Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist: 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:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:30, 9 October 2008 editLuk (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators44,788 editsm fix← Previous edit Revision as of 11:37, 9 October 2008 edit undoLar (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators29,168 edits →ScienceApologist (fourth): removed stuff, and whyNext edit →
Line 21: Line 21:


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) 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)

::There's no rule that says I have to reveal my anon IP addresses to anyone. Jehochman is inventing policy, and in any case I have a very hard time doing so due to previous stalking issues. I encourage Jehochman to take this to the appropriate venue which is ]. ] (]) 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request to ] to blank this page as I have now received two different stalking attempts associated with the creation of this content. ] (]) 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Checkusers, please decide what to do with this ASAP. Feel free to bring the matter to ]. I have no desire for further involvement. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

{{moreinfo}} Um... if these are not SA's IP addresses why do they need to be hidden? And if they are SA's IP addresses and SA is logging out to evade a sanction, then this is a reasonable CU request. I think Jehochman needs to provide some diffs that give reason to believe the IPs are SA, not just diffs that show that the IPs are being naughty. So far I don't see that and I'd tend to decline this. But SA, your commentary isn't completely helpful... ++]: ]/] 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::::We're not voting here. I want to see some supporting diffs, that justify this check. Why are these IPs thought to be SA? What have they done that is a specific violation of the arbcom sanction, if they are ScienceApologist. Give that info and a determination of whether to run (or reveal) a check will be made. Absent that, there is no case. ++]: ]/] 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


* Look at and and ] <sup>]</sup> 22:42, 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) * 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====
*{{clerknote}} I have removed comment, as RFCU is not the correct venue to !vote in favor of one party or the other. Remember to keep comments on subject, thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

*{{Clerk Request}} can some kind clerk put the main/view box thingie on this? Thx. I am examining the new diffs and will opine shortly. ++]: ]/] 23:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
**{{clerknote}} I could, if only I knew what you were asking. :-) Maybe you want a archive template to be placed around it? (The green one, like below) ] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
***Grumble. I did it. Geez. What ''GOOD'' are you clerks anyway? I wanted the {{tl|rfcu box}} (box thingie) ... seems perfectly clear to me. :) ++]: ]/] 23:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c**2) The anons are clearly ScienceApologist, and at least one of them was conclusively confirmed via an (off-wiki) CheckUser last night. The sequence of events was this: I had cautioned multiple editors, including ScienceApologist, for edit-warring at the ] article (I'd also issued a block to a different editor). Shortly after I cautioned SA, an anon which appeared to be him showed up at the article and continued on where SA had left off. I judged this to be potentially problematic on multiple levels, both because it might be an attempt to get around the warning, and because SA is already under ArbCom restrictions to only use one account. I contacted him directly and asked him if the anon was him, and he responded by deleting my message with a somewhat uncivil edit summary, and then following this up with profanity to my talkpage. I then requested the CheckUser, which came back "direct hit". So I tagged the anon as a sock, and created ]. A bit later, ScienceApologist nominated the category for deletion, calling it an attack page. The consensus at the CfD was fairly clear that though the IP was obviously SA, that we should assume good faith that he had simply been unaware that he was logged out at the time. So I removed the tag from the IP, and voluntarily deleted the category. Since then, Jehochman has located another IP which is probably SA. Jehochman has also been trying to mentor SA at his talkpage, as has Sam Blacketer. However, SA has been, shall we say, less than cooperative. So Jehochman filed this CheckUser, and then SA filed a charge of harassment at WP:ANI. My own feeling at this point is that there is no need for the situation to escalate further, if SA simply promises to only edit while logged in. If he accidentally edits as an anon, he can simply make a polite request to any admin to delete the edits from page history, and/or SA could go back and place his actual signature on any talkpage post. This would be a far better course of action than reacting by deleting admin queries, and responding with incivility and accusations of harassment. Such behaviors tend to make it very difficult to assume good faith, with the resultant escalation as we have seen here. --]]] 23:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: If you have any doubt that the first IP is ScienceApologist, you need not look any further than for confirmation. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 23:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:: This edit is also interesting, posted in a discussion at the Fringe noticeboard. He was posting as an anon, but signed his post as ScienceApologist. Whereas the posts immediately before and after, he left with the anon signature. I've been scratching my head and trying to figure out ''why'' someone would do something like this. I'm genuinely curious: Is there a good faith reason that such an action would be useful? --]]] 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I don't know about useful, but the good faith reason it would happen would be that SA just did not realise he wasn't logged in. I'd again urge him to adopt one of the measures mooted (like the green save button) to be sure he was always logged in. I strongly suspect that the community will not continue to be indefinitely forebearing about anon edits that seem to give the impression (at least to some) of being made while logged out, on purpose. ++]: ]/] 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: I'm not understanding: If he wasn't logged in, then he had no preferences, meaning he had no signature. So the only way that he could have signed his name as ScienceApologist while he was logged in as an anon, would mean that he ''manually'' entered in the name, link, and UTC time, since the <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> would have just placed the IP signature (as the other two posts did, one minute before and after his "signed" post). Or in other words, for him to manually enter his name, meant that he had to be knowingly writing his signature out longhand, while he was editing as an anon. Which completely negates any "oops, I didn't know" argument. --]]] 19:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: Good point. Well then, I don't know. But I took a decision, this one time, in the hopes of reducing drama and increasing harmony, of deliberately not answering the question, which is within my mandate. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I'm being played the fool. But it should be clear to SA that the communities patience is about exhausted, if in fact he is logging out to avoid the ruling... or even if he isn't and it's good faith mistakes... If some other CU wants to answer the question they can. I won't be put out by that. ++]: ]/] 21:11, 8 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) 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)
:<sigh> The question is, is he logging out to edit war and/or violate his sanctions, or does it seem to be an accident? If it looks intentional, apply the duck test, and if he protests then we can discuss findings. On the other hand, if it looks to be accidental, and if the edits would not violate sanctions assuming they had been made by SA while logged in, then let it go. I certainly do not want someone following me around waving a flag every time I accidentally expose my IP, and I see no benefit it doing so to anyone else. ] 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::He exposes his IPs a LOT. If I decide to only assume a little good faith, it's on purpose and he's evading. If I decide to assume a lot of good faith, it's an accident. I'm going to go with a lot of good faith, this time. Because he's contributed a lot. But the GF credit balance is low with me, hence my trying to cut the Gordian Knot with my answer. ++]: ]/] 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Can I ask a question Lar? Elonka says above that ''I then requested the CheckUser, which came back "direct hit".'' but the happened on the 6th, while this CU case was opened on the 7th. I'm confused as to why this check was needed if one has already been performed, or if this IP was checked privately via an e-mail request. Can you check to see if this IP was checked on the 6th before the CU that you ran today? ] (]) 23:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Yes I can check. Elonka: Don't ask Newbie CUs to do tough political cases like this one, please. Because I know who you asked. I'd prefer you not burn out the new CUs in 2 days, OK? ++]: ]/] 23:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Erm, no, I didn't. So whoever you think you know I asked, you're wrong. --]]] 03:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: Oops! Yep, that was a bad inference and an unwarranted jump to a conclusion, apologies for that. Caution stands though, but let's make it general, everyone ought to cut the new CUs some slack and not ask them to get involved in highly charged stuff their first week. ++]: ]/] 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::PS as to why this one was needed? We run duplicates all the time. I'd say that if a word to the wise after a private CU isn't cutting it, that's not the fault of the people trying to give the word to the wise, is it? ++]: ]/] 23:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, perfectly clear. Thank you Lar. ] (]) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

