Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:36, 22 December 2009 editKimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,610 edits →Suspected sockpuppets: one more← Previous edit Revision as of 02:19, 23 December 2009 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits →Report date December 20 2009, 11:27 (UTC): partial resultNext edit →
Line 190: Line 190:
* {{checkuser|1=Blue VDR}} * {{checkuser|1=Blue VDR}}
* {{checkuser|1=Innicken}} * {{checkuser|1=Innicken}}

<!--## Add further sockpuppets if any, below these ##--> <!--## Add further sockpuppets if any, below these ##-->


Line 277: Line 276:


{{endorse}} –] 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC) {{endorse}} –] 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

*{{confirmed}} Ustil, Blue VDR, and World Lever are sockpuppets of each other but '''not''' of Scibaby.


======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== ======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>======

Revision as of 02:19, 23 December 2009

Scibaby

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

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

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

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


Report date December 17 2009, 08:18 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen

The latest batch of new editors showing the regular patterns, some of these may already be blocked per the ducktest, but real CU evidence to help in later cases is preferred (of course there is also the chance of unfortunate bad blocks w. the ducks). See previous cases for related sockmasters. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz

Added Highly Unlikely based on likelihood of new user jumping into the topic with strong opinion in the Scibaby style. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests

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

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) 08:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed

These appear to be Red X Unrelated

J.delanoyadds 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

information Administrator note Confirmed ones blocked and tagged. MuZemike 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 19 2009, 16:05 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen

The daily batch of suspected scibaby sockets - all following the usual patterns. See previous cases for related sockmasters (although i'm rather certain on these). Since the new pattern seems to be one new sock per page, we may want to consider semi-protecting more articles :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added Cflare which seems to be a sleeper, its rather difficult to determine if this is scibaby, but it fits the behavioural patterns withthe rather harsh attacks pinpointed towards realclimate (from out of nowhere). CU may want to check this one up against User: Tinpac (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29) for as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ChrisO

Added Y2kproxima (talk · contribs) - the usual Scibaby pattern. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz

Added LibertyJane (talk · contribs) - typical repeat of an attack edit by IP 70.50.180.136 (talk · contribs). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Added - looks like a middle-aged sleeper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The daily crop is active early today. As per the new MO, single edits to contentious areas with the Scibaby NPOV. Maybe (s)he's now going for the Guinness Book? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CheckUser requests

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

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) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Confirmed:

Most likely Red X Unrelated:

J.delanoyadds 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Achuara (talk · contribs) appears to be Red X Unrelated. J.delanoyadds 01:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Conclusions


Report date December 20 2009, 11:27 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen

This mornings crop of socks, following all the usual characteristics and behaviours. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Added 3 more with the usual characteristics. If a CU is interested in how i pinpoint these on behaviour, they can mail me (since GoRight seems to be disputing the requests). For each suspect i've listed there are at least 2 different characteristics that match, with scibaby's new methodology of creating a sock per edit it is rather hard to match more. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz

Added an IP. I think Kim's report included all that I reported up in the last report, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by User:Atmoz
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


I object most strenuously to being labelled a "sock puppet". There is no hand up my behind :) My edits thus far have been factual and i fail to see how i can be accused of being ] I request my name be removed from the above listing. mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Is it just me or does this look like more fishing? Does anyone seriously believe that one person could be creating all these socks? I'm just sayin', overall there's a HUGE number of socks attributed to this one user. I don't know how accurate and specific the checkuser details are, but I would hope that they are pretty specific to justify so many checks/blocks. What is the rejection rate for these queries over time? How many people are having their privacy invaded via these checks? --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns that checkuser is being abused, the Audit Subcommittee is thataway→. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Holy crap, this is what is being put up as evidence of sock puppetry to justify a check user?

  • Putting up a single edit for the POV template on RealClimate? , This is a signature unique to SciBaby? No, no one but Scibaby could think that article has a POV problem.

