Revision as of 01:58, 3 June 2010 editZuluPapa5 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,447 edits →Comments by other users: correction it was right in front of me← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:10, 3 June 2010 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,664 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
{{RFCU| E | No2ndletter | endorse }} <small>Requested by ] (]) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) </small> | {{RFCU| E | No2ndletter | endorse }} <small>Requested by ] (]) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) </small> | ||
{{Endorse}} ] (]) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | {{Endorse}} ] (]) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
---- | |||
=====<big>03 June 2010</big>===== | |||
{{SPIcat}} | |||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Suspected sockpuppets </span>====== | |||
* {{checkuser|1=Weakopedia}} | |||
<!-- Please duplicate the templates above ({{checkuser}} and {{checkIP}}) to list more accounts--> | |||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Evidence submitted by ] </span>====== | |||
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 - " 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. ] (]) 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by accused parties </span>====== | |||
<small><span style="font-weight:normal">''See ].''</span></small> | |||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Comments by other users </span>====== | |||
Hipocrite, i appreciate you are concerned about weakopedia, however you may be abusing this page, please reconsider. <s>I have not seen a second to your concern</s>, you added after the endorsement and you were just involved with weakopedia about this scibaby topic which looks like a retributive request. ] (]) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
======<span style="font-size:150%"> Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments </span>====== | |||
---- | ---- |
Revision as of 02:10, 3 June 2010
Scibaby
Scibaby (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
- Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/1
- Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/2
- Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/3
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive.
A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Scibaby.
01 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- ClimateOracle (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- WavePart (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Weakopedia (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
The usual. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Added WavePart. Hipocrite (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Bayesian algorithm says "Reply hazy, try again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
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 - " 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)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
No reasoning but suspicious is given. I am suspicious that these blocks are helping Misplaced Pages to guide new editors to productive contributions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
{{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 Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
03 June 2010
Suspected sockpuppets
- Weakopedia (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
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 - " 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)
Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
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)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Categories: