn't edited since May 1, too far back to check. The IPs listed are all from SBC/PacBell, while Gayrights is on a completely different ISP. Unless there is a record from the Arbitration Case or a previous checkuser of Nrcprm2026's IPs, there's no way to check this one. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, Nrcprm2026 did make a few edits from an IP, 71.141.107.41 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log • checkip) and later signed them an example. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what I linked to. The above links are from edits Nrcprm2026 made several moths ago while not logged in, edits he later signed. I provided it as a point of reference. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Note: In that case, there really is no need for checkuser; just report it on WP:AN/AE with a layout of the evidence. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I figured this was just a formality because the IP's were not exactly the same. Are, you saying then that although the IP's are not the same, that it is indeed the same user, Nrcprm2026? Please see above. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The IPs are all in the same range, and it is dynamic (PPPOX pool). Therefore the IPs are likely one person. I don't have checkuser, so I can't tell you about the registered users. Prodego talk 20:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

71.141.107.41 is in SBC's PPPOX pool "Rback36.SNFCCA" (71.141.96.0 - 71.141.127.255 60) while those 71.132 addresses are all in PPPOX pool "-bras16.pltnca" (71.132.128.0 - 71.132.143.255). SBC is a huge ISP, so it shouldn't be difficult for admins with checkuser to see whether those two blocks share users. 69.228.65.171 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is no longer a matter for checkuser. There is no way, based on the information available in the database, for me to confirm that the IPs are related to the user. The job of checkusers is to report on suspected sockpuppets based on the evidence available by checkuser; we are not default sockpuppet investigators, and do not handle cases that don't require checkuser. I've already reported that checkuser is inconclusive, if you want someone to look at edits by similar IPs that claimed to be the user and conclude that the IPs in question are him, then take it to the Administrators Noticeboard and ask someone to look into it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 01:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:BSbuster and User:Nrcprm2026

BSb recently added a comment to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Depleted_uranium_and_related_articles in support of Nrcprm2026. Since this is the users *only* edit [10] she is obviously a sock of someone; the obvious possibility is Nrcprm2026. William M. Connolley 16:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

AOL user. Nothing we can do, given the AOL megaproxy behaviour. Nrcprm2026 has never used AOL in the period I can check.Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey ho. Thanks for checking! William M. Connolley 17:58, 6 March 2006 (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.


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_checkuser_Case_LossIsNotMore_8245.html"