Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:24, 27 May 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.

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

26 May 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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 -- User:Altmathsci and User:Alternative-mathsci 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 Why is this out-of-date material still here? Jello carotids (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)  socking/banned user comments struck by Ohiostandard at 05:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

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 WP:UP#POLEMIC) 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 User:Southend sofa was a sockpuppet of either of the users mentioned. Jello carotids (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)  socking/banned user comments struck by Ohiostandard at 05:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• The edit to THIS page which you made, to remove assertions placed on this page, is here. Jclemens (talk) 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. Rich Farmbrough, 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC).
    
    • 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. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:SPI 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? MastCell  05:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
        • "The reversion was on WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole 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 here, in addition to his reversion on the SPI page for Echigo mole--the latter of which was never called improper by anyone. Jclemens (talk) 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? --OhioStandard (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

While MathSci admits User:Aixoisie is his, use of this account is problematic and merits further investigation:

• While he claims the account is disclosed, the actual wording in WP:SOCK 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Evidence sub-pages (remedy), 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". Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A separate problem is that MathSci edited this page to remove an accusation against him. He did this after 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. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, Per this 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? Jclemens (talk) 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 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. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Aixoisie (talk · contribs) is a fully and openly declared alternate account per this edit, in compliance with WP:SOCK. 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 WP:BAN, 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Evidence sub-pages (remedy). 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 unambiguous site policy and an inability to distinguish serious, good-faith concerns from obvious disruption and trolling. MastCell  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, Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Every Arbitrator is an administrator and can view-deleted 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 Arbitration Enforcement and Mathsci's "obfuscation" is hardly that, especially if, as he said, he has "sent a detailed account to the arbcom mailing lists". NW (Talk) 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. Jclemens (talk) 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. Your position on the Committee does not give you the executive power to override an administrative consensus on an SPI case. 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. MastCell  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 process documentation. 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. Jclemens (talk) 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? Rich Farmbrough, 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

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. NW (Talk) 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. Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

• 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, the banning policy 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. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive