Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user VYTYPCKEXW (talk | contribs) at 12:27, 31 October 2009 (→Report date October 27 2009, 23:39 (UTC): Close, all accounts unrelated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scibaby

Scibaby (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

• Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/1
• Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/2
• Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/3

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive.

A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Scibaby.

Report date October 27 2009, 23:39 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Q Science (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by ScienceApologist (talk)

The obsessive character of this account with regards to global warming denialism is parallel to the activities of this prolific sockpuppeteer with edits from this account becoming more prolific at the same time that the scibaby account was subject to its final set of blocks and bans. See also that this user is !voting in an AfD that other socks of this user have made similar arguments in similar time periods: , . ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More evidence, as requested:

Both users employ an idiosyncratic use of single-words in "quotations" in edit summaries:

by User:Scibaby: ,

by User:Q Science: , ,

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

The evidence against Q Science is the same evidence that could be used against ScienceApologist or myself (diffs upon request) or probably hundreds of other editors. Given the amount of time QS has been editing and the number of Scibaby checkusers that have taken place in that time, I highly doubt that another checkuser will show QS is Scibaby. Nishkid64 has blocked quite a few in the last few days for this old one to slip through. If you're right, I suspect you'll need more than 5 diffs. Also, QS doesn't fit some of the more common Scibaby redflags. -Atmoz (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Atmoz - this is highly unlikely. While Q science shares some POV with scibaby, Q doesn't exhibit any of the flags that normally gets raised by scibaby. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · count) is a possible scibaby sock, but no energy to report. Feel free to delete this comment. ► RATEL ◄ 09:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scottca07 (talk · contribs · count) is another possible sock, I think. His behavior on that AfD is similar. (The account, however, doesn't edit much.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no user by that name. Could you check the spelling? Hersfold 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Typo, it's Scottca075 (talk · contribs · count). ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

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

Checkuser request – code letter: C + E (Vote stacking affecting outcome and community ban/sanction evasion)

Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

• Possible, but I'm not sure if it is enough to endorse a checkuser. Could you please provide additional evidence? NW (Talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I provided a bit more. Please let me know if you want even more. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    •  Clerk endorsed - That is great. Thanks. NW (Talk) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Q Science (talk · contribs) and Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs) are  Unrelated. Additionally, no other users are present on their main IPs. Unfortunately, I don't have existing data on Scibaby, so I'll have to leave this open for another checkuser to handle. Unless Scibaby has been entirely inactive for months, though, I doubt this is likely; Q Science has only edited from a single IP since August. Hersfold 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Scibaby account has been blocked for years. You need to check against users in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Scibaby. The list of confirmed IP's at the start may be useful. Some recent confirmed additions are User:Guartem, User:Fits & Starts, User:Novo Ordo Seclorum. There has been a long suspicion that at least one experienced user is behind the wall of socks, and I also suspect that this is an organized attempt. It's unlikely that a single person has the stamina to create 2-3 socks per day over years. On the other hand, I'm not convinced of any connection to User: Q Science - it's possible, the POVs agree, but it does not quite jive for me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Based on above accounts,  Unrelated. Brandon (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.

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

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases pending close