Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CorticoSpinal: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
reply to ... curious focus
Line 74: Line 74:


:::Either way, a checkuser should be conducted. I agree with Colonel Warden that an edit summary saying "remove spam" is fairly circumstantial. - [[User:DigitalC|DigitalC]] ([[User talk:DigitalC|talk]]) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Either way, a checkuser should be conducted. I agree with Colonel Warden that an edit summary saying "remove spam" is fairly circumstantial. - [[User:DigitalC|DigitalC]] ([[User talk:DigitalC|talk]]) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I am baffled by the perverse focus on an example used for nothing more than illustrating "flippancy". Both accounts edit the same topics, sharing the exact same view, pushing the same type of content changes, with the same attitude and approach, and even edit from the same IP. (For example, both users made it clear they wish to include material indicating the effectiveness of manual manipulation for neck issues, have spinal manipulation information removed from the chiropractic art.) Technical evidence does not negate the possibility of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, especially in the face of other evidence. Soyuz113 started off using full edit summaries and diving immediately into the altmed controversy with a principal focus on chiropractic.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=50&contribs=user&target=Soyuz113] The account is at best used as a "bad hand" account or is a proxy for blocked users (meatpuppet). [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:03, 8 September 2008

CorticoSpinal

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Older:


  • Supporting evidence: This case revolves around a persistent POV-pusher and disruptive editor problem on Chiropractic and related pages and talk pages.

CorticoSpinal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) was indefinitely blocked by several admins ( block log ) and given several chances to reform, despite which he kept making disruptive contributions and was permanently blocked May 31.

User:Fyslee has been tracking this case and believes that it's the continuation of an older one involving (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of CorticoSpinal including previously indef'ed Marcbronson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), EBDCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu), and briefly used account ShirleyTO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:QuackGuru believes that newer account Soyuz113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is part of this.

Given the duck test apparent connections in edit style and ongoing abuse, including multiple indef'ed apparent sockpuppets, a CU check appears warranted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to clarify a few points. I don't recall that User:Marcbronson or his next username User:EBDCM were ever blocked. They created alot of problems and CorticoSpinal simply abandoned them one after the other. During this time he edited from several IPs and often forgot to log in.
It is under his User:CorticoSpinal username that he got indef blocked three times. That's quite the accomplishment! He then used the following to evade blocks:
Regarding 208.101.118.33:
CorticoSpinal often edited under IPs and forgot to sign in:
He had no doubt been editing as User:Soyuz113 for some time, but here he blew his cover as User:Soyuz113 (confirmed by AGK). Soyuz113 has never denied being CorticoSpinal, but has chosen to remain quiet, even though given the opportunity to privately explain himself. Read this version of his talk page.
I think that is pretty accurate and hope this straightens things out. -- Fyslee / talk 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Another interesting case is found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Corticopia. While the similarity in usernames isn't conclusive evidence, and there don't seem to be any overlaps in articles or subject matter, block evading socks often edit in different areas and there are similarities as regards edit warring, verbal abuse of opposing editors, and location. Together this seems more than a coincidental collection of similarities. Here are the links to check:
User:216.234.60.106 made a removal from User:Corticopia's talk page, which is a failure to log in, very typical of CorticoSpinal.
That CU case needs to be reviewed, instead of summarily dismissed, and if there is a connection, these cases need to be merged and this should be added to the evidence against the person behind all of this. -- Fyslee / talk 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soyuz113 and associated IP blocked. I have anon-blocked the IP at the top of this report and indefinitely blocked Soyuz113. This is a fairly clear case of block evasion and sockpuppetry. Any further incidents should result in a community ban proposal. User blocked and notified.[1] Vassyana (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any real evidence here - just ludicrous circumstantial stuff like use of the word spam. Where is the evidence that Soyuz113 is any of these other users or that he has been editing in a way which merits an indefinite block? Was there a proper checkuser made or is it all just prejudice and guesswork? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do your homework better. It is CorticoSpinal/Soyuz113 himself who is using the words spam and wikistalking, with these aggressive and accusatory links in his edit summary: WP:HARASS WP:CIVIL. This is obviously a very negative way to deal with such accusations. As I advised him the last time he was indef blocked - offense is NOT the best defense in this type of situation. This guy has an aggressive streak that affects his editing style, his encounters with editors who hold opposing POV, and his reactions to accusations. This is all rather unfortunate from my POV, since we share many POV about chiropractic, but certainly not about what Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires of article content. Too bad.
Now if he had contacted an admin without any sockpuppetry and requested that his case be reviewed through an WP:RfC/U, we might be in an entirely different place today. Instead he broke many rules here by disruptive sock puppetry (in contrast to the legitimate and allowed use of sock puppets in certain situations). In this type of case there is no mercy. We're dealing with an experienced user who is just using a new username and a slight change in terminology ("chiropracty"), which is far less than what some amateur sockpuppets do when they create several "good hand bad hand" socks that battle each other, with the end result being what the sockmaster really wants. Then the "bad" sock may get blocked, and the "good" sock stays at work with no one suspecting they're dealing with a blocked user. Sockmasters can be pretty sneaky. The last one I exposed was Signsolid & Signsolid. That was quite the case!
BTW, why are you consistently on the side of (and defending) fringe POV pushers and their socks? I think you need to rethink your relationship to Wikipedia and why you are here. This type of activity only brings more unwanted attention on all your edits and activities here. If you would learn to cooperate with editors who hold opposing POV and follow NPOV, we could all work together at the same editing table and collaborate to ensure that all significant POV are presented properly in articles. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a battle. -- Fyslee / talk 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, a checkuser should be conducted. I agree with Colonel Warden that an edit summary saying "remove spam" is fairly circumstantial. - DigitalC (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled by the perverse focus on an example used for nothing more than illustrating "flippancy". Both accounts edit the same topics, sharing the exact same view, pushing the same type of content changes, with the same attitude and approach, and even edit from the same IP. (For example, both users made it clear they wish to include material indicating the effectiveness of manual manipulation for neck issues, have spinal manipulation information removed from the chiropractic art.) Technical evidence does not negate the possibility of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, especially in the face of other evidence. Soyuz113 started off using full edit summaries and diving immediately into the altmed controversy with a principal focus on chiropractic.[2] The account is at best used as a "bad hand" account or is a proxy for blocked users (meatpuppet). Vassyana (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/CorticoSpinal&oldid=237015103"