User talk:RDOlivaw

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RDOlivaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not know user Unprovoked. This is my only account. I edit through a University proxy in Grenoble, and using city wi-fi (in parks here) as I do not yet have internet in my new flat. I am currently editing from a Nottingham University proxy as I am visiting there. Please unblock me and the IP address at Nottingham; feel free to block Unprovoked though I have no idea who they are and I have no access to that account. I am also not Dr88, although I assume it must be someone also in Grenoble. They say they work for the CEA whereas I work at the INPG for CNRS. If he wants to defend himself or ask for an unblock he can, but I'm not going to defend him. All my edits to the mainspace have been made in good faith, and I will avoid Homeopathy for the a while if that's any help. I did get rather involved with Dana Ullman, but he did try and bait me a number of times. I have emailed LaraLove earlier today and have not yet received a reply (I assume she is away or busy). Basically this is my main account, please feel free to block the others and they can defend themselves (although I broadly supported Dr88s main space edits, I have no knowledge of Unprovoked) and please unblock the proxy through which I am editing as this is a tempoary access point for me and I feel bad for the people here that will use the proxy from tomorrow for their work

Decline reason:

there is not enough evidence to support unblocking at this time. — slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the admin who reviews this, please first talk to User:Thatcher or User:Deskana. Checkuser evidence shows that this user and user User:DrEightyEight are connected to the account User:Unprovoked and on February 1, 2008 they edited from the same IP address, alternating, in a matter of minutes which puts them on the same computer. Lara❤Love 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you and DrEightyEight edited from the same IP within minutes of each other. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] Note descr: Proxad / Free SAS. descr: Static IP address (Freebox). To the best of my knowledge the IP is for Freebox: the modem has the static IP -- multiple computers can use the modem and will show the same IP. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't account for all the details, which is why I invited comment from RDOlivaw. --Deskana (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interim, LaraLove seems to have indefblocked one or two university networds, "Autoblock any IP addresses used". Regarding details, have diffs of alleged disruption been made public? My interactions with RDOlivaw found him constructive and helpful. Perhaps it should be noted that he made useful edits to Charles Darwin in the aftermath of POV pushing by Dana Ullman – is this a spin off from homeopathy arguments? .. dave souza, talk 23:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a POV-pusher is considered offensive unless it can be properly referenced. I made ONE edit in the article on Charles Darwin, and I provided NPOV references to my addition directly from Darwin's letters. Then, all of my other contributions were on the Talk pages. As it turns out, Unprovoked reversed my addition to the article, and Dr88 and HDOlivaw provided additional comments against my contribution. If these 3 people are the same person, my contributions to wikipedia has suffered from this gang of one. When it seemed that I was out-numbered, I respectfully stepped away. I have been a gentleman editor here...not a POV-pusher. I wish Dave Souza would acknowledge the strong anti-homeopathy bias that he has had in making his above statement and in vast majority of his edits. Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, the pov pushing I was referring to was on talk:Charles Darwin, and you're right that you only made one edit to the article. That introduced original research unsupported by a detailed examination of secondary sources and the primary sources you used. Similarly, RDOlivaw only edited the talk page. Your allegations of an anti-homeopathy bias are unfounded. .. dave souza, talk 08:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying IP is not blocked. I still eagerly await the response of RDOlivaw to the question that I asked. --Deskana (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks go to User:The undertow for unblocking RDOlivaw and reblocking with the autoblock removed. .. dave souza, talk 08:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they know one another, and don't want to give that information out to the public? -- Ned Scott 04:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RDO claims not to know Dr88. Meatpuppetry is still an issue if they do, as they have supported one another in various discussions regarding article content and such. Lara❤Love 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported other editors in discussions in the past. Diffs of alleged wrongdoing would be helpful. ... dave souza, talk 08:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can wait for RDOlivaw to respond to Deskana's question before asking for more from anyone else. —Whig (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do not like to give comprehensive checkuser answers as it tends to make smarter sockpuppeteers. However, between Deskana here and LaraLove on AN/I, the details have all been revealed, just not put together in order. So I will do that now, hopefully to put this thing to bed once and for all.

RDOlivaw edits exclusively from University during work hours Monday-Friday. There are no (logged-in) edits from any other location except for 4 recent edits from Nottingham and the sockpuppet "fingerprint", so his statement that he edits from wi-fi around town appears to be deliberate misdirection. There are also no other editors on his IP, so if it is a proxy, then en.wikipedia has only one editor at his university.

