Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:09, 7 October 2008 editLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,174 edits →ScienceApologist (fourth): clerk assist← Previous edit Revision as of 23:10, 7 October 2008 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits summary of the situationNext edit →
Line 26: Line 26:


{{clerkassistance}} can some kind clerk put the main/view box thingie on this? Thx. I am examining the new diffs and will opine shortly. ++]: ]/] 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC) {{clerkassistance}} can some kind clerk put the main/view box thingie on this? Thx. I am examining the new diffs and will opine shortly. ++]: ]/] 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: (e/c**2) The anons are clearly ScienceApologist, and at least one of them was conclusively confirmed via an (off-wiki) CheckUser last night. The sequence of events was this: I had cautioned multiple editors, including ScienceApologist, for edit-warring at the ] article (I'd also issued a block to a different editor). Shortly after I cautioned SA, an anon which appeared to be him showed up at the article and continued on where SA had left off. I judged this to be potentially problematic on multiple levels, both because it might be an attempt to get around the warning, and because SA is already under ArbCom restrictions to only use one account. I contacted him directly and asked him if the anon was him, and he responded by deleting my message with a somewhat uncivil edit summary, and then following this up with profanity to my talkpage. I then requested the CheckUser, which came back "direct hit". So I tagged the anon as a sock, and created ]. A bit later, ScienceApologist nominated the category for deletion, calling it an attack page. The consensus at the CfD was fairly clear that though the IP was obviously SA, that we should assume good faith that he had simply been unaware that he was logged out at the time. So I removed the tag from the IP, and voluntarily deleted the category. Since then, Jehochman has located another IP which is probably SA, and has been trying to mentor SA at his talkpage, as has Sam Blacketer. However, SA has been, shall we say, less than cooperative. So Jehochman filed this CheckUser, and then SA filed a charge of harassment at WP:ANI. My own feeling at this point is that there is no need for the situation to escalate further, if SA simply promises to only edit while logged in. If he accidentally edits as an anon, he can simply make a polite request to any admin to delete the edits from page history, and/or SA could go back and place his actual signature on any talkpage post. This would be a far better course of action than reacting by deleting admin queries, and responding with incivility and accusations of harassment. Such behaviors tend to make it very difficult to assume good faith, with the resultant escalation as we have seen here. --]]] 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude> <!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>
<!-- <!--

Revision as of 23:10, 7 October 2008

ScienceApologist (fourth)

Code letter: B Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist strongly appears to be logging out to avoid scrutiny, make incivil remarks and to edit war. This is a violation of their ArbCom sanctions.

Accidentally logging out can happen, but when a user has an account restriction, they need to own up to it when pointed out, and then need to add their signature to claim their edits. This has not happened here. Jehochman 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule that says I have to reveal my anon IP addresses to anyone. Jehochman is inventing policy, and in any case I have a very hard time doing so due to previous stalking issues. I encourage Jehochman to take this to the appropriate venue which is WP:AE. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request to WP:OFFICE to blank this page as I have now received two different stalking attempts associated with the creation of this content. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkusers, please decide what to do with this ASAP. Feel free to bring the matter to WP:AE. I have no desire for further involvement. Jehochman 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Additional information needed Um... if these are not SA's IP addresses why do they need to be hidden? And if they are SA's IP addresses and SA is logging out to evade a sanction, then this is a reasonable CU request. I think Jehochman needs to provide some diffs that give reason to believe the IPs are SA, not just diffs that show that the IPs are being naughty. So far I don't see that and I'd tend to decline this. But SA, your commentary isn't completely helpful... ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not voting here. I want to see some supporting diffs, that justify this check. Why are these IPs thought to be SA? What have they done that is a specific violation of the arbcom sanction, if they are ScienceApologist. Give that info and a determination of whether to run (or reveal) a check will be made. Absent that, there is no case. ++Lar: t/c 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: I have removed this comment, as RFCU is not the correct venue to !vote in favor of one party or the other. Remember to keep comments on subject, thanks. Tiptoety 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Clerkassistance can some kind clerk put the main/view box thingie on this? Thx. I am examining the new diffs and will opine shortly. ++Lar: t/c 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c**2) The anons are clearly ScienceApologist, and at least one of them was conclusively confirmed via an (off-wiki) CheckUser last night. The sequence of events was this: I had cautioned multiple editors, including ScienceApologist, for edit-warring at the Psychic article (I'd also issued a block to a different editor). Shortly after I cautioned SA, an anon which appeared to be him showed up at the article and continued on where SA had left off. I judged this to be potentially problematic on multiple levels, both because it might be an attempt to get around the warning, and because SA is already under ArbCom restrictions to only use one account. I contacted him directly and asked him if the anon was him, and he responded by deleting my message with a somewhat uncivil edit summary, and then following this up with profanity to my talkpage. I then requested the CheckUser, which came back "direct hit". So I tagged the anon as a sock, and created Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of ScienceApologist. A bit later, ScienceApologist nominated the category for deletion, calling it an attack page. The consensus at the CfD was fairly clear that though the IP was obviously SA, that we should assume good faith that he had simply been unaware that he was logged out at the time. So I removed the tag from the IP, and voluntarily deleted the category. Since then, Jehochman has located another IP which is probably SA, and has been trying to mentor SA at his talkpage, as has Sam Blacketer. However, SA has been, shall we say, less than cooperative. So Jehochman filed this CheckUser, and then SA filed a charge of harassment at WP:ANI. My own feeling at this point is that there is no need for the situation to escalate further, if SA simply promises to only edit while logged in. If he accidentally edits as an anon, he can simply make a polite request to any admin to delete the edits from page history, and/or SA could go back and place his actual signature on any talkpage post. This would be a far better course of action than reacting by deleting admin queries, and responding with incivility and accusations of harassment. Such behaviors tend to make it very difficult to assume good faith, with the resultant escalation as we have seen here. --Elonka 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
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
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist}}
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.

