| Revision as of 05:58, 27 May 2012 view sourceOhiostandard (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,699 editsm →Comments by other users: copyedit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:05, 16 June 2012 view source Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,181 editsm rv sock nonsens | ||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude>{{pp-semi|small=yes}}</noinclude> | <noinclude>{{pp-semi|small=yes}}</noinclude> | ||
| {{SPIarchive notice|Mathsci}} | {{SPIarchive notice|Mathsci}} | ||
| {{SPI case status|close}} | |||
| =====<big>26 May 2012</big>===== | |||
| ;Suspected sockpuppets | |||
| * {{checkuser|1=Mathsci}} | |||
| * {{checkuser|1=Aixoisie}} | |||
| <!-- You may duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> | |||
| * <small>''Auto-generated every hour.''</small> | |||
| <s>Used solely to gather accusations against opponents in various, now defunct cases. Linked back to Mathsci's main page but such an odd way as to defeat scrutiny. The oddity of the attribution and the use solely for storing attack pages makes it hard to assume good faith. Why does Mathsci need these multiple alternate accounts -- ] and ] have already reported -- if not to avoid legitimate scrutiny of his main accout? Why does he not store this stuff on his own hard drive? Why is this out-of-date material still here? ] (]) 11:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)</s> {{Spaces|1}}<small>''socking/banned user comments struck by Ohiostandard at 05:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| :<s>Mathsci has produced no explanation of why this material needs to be under another user name or why it is retained beyond the end of the R&I Review. Clearly abuse (per ]) and of an alternate username. That is I believe the definition of sockpuppetry. As to the other accusations: no evidence beyonf Mathsci'own personal view was presented that ] was a sockpuppet of either of the users mentioned. ] (]) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)</s> {{Spaces|1}}<small>''socking/banned user comments struck by Ohiostandard at 05:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Comments by other users</span>====== | |||
| <small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See ].''</small> | |||
| This is a legitimate alternative account, clearly labelled on the user page, created to gather diffs during the arbcom review and efterwards. The reporter here, as before, is a sockpuppet of the banned editor Echigo mole, who has been extensively trolling in the last few days on various high profile project pages. Please see ]. ] (]) 16:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :On the evidence page, I think I mentioned that rough diffs were being gathered on alternative accounts. The dots were to prevent Echigo mole (the indefinitely blocked user above) from creating more mischief, since the labelling of the previous alternative account allowed him to find it previously and advertise it. I have sent a detailed account to the arbcom mailing lists and do not wish to discuss this further here. Because so much evidence was submitted in private by the site banned party and her site banned partner, the only way of gathering diffs involving mutliple parties was in this fashion. You found out about this because of the trolling of Echigo mole and, instead of asking questions on my talk page or by email, have taken a confrontational position in which you assume extreme bad faith. You have not on the other hand carried out a checkuser on either of the two sockpuppet accounts (now blocked) of Echigo mole. Please could you do so and leave the discussion of these pages (for rough diffs) to the arbitration committee when they have received my mail? Just to correct Jclemens, evidence is not usually permitted on subpages. Roger Davies copied part of my response during the Requests for amendment to a subpage of the review. These pages for rough diffs were not evidence subpages, but pages for rough diffs. I hope that makes things clearer in your mind. But please could you look at the two accounts Krod Randoon and Jello carotids? Thanks, ] (]) 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::The existence of the subpages was mentioned explicitly and openly in this diff The first page is now a subpage of the review pages, which Roger Davies requested me to create. The other four pages were on Alternative-mathsci before Echigo mole started making mischief. Perhaps when you read the talk page of the evidence page, you accidentally missed that comment. I can't remember now exactly how Echigo mole trolled on the first alternative account Alternative-mathsci, but you can look at the deleted pages more easily than me. Thanks, ] (]) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @FPaS: I wrote an explanation slightly longer than the above to the arbcom mailing lists. At the end of the message which I sent before seeing your posting here, I stated, "Now that the amendment has passed, I would normally request that these pages be deleted." So yes if you can delete these pages (which were still in use during the request for amendment), that would be very kind. Thanks, ] (]) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :@FPaS: presenting a case about proxy-editing involving 5 or more editors is too complicated for me to do off-wiki. I first gathered all the diffs, many of which were redundant, repetitive or of no signifiacnce, and then went through them several times clicking them to see which were particularly relevant. I don't know a way of seeing what's in a diff once I've recorded it off-wiki. In preparing the second set of evidence, I was in the midst of also writing an elaborate set of lectures to be given in early May at a conference in the USA, so was under tight time constraints (essentially no time, although I had to make time). Anyway I was quite open about how I prepared my evidence and arbitrators did not object to my statement that I was collecting rough diffs on an alternative account. ] (]) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Jclemens: this editor repeated edits of a confirmed sockpuppet of Echigo mole on ] in a thread devoted to him, started by a completely different user. Elen of the Roads blocked this user before for similar edits without carrying out a checkuser and sympathised with me in private. But surely Jclemens must have looked at the archive page and noticed that Echigo mole has played the same game before with Altmathsci, an alternative account that was used for recording details of his abuse of vodafone accounts? That report was made by {{userlinks|Southend sofa}}, eventually indefinitely blocked and also certainly a sockpuppet of Echigo mole (from the comments he made. Jclemens seems now to be in denial about the wikistalking. Multiple editors have removing the trolling edits of Echigo mole on sight at ]. FPaS has blocked several socks on sight per ]. The reasonable thing to do in the circumstances would for Jclemens to run a checkuser on the two accounts I have mentioned, both of he sleeper accounts created in 2009. The preliminary edits are the hallmarks of a sockpuppet account (10 edits to article space to render the account autoconfirmed). But I have made a full presentation to the arbcom committee including details of Jclemens' comments on my talk pabout his own involvement. ] (]) 19:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As far as Altmathsci is concerned, Echigo mole already made the following edits to ] as {{userlinks|Old Crobuzon}}: . that MfD nomination was deleted by AGK, who blocked Old Crobuzon as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole. That disruptive conduct is being repeated here by the user who made a series of disruptive edits on ], which could only have been made by Echigo mole. What doubt is there in cases like this? ] (]) 20:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Given the behaviour of Old Crobuzon, the SPI report of Southend sofa and the repeated disruption by Echigo mole during the requests for amendment, I declared the account {{userlink|Aixoisie}} in exactly the same way as {{Userlink|Alternative-mathsci}} and {{Userlink|Altmathsci}}, i.e. on the alternative account page. Jclemens presumably read the arbcom review page to which I referred above when I placed my comment there. '''"There are also four subpages elsewhere on an alternative account where diffs were gathered."''' So Jclemens must have read that statement ''2 months ago'' on 27 March. He raised no objections then, either by email, on my talk page or on the review pages. He did nothing at all. Nor did any other arbitrator. Nor did any arbitrators request to know what the alternative account was. (Roger Davies, because of his background, would notice the deprecating pun in the last created alternative account username, since I happen to be the editor who has most edits on ], nothing was being hidden.) However, nobody requested to know the name of the alternative account which was moved to the second account when Echigo mole made similar edits as he had while socking as Old Crobuzon. Certianly if Jclemens or anybody had requested the name of the account by email, I would have supplied it. However, unlike Ferahgo and Occam I did not communicate in private to arbcom mailing lists during the review, except in response to emails from Roger Davies. If Jclemens wishes to invent new rules after the event, I suppose he can, but it doesn't seem to be reasonable or related to the way in which wikipedia functions. ] (]) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::On 29 March {{userlinks|Southend sofa}} made an SPI request here listing the accounts Alternative-mathsci and Altmathsci. That request were turned out by checkusers. Several administrators commented. The files existed at that point also, since Aixoisie was only created on April 1, 3 days after the report was made. (Perhaps I was even unaware of the report.) Jclemens could again have expressed his strong objections there but did not. I don't understand why each time this disruptive editor/wikihounder Echigo mole trolls on wikipedia an increasingly elaborate account has to be given. Jclemens seems to be out of kilter with AGK, Elen of the Roads, Newyorkbrad, Casliber and Shell Kinney at least, as well as a whole series of other checkusers. Presumably he has his personal reasons in seemingly wanting to "write me out of the equation" by capitalising