Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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/BlowingSmoke}}
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.


BlowingSmoke 2[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Clerk note: Moved to NC @ 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm suspicious about a new combatant who's entered the fray on the passive smoking page. Would it be possible to check if User:AcetylcholineAgonist is the same person as User:BlowingSmoke, all of whom appear to have been coming from User:69.141.30.12? For his very first addition to the page 15:01 13th March 2007 to refer to a "little clique of editors", a "strong anti-smoking bias", and to talk of their owning the article, is extremely strange for someone who has only just found Wikipedia - such comments would ordinarily be based upon experience. In addition, his of 15:05, 13 March 2007 removed the line "My IP is one of the most dynamic I've seen", which made me wonder if this was a self-congratulatory reference to some attempt to circumvent IP tracking of this account.

I only ask because it annoyed the hell out of me that myself and other editors had spent so long responding to one person who fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the article, of valid scientific research, and of its statistical bases, purely because they were masquerading as four different people. I really don't want to waste that much time again. Thanks. Nmg20 16:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed Please provide a code letter for the case -- lucasbfr talk 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for this. The over-enthusiastic editor above, in his haste to get me banned, neglected to pursue obvious avenues first. I edited the talk page of the article from the IP address 196.25.255.246 shortly before I created this account (although I've edited intermittently from an IP, which changes very often but is obviously always linked to the same ISP). On this page: [1] you can see where I changed my contributions to reflect my new account. I commented on how often my IP changes so as to make it obvious that the edit to the article, which was registered as being by an IP 41.243.210.79 was also me, since no-one would guess given the 196.x IP I had a few seconds later that it is the same person, and that my talk page comment corresponded to that edit; I've had this problem before. Both, a bit of 'whois' investigation will show, are registered to the same ISP in South Africa. Anyone with 'whois', i.e. anyone at all, ought to be able to satisfy themselves by running whois checks on 41.243.210.79, 196.25.255.246 (me) and 69.141.30.12 (BlowingSmoke) that I cannot possibly be the person whom Nmg20 is talking about above. I then removed that comment (about the dynamic IP) once I had registered my account and could thus link all my contributions together by replacing the IP addresses in the signature with my username.
I think it would have been polite had I have been notified of this request (since if I actually gave a shit about it, it would be an infringement of my privacy), but I hope that my submission above clears up the situation - I found this page by looking at Nmg20's 'contribs' list. I think it's disgusting though that Nmg20 engages with me like this from the very start - somewhere I seem to recall reading some policy thing about not attacking new editors. I was crapped all over and told to 'assume good faith', but it seems that's only something that new editors have to do, but once one is firmly entrenched one is free to call anyone a 'combatant'.--AcetylcholineAgonist 17:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: Moved to Non-Complaint: No Code Letter. — Deon555talkdesksign here! 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Delisted case as non-compliant; no response from submitter after several days. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BlowingSmoke[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: E

Links to diffs 30 January 2007:

2 February 2007:

Full account of the request:

  • On 28 January, BlowingSmoke edit the [Passive smoking] article, changing "exposure to tobacco smoke causes disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability." This is reverted by Dessources on the same day.
  • On 29 January, BlowingSmoke modifies the text of reference [1], falsifying (!) the quotation of Article 8.1 of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, a UN treaty, changing "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." (the actual text of the treaty) to "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and disability."
  • On the same day, BlowingSmoke changes again "exposure to tobacco smoke causes disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability." Both changes are reverted by Dessources, who point out that there was an attempt to tamper with the quotation of an article from a treaty.
  • On 30 January, BlowingSmoke changes again "exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability." This is reverted by 86.193.106.221, who observes that "'causes' is backed by four solid references."
  • On the same day, BlowingSmoke makes again the same change two more times. and is reverted each time by Dessources.
  • A few minutes after the the last revert by Dessources, a "new" user, User 69.141.30.12, comes into the picture and deletes entirely the sentence "Current scientific evidence shows that passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability." This is immediately reverted by Plumbago. This starts the long series of edits (12 attempts in just 5 days), always of the same part, done by User 69.141.30.12.
  • On January 31, user 69.141.30.12 changes "causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability and death" without explanation. This is reverted by 86.194.76.177.
  • On February 1, user 69.141.30.12 changes twice "causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability". This is reverted, first by Dessources and then by Nmg20
  • On February 2, user 69.141.30.12 changes four times "causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability", and, in another attempt, replaces the whole phrase with "may be a health hazard". His/her changes are reverted by three editors: Indolences, who takes it as vandalism, Dessources and Nmg20, who asks user 69.141.30.12 to "stop making this change. Next time "causes" becomes "increases risk", this goes to dispute".

This apparent edit war (actually probably a systematic attack against the article by the same individual under different user names) has lead to the request to have the article protected from further editing.

While 86.193.106.221 was making his/her repeated edit attempts, which were the continuation of those started by BlowingSmoke, in turn BlowingSmoke remained inactive. This suggests that the two editors are actually one and the same person. This has now been confirmed by BlowingSmoke, via an interesting incident. BlowingSmoke signed his post submitted at 09:12, on 14 February 2007 User 69.141.30.12. When this was brought to his/her attention, BlowingSmoke changed the signature back to his/her userid, and acknowledged that he was using AOL with IP address 69.141.30.12, but pretexting that many other people were probably also assigned the same IP address.

The same pattern of edits and contributions to the talk page has also been manifest under two other editor's names, Moderation and EtaKooramNahSmech, editors who are strongly suspected to be the same person as BlowingSmoke. --Dessources 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk assistance requested: Clerk summary, please. Essjay (Talk) 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Summary follows:
  1. User:BlowingSmoke and User:69.141.30.12 making similar edits at Passive smoking: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
  2. User:Moderation and User:69.141.30.12 both removing similar passages: [18] [19] [20] [21]
  3. On 29/30 Jan, User:BlowingSmoke reverts three times, and User:Moderation (brand new account) arrives, removes the disputed section three times: (BlowingSmoke) [22] [23] [24] (Moderation) [25] [26] [27]. Likewise, User:69.141.30.12 who has not edited the article before, arrives and reverts twice, on the same day: [28] [29].
  4. User:Moderation has not edited since 30 Jan. On 18 Feb, another brand new user, User:EtaKooramNahSmech arrives and enters the debate on Talk:Passive smoking (no reverts).
That seems to cover most of it. Let me know if I missed anything. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Essjay (Talk) 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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 "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BlowingSmoke&oldid=1138655520"