SA wanted the raw IP numbers removed from this page. He's made a lot of enemies here. Are we not going to accommodate that modest request? As for being logged out a lot, there was a six-month period in 2005 when I made 60 edits while logged out—and would have made many more if I hadn't caught them before hitting 'save'. Seemed I was getting logged out every 15 minutes. Socks of banned users have even used that IP address in attacks against me. I don't know if something like that is going on with SA, but while diplomacy is not his style, neither is fraud, and I think it's the responsible thing for us to do. ] (]) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:There is a real reason that one of his ArbComm restrictions is ] I think occasionally accidentally making an edit while logged out is consistent with that restriction - but a pattern of doing so in areas where his named account is active would not be consitent with that ArbComm remedy. Of the two IPs currently listed above, the more often used is still within my tolerance threshold for evaluation as an occasional accident. ] 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude> <!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>

Revision as of 11:37, 9 October 2008

This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.
Please discuss the matter at this page's entry on the Miscellany for Deletion page.

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 Guide to Deletion.

Maintenance use only: Subst either {{subst:mfd}} OR {{subst:mfdx|2nd}} into the page nominated for deletion.
Then subst {{subst:mfd2|pg=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist|text=...}} into the newly created subpage.
Finally, subst {{subst:mfd3|pg=Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist}} into the log.
Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:MFDWarning|Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s).

ScienceApologist (fourth)

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Code letter: B Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

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 pointed out, and then need to add their signature to claim their edits. This has not happened here. Jehochman 15:53, 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. no Declined in the interests of harmony. ++Lar: t/c 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 this revision. It is my judgment that the material presented did justify running a check. This removal was done in the spirit of a "Courtesy blanking". ++Lar: t/c 11:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


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
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

ScienceApologist (third)

Code letter: B

Evidence: See ANI thread. User:Sandstein 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. Jehochman 06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


ScienceApologist (second case)

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been concerns express that an opponent of SA may have used open proxies to frame ScienceApologist. The most recent sock of that user is Queue Pea Are (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). 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. Vassyana (talk) 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 Monkey See Monkey Die (talk · contribs) and Niet Comrade (talk · contribs) are both Davkal sockpuppets. Dmcdevit·t 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist.

We have a suspected sock puppet report with credible evidence, but it would help to have a checkuser opinion. Jehochman 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. GRBerry 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. Jehochman 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. WjBscribe 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Potential area of overlap here:
  1. 2008-02-12 17:49:40 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Caney, Kansas (Undid revision 190939262 by Phlip888 (talk))
  2. 2008-02-12 17:49:11 by ScienceApologist (hist) (diff) Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? (→Here's a better version - r)
  3. 2008-02-12 17:48:49 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Real estate investing (rewrite (mostly cut))
—Whig (talk) 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.--MONGO 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. R. Baley (talk) 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 " Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
diff for the quote Seicer is quoting. Diffs are always a good idea when quoting... GRBerry 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 Unlikely - Alison 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 Deferred another checkuser for second opinion here - Alison 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
ScienceApologist and PouponOnToast are Red X Unrelated. With respect to PouponOnToast, fish CheckUser is not for fishing Thatcher 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.