on my long term harrassment by a wikihounder. It is not particularly pleasant, since this editor also has made several attempts to out me on wikipedia, having determined my RL identity. Jclemens seems to show no empathy at all. ] (]) 21:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Note also:''' The subpage ] still exists. I had forgotten about it: I have requested speedy deletion. The other subpages were ], ], ] and ], all speedy deleted on the 1 April by JohnCD, shortly after my request. Just before that I had amalgamated the numbered subpages into one file and placed that in the user space of Aixoisie. Note that the account that created the problems was {{userlinks|Southend sofa}} who was blocked later as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole by DeltaQuad 2 weeks later, after more evidence came to light. ] (]) 21:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)/] (]) 21:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :In addition FPaS reverted the fresh report on this page as "rv sock edits", half an hour before blocking the sockpuppet. What has changed since 29 March and Southend sofa's report? Jclemens unwillingness to investigate sockpuppets and his own double standard for FPaS and the reversion and for me and the trolling edits of Jello carotids on the SPI page for Echigo mole that I requested. {{megaphoneduck}} Which new user does Jclemens think made this edit in support of another indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. the same editor creating a false consensus through tag-teaming? It is very hard to describe that kind of edit as anything other than blatant trolling by Echigo mole. Jclemens seems to be suggesting otherwise and it is unclear why. ] (]) 22:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note also that during the Muhammad images case, I prepared a list of rough annotated diffs in response to a question from Elonka on the workshop page. At the request of NuclearWarfare, that was moved gradually to the evidence page. The subpage was deleted at my request a little while after a selection of those diffs had been transferred to the evidence page (21 January). ] (]) 23:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *Jclemens reponses below seem muddled. The reversion was on ] not here. The sockpuppet was the accused and had already been reverted here by FPaS. I was making the report on him; there have been numerous cases where he has answered back interminably (for example as {{userlink|William Hickey}} and {{userlink|Ansatz}}). In the actual review a specific question was asked about harrassment by socks. I gave a detailed response that was ignored. No evidence was presented by anybody at all suggesting that my activities on SPI reports concerning Echigo mole were problematic. Now Jclemens now appears to be misrepresenting my current editing and the findings on past editing at ]. Those pages were semiprotected by AGK precisely because of persistent trolling by Echigo mole there. That has not stopped. ] (]) 23:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| **The edit to THIS page which you made, to remove assertions placed on this page, is . ] (]) 01:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *** Jello Carotids is trivially a sock of a banned user. Consensus (with which I don't fully agree) is that banned users maybe reverted on sight. As such Mathsci's revert is perfectly valid. ''] ]'', <small>03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ****Mathsci could have said "I did it and I was right to do so". He didn't. He said "I did no such thing", which is clearly an inaccurate statement, and not the only one on this page. ] (]) 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ***** ] is not a forum for investigating whether an editor properly announced his removal of a banned editor's posts. In any case, I hit Ctrl-F and can't find Mathsci saying "I did no such thing" on this page. Could you provide a diff for that quotation, so that this latest iteration of your complaint against Mathsci can be evaluated? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ****** "The reversion was on ] not here." It's the second sentence in the fifth paragraph prior to this one--the one indented with a single "*". In fact, he did revert , in addition to his reversion on the SPI page for Echigo mole--the latter of which was never called improper by anyone. ] (]) 05:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ******* Some case might be made that Mathsci's behaviour fell a little short of what ideal perfection might strictly require; I would have struck through the sock's comments, rather than deleting them, for example. But come now, really? This is what we're arguing about? A trolling sock files an SPI to stir the shit against an adversary, and we're responding as if it were a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Don't people believe in wp:deny any more? <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 05:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | |||
| While MathSci admits ] is his, use of this account is problematic and merits further investigation: | |||
