That seems to be the lot. Possible ResearchEditor sockpuppets. All added the exact same information and citations to multiple pages using a series of throwaway accounts. The POV and sources suggest RE, promoting the discredited idea that there's any weight to the
satanic ritual abuse moral panic, the use of the
extreme abuse surveys (G4 speedied as a recreation of the
Extreme Abuse Survey with an AFD
here) and Randy Noblitt's discredited beliefs about satanic ritual abuse. All are
single-purpose accounts that have only one topic's worth of edits, and redlinked talk and user pages. If it's not RE, then I would be very surprised, and even if not I can't concieve that it's not someone else sockpuppeting. If not RFCU-ed, accounts should probably be blocked anyway for
spamming.
WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
There's hardly any overlap between these accounts, but they all appear to be editing in the same general area. Nishkid64(
Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: All accounts marked {{likely}} have been indef blocked and tagged.
Tiptoetytalk 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Msbvben and Donrus22 demonstrate knowledge of intricate ref formatting from their first edits. These two articles seem to fit in ResearchEditor's topics of interest, so I think a block can be made based on behavior. I haven't looked over the ArbCom decision involving ResearchEditor in its entirety, but does an indefinite block seem appropriate in light of the new sockpuppetry? Nishkid64(
Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
I am currently reading over the ArbCom case, and will make that decision here shortly. Also, consider the other two accounts blocked.
Tiptoetytalk 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Supporting evidence: ResearchEditor (aka
Abuse truth (
talk·contribs) aka
Abuse t (
talk·contribs)) is topic-banned from
Satanic ritual abuse articles (see his talk page). Recently a couple of SPAs have turned up at the SRA page, pushing exactly the same POV as Abuse truth did, and with suspicious knowledge of Wikipedia policy and terminology (Extrabreeze's first edit summary refers to a "cfork"). I call bullshit, and would like to have this CU-confirmed. Meatpuppetry I am convinced of: socking is perfectly plausible. If the former, I'll deal with this via revert restrictions: if the latter we can move straight to blocking.
Moreschi (
talk) 14:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: I have indef blocked
Extrabreeze (
talk·contribs) seeing as the contributions confirm they are ResearchEditor. After looking over
Baawip80 (
talk·contribs) I see nothing that would indicate they are involved. Also, I am going to leave ResearchEditor unblocked, but recommend a ANI thread be started to discuss any possible violations of the above stated topic-ban.
Tiptoetytalk 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Clerk note: After looking over
Baawip80 (
talk·contribs) a bit more, I have indef blocked that account as well.
Tiptoetytalk 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned on the talk page of the relevant entry, can you check out the following two users against all those listed above as well so we can clear the air completely regarding new single purpose accounts pushing RE's POV post ResearchEditor's topic ban.
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.