Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026/Archive.

• Nrcprm2026 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dual Use (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 99.27.202.101 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The IP address showed up as a "new" user at Cold Fusion pushing the same fringe sources. Geolocates to the known location of Nrcprm2026. This article is under ArbCom sanction. It's being ovverun with "new" users as IP addresses, and users who needed to create new accounts because their old accounts were associated with their IDs. Proven socks of James Salsman are subject to immediate indefinite block; see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nrcprm2026.

The Dual Use user is less certain - while the edits to Nutrition and Cold Fusion mark it as a possible Nrcprm2026, it seems more likley to be an editor banned by ArbCom returning to the article on their expiry of their ban. If located in Belgium, the Dual Use user is in the clear ArbComwise (but needs to stick with one username as opposed to using logged-out IP socks), while if not, it appears to be more likley Nrcprm2026. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This accusation is being made primarily because the accuser is unable to discuss improvements to the cold fusion article on the merits. He makes rapid, undiscussed reverts to that article, and has refused to familiarize himself with the peer-reviewed literature, as evidenced by the fact that he was unaware that Shanahan was the last to publish a peer-reviewed report on his side of the issue. I strongly object to this attempt to expose my identity, and ask that my privacy be protected. Whatever the results for either of the accused, please keep their identities be kept confidential, and please do not share them beyond the checkuser functionaries investigating. Also please state false positive and false negative rate for these sorts of investigations, if possible, so that people have a better understanding of how to interpret the results. Thank you. 99.27.202.101 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review. ��  Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]