| * While he claims the account is disclosed, the actual wording in ] is "fully and openly disclosed". The contents of the User page, on creation and unmodified since, were "Alternative account of m·a·t·h·s·c·i." Obviously, that's an obfuscation sufficient to fool a simple search, and there is no Wikilink either way, such that "What links here" would not find the account. | |||
| * Preserving extensive evidence on-wiki after a closed case is generally frowned upon, but was specifically forbidden in ], the case proceeding the closed review which prompted this collection. Thus, using a tenuously-linked account in order to do so would be either "Circumventing policies or sanctions" (the former, obviously) or "Avoiding scrutiny". ] (]) 17:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :A separate problem is that MathSci edited this page to an accusation against him. He did this he had indicated his belief that the account making the accusation was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but before that accusation had been objectively investigated by any administrator. ] (]) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mathsci, Per I find no mention on the Aixoisie account anywhere. I've searched the ArbCom email for mention of that account, without finding it. The diff you listed above doesn't seem to note that evidence was subsequently moved to an undisclosed sock account. Were you perhaps meaning to note something else? ] (]) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: There is no problem about reverting the sock. Obvious harassment socks get reverted on sight, by anybody. There is no need to wait for prior administrator investigation in such a case – having such a requirement would have the effect of enabling the abusers. To Mathsci: do you agree those pages can be removed now? – | |||
| :: Moreover, since the only conceivable purpose of an evidence list is to prepare for submitting that evidence for review at some later point, at which time its very purpose is that of inviting "scrutiny", a charge of trying to "avoid scrutiny" seems misled. I honestly don't quite understand why he felt the need to hide the list away temporarily under a throwaway account like this (if he was concerned he'd get disruptive trolling from harassment socks if they found out about it, which seems to be a very realistic concern indeed, then why not simply assemble them off-wiki?), but a charge of sock abuse appears tenuous at best to me. ] ] 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually, the one other arbitrator who's reviewed this so far believes the removal of an accusation ''against'' an editor by an alleged but not-independently-assessed sock, regardless of how obvious that sock is, ''by'' the accused editor, is improper. Since MathSci has already been recently admonished by ArbCom for battleground conduct, this is more than an "oops, my bad, let me remove those" situation. I've locked the evidence subpages in place; ArbCom will remove them when appropriate. ] (]) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| * {{user|Aixoisie}} is a fully and openly declared alternate account per , in compliance with ]. Presumably Jclemens is joking when he asserts that placing dots between the letters of "Mathsci" constitutes some sort of actionable deception. | |||
| * Edits by banned editors may be reverted on sight ''by any editor''. That is a matter of basic, unequivocal policy; see ], which states "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." Mathsci reverted an edit by a banned editor. That act was fully in compliance with this site's policies, regardless of whether individual Arbitrators ''agree'' with those policies. Pointing to that revert as evidence of malfeasance shows a complete disrespect both for this site's policies and for editors who find themselves the targets of banned users. | |||
| * The evidence sub-pages should have been deleted per ]. Mathsci has now requested their deletion, above. I've gone ahead and deleted them for both of those reasons. Whether ArbCom accepts the persistence of these pages as an oversight on Mathsci's part or evidence of malfeasance is up to them. I believe this request should be closed now, because there is no serious ongoing question of sockpuppetry and it is clear that the account in question belongs to Mathsci. | |||
| Finally, I want to formally register my serious disapproval and concern at Jclemens' comments in this thread, which in my opinion show both a substitution of his own beliefs for ] and an inability to distinguish serious, good-faith concerns from obvious disruption and trolling. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Did you notice that I'd protected both pages as an ArbCom action? I'm sure you must have missed that. I'm sure you didn't actually ''mean'' to hide evidence of wrongdoing preserved for an ArbCom review... At any rate, I'll drop you a note on your talk page so you can undo it. Cheers, ] (]) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Every Arbitrator is an administrator and can <tt>view-deleted</tt> pages. I hardly think that this is a significant issue (in fact, it is enforcing the remedy—isn't that what you wanted?). But in any case, there is no reason to continue discussing this here. SPI is not ] and Mathsci's "obfuscation" is hardly that, especially if, as he said, he has "sent a detailed account to the arbcom mailing lists". '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 02:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mathsci sent no such missive to the committee. If you like, I ''can'' close this as an admitted case of inappropriate use of alternate accounts, and note that the consequences of such are still being discussed by the committee. I'll probably do that in a few hours unless another checkuser objects. ] (]) 02:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, you actually ''can't'' do that. There are three admins with extensive experience in handling sockpuppetry telling you that there is no abuse of alternate accounts here. ]. If the Committee (as opposed to you as an individual Arbitrator) has a concern, then they are free to comment and they can of course override the consensus here. But if you disregard the administrative consensus here without the clear consensus of the Committee, then I will pursue it as I find your handling of this case extremely concerning. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::So three admin non-checkuser, non-clerks can overrule a checkuser on when an SPI case is to be closed? I really don't see that in the ]. DQ, being an actual clerk, actually clearly has the authority to say this has reached a logical conclusion, and while I don't entirely agree with his opinions on the matter, I still agree that this isn't really a place for non-obvious decisions. Since it really isn't built for such, I can see why there wouldn't be much documentation on how checkusers should take non-party input into account. The Arbitration committee will discuss its next steps, and I personally hope I can hand this off to someone else to shepherd to completion. ] (]) 05:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This is curious. The page says (and has done for a long time) "Alternative account of m·a·t·h·s·c·i." so there is no need for an SPI. I would immediately think then, that the reporting user was deserving a boomerang. I am not familiar, of course, with the matchsci case, but I think I am familiar enough with Misplaced Pages to think this is a strange reaction. And "freezing for arbcom inspection"? We have this thing called history, you know. What's going on here? ''] ]'', <small>02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| ::::The only person who has said on this page that they believe that this is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy is yourself and a banned user. Two other administrators not including myself have stated the opposite. ArbCom can handle this by a formal motion voted upon by a majority of the Committee or you can bring the matter up at the Administrators' Noticeboard for consultation with your fellow editors and administrators. Whichever you choose is OK with me, though I would obviously prefer public discussion. A unilateral block or other sanction at this time would be unhelpful. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 03:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've reviewed the history of Mathsci sockpuppet accusations and can say that there seems no doubt to me that his assertion of the identity and motivation of the reporting party are in good faith, and very probably correct. I would be inclined to boomerang checkuser the accuser, and close this. ''] ]'', <small>03:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| *Being the third admin (+1 former admin) to comment on this case, I'm going to mark it for a close. Mathsci labeled the account as his. If he put dots in between them to throw off a sockmaster, then so be it, it still identifies the account. If it was an actual link to the supposed account, then you might have some case to make. I also see diffs of him letting people know that the pages existed on an alternate account of some form. Did someone ask what account it was? If so, and he declined to answer, point it out, and we'll take another look. I do recommend to Mathsci not to revert his own SPI case even if a banned user is on it, there are several other users (doesn't have to be SPI clerks or CUs) who can do so. Is it required? No, ] is clear. The '''existence''' of the userpages is an ArbCom matter and doesn't need to be taken up here. And specifically regarding the sock policy: "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed '''to split your editing history''' means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions." I don't think the community needs to detect patterns when it's labeled, and I don't see a splitting of edit history. Please take all ArbCom issues of to the relevant page, and not continue them here. And I echo MastCell's comment about individual Arb action, I couldn't find the page myself when I was looking for it. Also no clue why a CU hold is on this, there is no CU investigation...if there is, it's pointless. -- ]]</font></font> 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| <!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | |||
Latest revision as of 11:05, 16 June 2012
Mathsci
Mathsci (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci/Archive.