DrEightyEight edits exclusively from a static residential IP (probably DSL) on nights and weekends. I do not understand Jim's comment about modems and static IP addresses; that's how all modems work, and the only way two or more computers can connect to one modem and one IP address at the same time is through a LAN or wi-fi. Except for the "fingerprint", DrEightyEight is the only editor on his IP address, so there is little support for the suggestion that he is running an unsecured hotspot or has a free LAN in his apartment.

Here is the fingerprint. These edits were made from the same computer on DrEightEight's IP address.

> * 23:08, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)

> * 23:06, 1 February 2008 (RDOlivaw)

> * 23:01, 1 February 2008 (DrEightyEight)

So, it is theoretically possible that RDOlivaw was driving home from work and was struck by a sudden urge to talk to Jossi, and just happened to find an unsecured wi-fi hotspot outside of DrEightyEight's flat, and just happened to have the same model of computer in his car as DrEightyEight has on his desk. But I rather doubt it. This could be cleared up if DrEightyEight could post from his residence at the same time RDOlivaw is posting from Nottingham (did you notice DrEightyEight has been silent about his block even though he is the night/weekend editor?) -- except that, having said what the proof would be, I will no longer accept it as proof, since it may be trivial for him to get a friend or roommate to make a couple of edits for him. (This is one of the reasons I try to avoid making too many details public.)

It looks to me that this is a deliberate attempt to create two accounts by careful segregation of work and home edits, that would have been undetectable except for one mistake. Also note that the underlying IP addresses have been making edits on homeopathy and related topics since before these accounts were registered and as logged out editors after the accounts were created, and have supported each other's arguments on talk pages (especially Talk:Dana Ullman) as if they were two people. Thatcher 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was more specific (I think) in my email to Lara. I may have edited from city wifi available in the parks here, but I'm not sure. I have definitely used wikipdeia and the internet in the parks here and the nearby cafés. I have no knowledge of either Dr88 or Unprovoked in real life, although this doesn't mean that I don't know them - just that I don't know of their real identity. I don't drive I walk, and I often stop in cafés and parks around here, because it's a beautiful place and I nearly always have my laptop with me. I choose not to edit wikipedia on weekends, mostly because I view it as a little thing to do during dull moments at work, and because I ski or walk in the mountains or do things with my family at the weekend. I have no access to the Unprovoked account, so I cannot "resume editing" from this account. I don't know how to get in touch with Dr88/Unprovoked except by leaving messages here. I use a macbook pro running leopard with Firefox, which is standard issue where I work (and in most french research teams), as the French only pay for Macs or Dells (and no one likes Dells). I have probably used (though I don't think edited, since I got an account) wikipedia from other places such as student facilities and meeting rooms around the place, both fixed and wifi. I'm wouldn't be terribly surprised that not many people edit the English wikipedia, in English, from French cafés or parks etc. I am currently in Nottingham but will be back in France later this week. I have also usually agreed with Dr88s edits, but not always how he put them and I think I've disagreed more than once. I currently cannot edit wikipedia as this account (my only one) is blocked, and I guess if I make another account that will be blocked as a sock of Unprovoked too - hence I can no longer edit. If there are any other questions you want answered, or if I missed one, please ask. Thanks --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've still not explained how you managed to edit within minutes of each other on the same IP with the same machine, and why that was the only overlap. I'm not believing this. There are too many holes in your story. Two users on the same IP with the same interests and exactly the same kind of machine with exactly the same software on both, asking the same questions? Not believable. Also, where has DrEightyEight gone? He seems to have stopped editing now that you're in Nottingham. --Deskana (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where Dr88 is. I'm in the UK, I have never edited from anyone else's computer (although I got a new laptop sometime in Nov/Dec and the old one was put in the visitor pool). Firefox and macbook pros aren't that uncommon amongst French researchers, for reasons I've already explained. The same IP doesn't prove anything, except that we used the same proxy so were roughly in the same geographical location. There seems to be grounds for doubt anyway, and all I'm asking is that the block be transferred to Unprovoked and that I'm unblocked so I can continue to edit wikipedia (as I have no access to that account). If Dr88/unprovoked wishes to present their case then that is up to them --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP on which the edits overlap isn't a proxy, it's what appears to be a static residential IP. Your explanation does not hold. We also get quite a lot of information on your machine architecture. Your explanation regarding the identical machines is possible, but not very likely. Your block is not going to be overturned. There is too much evidence against you. You need to look at this how we're seeing it: two users with a massive overlap in interests edit from the same IP with the same machines to ask the same question? In addition, you normally prefer editing when this other person does not, and vice versa. You also support each other. You're also unaware of minor grammatical and formatting similarities between your two accounts, that while on their own would be entirely circumstantial, fit quite well with the checkuser evidence. It makes you impossible to believe. And the amount of evidence we now have is nothing if not overwhelming. --Deskana (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a little detail to the "massive overlap of interests", as determined by Betacommand's edit comparison tool:

DrEightyEight

Unique pages:66

Edit count: 269

Normal edit time: 16:40:16

RDOlivaw

Unique pages:65

Edit count: 353

Normal edit time: 13:41:57

Combined

Articles: 24

total edits to combined pages:

DrEightyEight: 198

RDOlivaw: 215

total combined edits: 413

Lara❤Love 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎[edit]

A discussion about these blocks has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RDOlivaw, User:Unprovoked and User:DrEightyEight‎. . . dave souza, talk 08:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look at this now. Will I be able to comment there (or should I even)? --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can comment here and your comments will be linked there by someone. Lara❤Love 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lara, thanks for replying. I don't understand the confusion there about blocking some IP addresses, but I'm sure that any actions you've taken have been in good faith --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of the diffs you've added on the AN/I page. I am asking a question of jossi as to why he had added me to the probation notification list. I then realised this wasn't a big deal, but I logged in to ask why he'd done this. If I remember correctly I logged in from a cafe in the polygon scientifique, but I have no recollection of what network I joined, as I was worried I'd done something wrong or was accused of behaving inappropriately when I don't think I had done. Dr88s edit just seems to be pointing out to Whig that he was already aware of the probation. Stranger things have happened. I'd like to point out that at no point have I edited inappropriately, and neither has Dr88 from what I can see --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, both RDOLivaw and DrEightyeight seem to have been wiki-stalking me. When I wrote about James Manby Gully on January 8th, he was there by January 11th. When I wrote about Beethoven on January 10th at 2:40, RDO was there by 11:54. When I wrote about Potassium chloride on January 15th, RDO was there by Jan 17th. There are more examples, and even a lot (!) more from DrEightyeight that are even much closer in time. For instance, for Gully, I was there on 1-8 at 19:59, and he was there on 1-9 at 20:14; I was at Potassium chloride on 1-15 at 5:53, he was there on 1-15 at 17:20; I was at Arsenicum album on 1-25 at 7:05, he was there on 1-26 at 22.48...and so on. Because I'm relatively to wikipedia, I do not want what constitutes wiki-stalking, but in any case, both of these people seemed to come online around the same time and have a very similar modus operendi. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note this thread on Dana's talk page in which I participated, where DrEightyEight backed RDOlivaw and demanded that Dana apologize to RDOlivaw. This is the most recent of many examples where the two accounts have backed one another in a personal way and not just in content matters. —Whig (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop trying to drag these two (or three, if you count the other guy or one if they are sock accounts) though the mud. Dana, stop with the accusations of wiki-stalking and this constant complaining of an anti-homeopathy bias. Whig, just stop trying to create drama on these pages. I've supported things that they have said. Am I a sock? Regardless, stop building mountains out of molehills. Baegis (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis, I'm confused. What is your definition of wiki-stalking? I thought that my comment was important, and so is my question. Ultimately, I am providing evidence of a similar pattern between these two accounts. Whig's statement also shows a pattern. Why are you so against this information? I can only assume that statements like yours raise more suspicions not less. Dana Ullman ^Talk 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana and Whig are appropriately providing supporting evidence, Baegis. Commonality in interests and edit patterns. However, the case appears to be settled. Other checkusers and ArbCom members have reviewed the information, as stated on ANI, and have determined the evidence is overwhelming. The accounts will remained blocked as they are, unless I've missed something. Lara❤Love 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point for Baegis's benefit is that when people have multiple accounts and use them to back one another in discussions, or use one sock identity to demand apologies to the other sock identity, that is an abuse of those accounts. I don't think I need to say more about it. —Whig (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RDOlivaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As this is my only account, and the user(s) Dr88 and Unprovoked seem to have stopped editing, I would like to request my account unblocked. I stand by my edit history, and I have not used other accounts. I have been civil always, and made good, well supported, edits.