Most of the others seem to be generic AGW skeptics material as well. Are we still condoning the practice of check usering any new account that expresses an even vaguely AGW skeptic POV? What are the signature characteristics in this evidence that suggests that they are made by Scibaby? --GoRight (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby is known to have created at least 500 sockpuppets (see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Scibaby). He's certainly the most prolific sockpuppeteer I've ever come across. Unfortunately there are technical difficulties with blocking him permanently, otherwise it would have been done long ago. In my (limited) experience of Scibaby sock investigations, I'd say that the overall rejection rate is pretty low. You can spot him fairly reliably if you're familiar with certain aspects of his behaviour. I agree that his behaviour is somewhat "unbelievable" but it's indicative of the malicious nuttiness that seems to be unpleasantly frequent on one side of this debate.
I'm not going to go into details about "signature characteristics" since that would only help Scibaby evade his blocks (see WP:BEANS). Looking at those diffs you posted, it's clearly the same user - probably Scibaby, perhaps another sockpuppeteer. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh. Like I said, you guys are fishing and invading people's privacy in the process. --GoRight (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
No one's privacy is being invaded, because no private details have been provided. The information being examined is only that which is submitted every time you visit any website anywhere on the Internet, and even that limited information is being kept private. MastCell  00:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If the FBI or some other police agency looks into someone's phone records without probable cause, is that considered invasion of privacy? I think it is. This is the same thing. I'm not worried about Scibaby, it's all those rejections that are having their privacy invaded. --GoRight (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Your concerns are noted. Perhaps you might find a moment to criticise Scibaby's abusive conduct, since concern about that seems to be rather lacking in your comments. As for your comment about "AGW skeptics" being targeted, the unfortunate fact is that there is a disproportionate amount of abusive conduct coming from that side of the debate. I don't normally edit AGW-related articles but since I started monitoring a few for POV and BLP violations I've noticed a considerable amount of abusive conduct - vandalism, sockpuppeting, ranting, BLP violations and so on. Scibaby's persistent extremism is admittedly an outlier, but it's indicative of some wider trends in the way that so-called "skeptics" appear to operate on Misplaced Pages. You might want to ask yourself why the side that you associate with should stoop to such tactics. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"the unfortunate fact is that there is a disproportionate amount of abusive conduct coming from that side of the debate" - I've observed the GW articles for more than a year now, and that is completely wrong. I think maybe your POV is clouding your judgement here. ATren (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is that in the relatively short time I've been involved, all the abusive conduct I've seen - sockpuppetry, vandalism etc - has come from one side. Where are the pro-AGW sockpuppeteers? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
"I'd say that the overall rejection rate is pretty low." - Well, just looking at the 17th and 19th from above we find 25 suspects, 8 or which were rejected. (Assuming I counted correctly.) So you definition of "pretty low" is on the order of 32%? --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest you do some more research. But yes, even 32% is pretty low - that means 2 out of 3 suspects are Scibaby - or, to look at it another way, there are more Scibaby socks than legitimate editors. Also note that "rejected" does not guarantee that the account in question is not a sock - it only indicates that it cannot be shown to be sock of Scibaby. It can still be a better disguised sock, or a sock of another user. Of course, it can also be a harmless new account, but then it's not hurt in any way at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that you need to be required to provide some actual evidence rather than something as flimsy as a single edit which is a POV template on RealClimate.
"It can still be a better disguised sock, or a sock of another user." - Nice use of WP:AGF. Also, if they run a checkuser on someone because of your Scibaby allegation and it turns out to be a sock puppet of someone else, do they just ignore that or does the account still get blocked citing the other account as the sock master? If the latter then your second option would be vacuous.
"Of course, it can also be a harmless new account, but then it's not hurt in any way at all." - Perhaps in Britain you are more used to having your privacy invaded. Here in the US we take such things seriously. --GoRight (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In addition, I think that Wejer might disagree about whether they were harmed, or not, . --GoRight (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe we should ask User:Q Science if they were harmed? --GoRight (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe we should ask User:GoRight ... oh wait that's me ... whether being the target of such a witch hunt damages your reputation? See Yes, I can confirm that it does. The accusation of being a sock master or a meat puppet, even when you are exonerated, never disappears. Need a case in point? Just see your comment above. As for the longevity of such baseless accusations, I refer you to and . --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


I note that the history on this page only goes back to June. If Scibaby has over 500 confirmed socks where are the rest of the history records of the investigations? --GoRight (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why was User:Elixthecat suspected of being a Scibaby sock puppet? Looking at their contributions I see one edit putting up a POV template on a rather obscure BLP for David Deming (or at least I had never heard of him). Looking through the history there I see no evidence that Scibaby has been a problem on that page, but I may have missed it so I am asking for an explanation. The edit in question was reverted by some IP and ultimately restored by User:Tony Sidaway. So why was this account checked? --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct fora for taking up concerns is WP:AUSC, as Boris pointed out about. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This extended discussion might perhaps have been better located on the talk page. This section is for brief comments pertinent to the case. --TS 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

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

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed Ustil, Blue VDR, and World Lever are sockpuppets of each other but not of Scibaby.
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions
Categories: