Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive



GFZLab

Report date May 1 2009, 07:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NIMSoffice (talk)


Those users, in same pattern, have edited the top-importance page boron and its talk page, excessively promoting publications by a certain group and demoting achievements by other groups: diff ESRFBeam, diff GFZLab, diff 66.204.147.253.

This destabilizes the boron page hindering its upgrade to GA and further. My attempt to discuss the issue failed: User:GFZLab has not responded; instead new User:ESRFBeam reinstated the edits of User:GFZLab (see diff above). User:Dian john1 did not edit boron, but insisted on same changes (promotion of same group and demotion of same other groups). He previously went into personal abuse against a third-party, real-life person, for which reason his contributions 1 and 2 were erased by administrators.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Quack quack. Master blocked for 1 week; 2 socks blocked indef; IP blocked for a week. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

PeterSymonds (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 2 2009, 00:06 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by NIMSoffice (talk)


After taking action on Sockpuppet investigation GFZLab, User:Dian_john1 (sockpuppet of User:GFZLab) has reinstated his previous personal attacks; and IP:194.254.166.46 has recovered the previous edits of page Boron by GFZlab or ESRFBeam (promoting one team and demoting another). There was no attempt to discuss the issue at Talk:Boron, User_talk:NIMSoffice or any other Wikipedia page I am aware of.


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Peter blocked the account, I blocked the IP for 72 hours. Tag/archive please —— nixeagleemail me 14:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date May 9 2009, 06:10 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by NIMSoffice (talk)


Newly created user:Aoganov behaves in the same pattern as Dian_john1/GFZLab (see 1, 2, bottom of 3 and his his userpage). Namely,

  1. he targets specific topic (priority of discovery of gamma-boron), doing anything possible to spread a message that Aoganov discovered gamma-boron and that same certain people plagiarized his results.
  2. posts emails supposedly received by Aoganov, blaming same real-life people (Dr. Dubrovinskaia, Dr. Dubrovinsky, Dr. Filinchuk and Dr. Zarechnaya). Same emails as those posted by Dian_john1/GFZLab (see 1,2,3 above) are published at an external web-site, linked again to same people and signed as "edited by aroganov".

I declare I have no prejudices for or against any of these people (whom I know only by their work) and that I do my best to improve Wikipedia, to stay neutral and to resolve issues peacefully - and I succedeed in all previous disagreements.

However, after previous GFZLab investigation, user:Aoganov launched personal attacks on myself, editing my userpage, associating my account with Dr. Dubrovinskaia, and accusing Dr. Dubrovinskaia/NIMSoffice of unethical behavior on Wikipedia and in the scientific world (numerous personal attacks accusing real-world people on different WP pages; cleanup will be required). This does divert me from my other Wikipedia projects and puts responsibility for my actions on a distinguished scientist.

A minor comment, Aoganov does not stop with accusing individuals, but goes on to discredit organizations, e.g. a scientific journal Sci.Tech.Adv.Mater. (STAM) as highly obscure (I call it SPAM).

Technical comment: this associates previously used IP:129.49.95.70 with Aoganov and this and that edits relate IP:24.186.165.248 with Aoganov. According to his website, the user works at US university, travels a lot (e.g. to Paris). There is multiple (sometimes circumstantial) evidence that he has used several IPs. Thus blocking IP will hardly be efficient. Please note that the person posted his (real or assumed) identity and seems unreserved in his actions that makes this issue more delicate now. Please redirect to a right person if doubts. I guess User:Bjweeks has handled user:Dian john1 before opening this case.

There is circumstantial evidence: EAR request NIMSoffice/Dubrovinskaia and systematic removal of publications by Dubrovinskaia, linking IP:87.234.240.29 and maybe IP:87.164.198.76 to this case.

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
I saw this comment. You will see that I have requested an investigation into the identity of NIMSOffice. I believe that by this message NIMSOffice wants to divert attention from that investigation. Now a few comments:
1. NIMSOffice seems to make me responsible for all possible edits that he considers inappropriate. It's not logical.
2. NIMSOffice accuses me of personal attacks on him. But how can one attack an anonymous user? On the other hand, NIMSOffice wrote me anonymous emails (I believe it is unacceptable to write anonymous emails).
3. I edit many WP-pages, NIMSOffice is badly wrong saying that I only edit Boron-related pages. And I edit under my real name. Any uncertainty that might occur can be resolved directly and quickly, since I provide my real name. This should also be sufficient evidence of my clear and straightforward approach. A user writing under real name cannot do harm. Anonymous users like NIMSOffice, based on personal interests, can do a lot of harm.
4. I would again suggest an investigation into the identity of NIMSOffice. If it is not N.Dubrovinskaia, it will be her collaborator or personal friend. Once the real name of NIMSOffice is known, it will be easy to prove this.
5. NIMSOffice showed his bias and personal interests many times. Most recently, he included a phase diagram (that appeared only in our paper) without properly crediting the source. This is potentially illegal and certainly unethical. NIMSOffice did not react when I made a request for change, so the change was made by another editor upon careful investigation.
6. In the Boron discovery story, looking carefully at the history log, one can see that many times (and from many IP addresses) changes were made, stating our priority in the discovery. The earliest I saw was on 5 Feb.2009, when user "Dino" added a reference to our work - which was immediately removed by NIMSOffice, without explanations. And there are many more examples of his biased attitudes.
7. I understand from NIMSOffice's text that Boron pages were frequently changed, by many users and from many IP addresses, to give us credit in this discovery. I am happy to know this. I don't think my website tells that I frequently go to Paris (I used to, before October 2008 - my wife lived in Paris. NIMSOffice can only know this from me or my colleagues, such as Dubrovinskaia. However, in November 2008 we moved to the US and there is no more need to go to Paris). The story of boron discovery is known to many people, and most people are on our side. We have documentary evidence of plagiarism, and this evidence is irrefutable. We collected this evidence on a website, which is accessible to anybody. NIMSOffice originally credited Dubrovinskaia with this discovery, based on a little-known article in a low-impact journal Sci.Tech.Adv.Mater. (impact-factor 1.27). How many more people credit us, based on our paper in Nature (impact-factor around 30)?
In any case, I am editing under my real name and therefore I take responsibility for what I write (unlike anonymous NIMSOffice). Aoganov (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov[reply]


Comments by other users
  • From the behaviour, it's pretty clear that Aoganov, 24.186.165.248, 129.49.95.70, 129.132.208.225, and 194.254.166.46 are all one and the same. The edits and talk page accusations are the same. Indeed, the first two of those IP addresses, which PeterSymonds has observed geolocate to NY, have outright self-identified as M. Oganov on Talk:Boron (here and here).

    Compare this edit, made by 194.254.166.46, with this identical edit, made by a self-identified Oganov address for example. Indeed, compare the substance of this edit, where a citation of Sci.Tech.Adv.Mater is removed, with the statement made above.

    The self-identified accountless edits pre-date the date that Aoganov claims to have started editing. So, too, do the non-self-identified accountless edits that are identical. They pre-date it by days and weeks, not hours, moreover.

    It's already been established that ESRFBeam, GFZLab, and Dian john1 are all one and the same. The edits that link the two groups are this one by ESRFBeam, and this identical one by a self-identified Oganov address. entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. There's one person behind all of these edits. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Syn 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GFZLab/Archive&oldid=1143402929"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GFZLab/Archive, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.