Decline reason:

sockpuppetry evidence was pretty strong on this. I would suggest emailing arbcom as suggested below. They may overturn this block, but as yet I see no reason to...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd suggest asking the arbitration committee. arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. —Whig (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New information[edit]

One last time, before going to ArbCom, in light of new information here (having trouble adding it to unblock request):

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RDOlivaw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

New information has been provided by Unprovoked/Dr88 on his talk page (link above), which is highly relevant. They admit to being the same person, and to "meatpuppeting" by watching my edits, without my knowledge. They explain the same browser string, in an incident I had forgotten about. He has apologised to me personally and I'd like to draw a line under this and move on.

Decline reason:

reason — Per Thatcher. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry I forgot to log in, it's been a while. --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address the reason RDOlivaw was blocked, and the fact that the request came from tor is not confidence-inspiring either. RDOlivaw is the guy's work account, and DrEightyEight/Unprovoked are accounts he used from home, except that he slipped up and edited once from home as RDOlivaw. He tried to suggest he might have edited from a wi-fi hotspot or something, which is patently untrue. Unless he can explain how he (RDOlivaw) ended up in DrEightyEight's apartment then his explanations don't wash.

Whether a total ban is the right response is another matter, of course, and depends on other factors such as his editing, and as a checkuser responsible for the technical finding I prefer not to make that determination as well. Sockpuppet users sometimes get second chances. On the other hand, there is very little practical barrier to him doing the same thing again but more carefully next time. Thatcher 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request didn't come in via tor, it's the same location I usually use. The reason I was at "Unprovoked"s house is that we occasionally work together; that is how he knew me. We are colleagues and I edited one time from his house, which I had forgotten about until he mentioned it. That is why I was at a loss to explain this before. I usually don't edit wikipedia away from work for various reasons. Unprovoked/Dr88 said he agreed with my edits and would have done even if he did not know me, but also admits his behaviour was probably against policy. Unprovoked admits to being Dr88 too (or rather, the other way around), so there are only two editors involved here. Unprovoked has also not requested a second chance. --147.171.255.159 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to checkuser evidence, we also compared editing patterns and idiosyncrasies. There was one editing habit (that Deskana noticed in the initial investigation) that RDO and Dr88 shared. An editing habit which is fairly uncommon. In this "new evidence" from Unprovoked, this habit again presents itself. For three editors to share this uncommon habit and have checkuser evidence link them is highly unlikely. Lara❤Love 13:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RDO, as I said, Unprovoked shares an uncommon habit with you, which makes it very unlikely that you are two different people. In that you are so willing to lie about it and carry on this intricate, yet unbelievable, story does not leave me inclined to unblock you. There is no trust. Lara❤Love 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lara, I understand that you don't believe me. However, this is the truth and I contest the evidence that Deskana does not call significant, and Deskana confirms is only circumstantial, that we are the same person. I can confirm we are not the same person. What proof would you like? There is doubt enough that we are the same person, and he has admitted "stalking" my edits; hence the overlap. We still did edit a large number of different articles to each other. Maybe you should back away from this as you got rather too involved originally, and leave it to other editors. I'm sorry that you lack trust. If you have anything positive to add, please feel free to do so. -RDOlivaw (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RDO, this isn't about my involvement. I was part of the initial investigation and I am the blocking admin, there is no reason for me to back away. The combination of checkuser evidence and the idiosyncrasies in editing pretty much seal your fate. You're not getting unblocked. If you are so determined, you need to go through ArbCom via the email address posted to you above. Lara❤Love 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NotThatJamesBrown[edit]

Dr88/Unprovoked and I have both got emails from user NotThatJamesBrown asking us to log in from our IPs and request a checkuser to try and clear him of some ridiculous (my words) sockpuppet allegations. I believe he has also contacted the other people involved. I am therefore editing from my IP, probably foor the last time, and request a checkuser. Since I and Dr88/U are in France and he's in the UK there seems to be little merit to this. Does everyone who questions ridiculous POV pushing in pseudoscience get accused of being a sock of us now? I thought it was funny when MartinChaplin/TheTutor was accused - but at least he wasn't blocked. This is going too far. I have emailed NTJB to tell him we have both replied, and I wish him luck. Maybe there is room for better editors now that two of the biggest trouble makers (in Homeopathy at least) have been blocked. To answer any criticisms that I could have responded earlier, I only found out abuot this as NTJB emailed me - I think wp is very broken right now. Yours, RDOlivaw (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also ask that an admin block editing of this page by editors that haven't logged in. Thanks.