| Revision as of 18:46, 9 October 2008 editLuna Santin (talk | contribs)65,325 edits fix -- produces a redlink when transcluded to rfcu main← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:08, 28 June 2012 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits courtesy blanked |
| (22 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
__NOINDEX__ |
|
<!-- Please do not remove or change this MfD message during the discussion. |
|
|
|
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. |
|
--> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{ombox |
|
|
|type=delete |
|
|
|image=none |
|
|
|text='''This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's ]]'''{{#if:|<br />This nomination is part of a discussion of several related miscellaneous pages.}}<br />Please discuss the matter at ''']''' on the ] page.<br /> |
|
|
You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the ]. |
|
|
:''<small class="plainlinks">] use only: Subst either {{tlsx|mfd}} OR {{tlsx|mfdx|2nd}} into the page nominated for deletion.<br/>Then subst {{tlsx|mfd2|pg={{FULLPAGENAME}}|text=...}} into ].<br/>Finally, subst {{tlsx|mfd3|pg={{FULLPAGENAME}}}} into the .<br />Please consider notifying the by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|{{FULLPAGENAME}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|||{{{page}}}}}}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).</small>'' |
|
|
}}] |
|
|
<!-- end of mfdtag--><!-- END OF THE MFD TAG (which was substed) --> |
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] === |
|
|
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
*{{checkuser|ScienceApologist}} |
|
|
*{{checkip|128.59.169.46}} |
|
|
*{{checkip|128.59.169.55}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Code letter: '''B''' ] |
|
|
|
|
|
ScienceApologist strongly appears to be logging out to avoid scrutiny, make incivil remarks and to edit war. This is a violation of their ArbCom sanctions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Accidentally logging out can happen, but when a user has an account restriction, they need to own up to it when , and then need to add their signature to claim their edits. This has not happened here. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Look at and and ] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
* See and and These are not exactly revert, but this looks like ping pong being played by SA and the IPs on two different occasions, on two different articles. Note that the IPs are very closely related. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
====Results==== |
|
|
Ok thanks all... The additional background is helpful. In my view this additional background, and the diffs Jehochman provided, amply justify running a check, if taken on merit alone. And I have done so, and '''I have the results of the check'''. You all may hate me for it but I'm ''choosing not to reveal it'' at this time. Some other CU may disagree and do so but in the interests of de-escalating this, that's what I am going to do. ScienceApologist, for the love of all that is good in the world would you please not edit while logged out. Ever. Because you are leaving a trail of IPs that strongly point to you. Everyone "knows" they're yours. I'm not going to confirm or deny that these particular IPs are or are not you, ''this one time''. Don't make me come back to this page for case #5. {{declined}} in the interests of harmony. ++]: ]/] 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::'''NOTE:''' I have removed much of the discussion of this request, leaving only the initial request, and my findings. The removed material is visible in . It is my judgment that the material presented did justify running a check. This removal was done in the spirit of a "Courtesy blanking". ++]: ]/] 11:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude> |
|
|
<!-- |
|
|
If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name. |
|
|
--> |
|
|
{| class="messagebox" |
|
|
| style="text-align: center" | If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add </br><span style="font-size: 125%">'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''</span></br> to the checkuser page . Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on ] (but will still appear here). |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="background: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;"> |
|
|
<center>''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it'''</font>.</center> |
|
|
<!-- END ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --> |
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] === |
|
|
*{{checkuser|ScienceApologist}} |
|
|
*{{checkuser|LOGANA}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Code letter: '''B''' |
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence: See . ] has suggested that LOGANA (single purpose account, now blocked) had repeatedly reverted to ScienceApologists preferred version of an article. This is a credible accusation of sock puppetry. I request a check to establish whether there is technical evidence of a connection between the accounts. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
*Technically {{unlikely}}; same (very large) city but different residential ISP as well as other features that fail to match. ] 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
**I believe this was a ]. Can you identify the responsible party? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
***Nothing obvious. ] 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] === |
|
|
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
* {{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}<!--Please do not edit this line--> |
|
|
<!-- Add suspected sock puppets and IP addresses below this line. The above line will list an account matching the pagename. --> |
|
|
* {{checkuser|74.63.84.70}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Code letter:''' B |
|
|
* '''Supporting evidence:''' ] |
|
|
|
|
|
There have been ] that an opponent of SA may have used open proxies to frame ScienceApologist. The most recent sock of that user is {{checkuser|Queue Pea Are}}. It has been suggested that a checkuser may reveal information, such as user agent, that could potentially confirm the sockpuppetry of ScienceApologist or the abuse of open proxies to frame him. ] (]) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am trying to see how I can help, but there is not much CheckUser can say. Both Davkal and SA use the same user agent, at least on some of their internet connections, so that couldn't help tie the proxy to one or the other. There's nothing else really telling about the proxy, either, or anything interesting about SA's recent IPs. The one piece of information I uncovered was {{user|Monkey See Monkey Die}} and {{user|Niet Comrade}} are both Davkal sockpuppets. ]·] 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== ] === |
|
|
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)}} |
|
|
* {{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}<!--Please do not edit this line--> |
|
|
<!-- Add suspected sock puppets and IP addresses below this line. The above line will list an account matching the pagename. --> |
|
|
* {{checkuser|PouponOnToast}} |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Code letter:''' B, F |
|
|
* '''Supporting evidence:''' ] |
|
|
|
|
|
There appears to be possible block evasion starting Feb 14, 2008. Any use of an alternate account by ScienceApologist would violate the account restriction from ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
We have a suspected sock puppet report with credible evidence, but it would help to have a checkuser opinion. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Comment: I'm very doubtful, and have explained why in a comment at the SSP report. If a check is run, it might surprise me, but it would be a significant surprise. ] 05:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: An accusation was made. There is at least some evidence. The easiest way forward is to get a technical opinion to help dispose of the accusation. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the joined contributions of the two accounts , they are very consistent with a pattern of logging out of one account and then into another. I would agree that a check is warranted here. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Potential area of overlap here: |
|
|
::# 2008-02-12 17:49:40 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Caney, Kansas (Undid revision 190939262 by Phlip888 (talk)) |
|
|
::# 2008-02-12 17:49:11 by ScienceApologist (hist) (diff) Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? (→Here's a better version - r) |
|
|
::# 2008-02-12 17:48:49 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Real estate investing (rewrite (mostly cut)) |
|
|
:—] (''']''') 06:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I know that a simple statement in such matters is rather worthless, but I do know that Poupon is not SA anymore than s/he is me.--] 10:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Have to agree with Mongo here (I've been waiting like, forever to say that). It is highly unlikely that POT is SA. ] (]) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: But now we are dealt with PoT's "retirement" -- |
|
|
:: "Obviously, I'll keep using the sock that I'm certain the checkusers found to go right on rvving and creating isoteric articles on things I find out about in my daily travails - and I'll use that sock as opposed to some other one so that the next time I find myself tempted to edit anything controversial at all " ] <small>(]) (])</small> 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::: for the quote Seicer is quoting. Diffs are always a good idea when quoting... ] 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{unlikely}} - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{deferred}} another checkuser for second opinion here - ] <sup>]</sup> 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::ScienceApologist and PouponOnToast are {{unrelated}}. With respect to PouponOnToast, {{fishing}} ] 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
<center>''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font></br>Subsequent requests related to this user should be made ''above'', in a new section.</center></div> |
|
|
</br> |
|
|
</noinclude> |
|