ScienceApologist (third)

Code letter: B

Evidence: See ANI thread. User:Sandstein has suggested that LOGANA (single purpose account, now blocked) had repeatedly reverted to ScienceApologists preferred version of an article. This is a credible accusation of sock puppetry. I request a check to establish whether there is technical evidence of a connection between the accounts. Jehochman 06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


ScienceApologist (second case)

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been concerns express that an opponent of SA may have used open proxies to frame ScienceApologist. The most recent sock of that user is Queue Pea Are (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). It has been suggested that a checkuser may reveal information, such as user agent, that could potentially confirm the sockpuppetry of ScienceApologist or the abuse of open proxies to frame him. Vassyana (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to see how I can help, but there is not much CheckUser can say. Both Davkal and SA use the same user agent, at least on some of their internet connections, so that couldn't help tie the proxy to one or the other. There's nothing else really telling about the proxy, either, or anything interesting about SA's recent IPs. The one piece of information I uncovered was Monkey See Monkey Die (talk · contribs) and Niet Comrade (talk · contribs) are both Davkal sockpuppets. Dmcdevit·t 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be possible block evasion starting Feb 14, 2008. Any use of an alternate account by ScienceApologist would violate the account restriction from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist.

We have a suspected sock puppet report with credible evidence, but it would help to have a checkuser opinion. Jehochman 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm very doubtful, and have explained why in a comment at the SSP report. If a check is run, it might surprise me, but it would be a significant surprise. GRBerry 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An accusation was made. There is at least some evidence. The easiest way forward is to get a technical opinion to help dispose of the accusation. Jehochman 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the joined contributions of the two accounts , they are very consistent with a pattern of logging out of one account and then into another. I would agree that a check is warranted here. WjBscribe 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential area of overlap here:
  1. 2008-02-12 17:49:40 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Caney, Kansas (Undid revision 190939262 by Phlip888 (talk))
  2. 2008-02-12 17:49:11 by ScienceApologist (hist) (diff) Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? (→Here's a better version - r)
  3. 2008-02-12 17:48:49 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Real estate investing (rewrite (mostly cut))
—Whig (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that a simple statement in such matters is rather worthless, but I do know that Poupon is not SA anymore than s/he is me.--MONGO 10:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Mongo here (I've been waiting like, forever to say that). It is highly unlikely that POT is SA. R. Baley (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
But now we are dealt with PoT's "retirement" --
"Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all " Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
diff for the quote Seicer is quoting. Diffs are always a good idea when quoting... GRBerry 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 Unlikely - Alison 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 Deferred another checkuser for second opinion here - Alison 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist and PouponOnToast are Red X Unrelated. With respect to PouponOnToast, fish CheckUser is not for fishing Thatcher 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
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.


Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist: Difference between revisions Add topic