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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:30, 28 June 2012 editDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits Undid revision 420487262 by Cool Hand Luke (talk) SA has been unvanished by WIlliamH← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:08, 28 June 2012 edit undoMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits courtesy blanked 
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOINDEX__
<!-- BEGIN ARCHIVE TEMPLATE --><noinclude>
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ].
<!--
}}
If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name.
-->
{| class="messagebox"
| style="text-align: center" | 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 </br><span style="font-size: 125%">'''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{FULLPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''</span></br> to the checkuser page . Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on ] (but will still appear here).
|}
<div style="background: #f5fffa; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px;">
<center>''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it'''</font>.</center>
<!-- END ARCHIVE TEMPLATE -->
===]===
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)}}

* {{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}
* {{checkip|128.59.169.49}}
* {{checkip|69.86.169.166}}

* ''']:''' F

On November 30, ScienceApologist posted a merge template on the ] article, suggesting that the content of the ] article be merged into that one. Today, December 4, an anonymous editor, {{user|128.59.169.49}}, which traces to Columbia University, accomplished this same merge without further discussion. The merge was quickly reverted, and it was pointed out that ScienceApologist already attempted to suggest this merge back in June, ], but there was not a consensus for such an action.

It would appear plausible that ScienceApologist attempted to accomplish this merge anonymously, in order to evade his ArbCom restrictions under ]. ScienceApologist was under a "one account" restriction from ], and under a separate "respect the spirit, not the words" of the rules, at ]. ScienceApologist was blocked for disruption earlier this week for violating one of his pseudoscience bans, (edit-warring at ]) but then appeared to be sending in meatpuppets to continue with edit-warring at ] (see CheckUser request #5, below). He was then so combative and uncivil on his talkpage, that the page required protection. There was a general (though not unanimous) feeling at ] that though ScienceApologist was currently under a temporary block, it might be time to proceed to an indefinite one, especially considering the long history of disruption from this user. The temporary block has since expired, and yesterday, ScienceApologist had indicated that he was going to avoid Misplaced Pages for the rest of the month. However, if he's just coming back as an anon to resume disruption in the pseudoscience topics, a new block may need to be instituted. It seems fairly obvious to me that the anon is ScienceApologist, but since there's a lot of ] going on, I would appreciate CheckUser confirmation, thanks. --]]] 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:{{checkip|69.86.169.166}} was previously raised as a possible sock as part of ]. At the time, it was dismissed as a likely ]. However, I think there is additional evidence that definitively links this IP to ScienceApologist. In , ScienceApologist is acknowledging a usurpation request at Wikibooks from his English Misplaced Pages account. In the same minute, is made at Wikibooks by User:69.86.169.166 in conjunction with the same request. Clearly, someone with access to ScienceApologist's Misplaced Pages account was simultaneously editing as 69.86.169.166 on Wikibooks. ] (]) 04:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

* Someone nudged me because this request is getting old. My comment: What? Another SA CU request? Again? Haven't we ''seen this movie before''??? OK, 69.86.169.166 is {{staleIP}}, and the rest are... well let's go with {{inconclusive}}, shall we? If there's actually an issue with behaviour, that's where to look. This tailchasing isn't going to go anywhere useful, I don't think. Unless we want to block the whole university. Makes me wish for a real names only policy (like THAT's ever going to happen) ++]: ]/] 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Did you see the comments of {{user|FT2}} at ScienceApologist's talkpage, where he said, "''However, it seems that instead of taking a break from Misplaced Pages entirely, you are simply switching to editing anonymously, while logged out. ] is almost certainly you, or echoing your wish of edits, and it's not the first time something like this has caused concerns.''". --]]] 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
:::No I did not, but thanks for pointing me to them. I still think that running CUs here is tailchasing. Could these IPs be him? Yes, the data fits. Could they be friends of his? Yes, the data fits too. Could they be perfectly innocent random edits? Well... if we stretch AGF about as far as we dare, yes, it's possible (I'm assuming that like many universities, Columbia has some standard issue machines or centrally managed machines where things are going to, from a distance, look similar, and thus these could be random students). But running CUs isn't the way to resolve this matter. Block on behaviour, without regard to whether it's socking or meating. I know, I know, maybe SA is violating his ArbCom case. I don't know what to suggest. If the behaviour is such that you're sure of a match, do what's necessary. Just don't expect CU investigations to give you definitive answers... {{pixiedust}}. I'm sorry. Really I am. And I'm not trying to give you a hard time but I'm not sure there is much more I can do. Maybe another CU should take a look too. But it feels like it would be a waste. I saved what I got, if some other CU contacts me, I'm happy to share. Sorry. Really. ++]: ]/] 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)}}

* {{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}
* {{checkip|128.59.168.240}}
* {{checkip|128.59.170.16}}

* ''']:''' F

* '''Supporting evidence:''' On 20:50, 1 December 2008, ] was for a period of 48 hours for editing ] in violation of his page ban. It is believed that ] used {{User|128.59.168.240}} and {{User|128.59.170.16}} as sockpuppets to evade this block by reverting {{la|List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts}}, in which ] was also engaged in an edit war , to the version ] favored ( , both reversions to ). Note that {{User|128.59.168.240}} and {{User|128.59.170.16}} have few contributions to Misplaced Pages either before or since the reversions. Furthermore, ] has an extensive history of abusive sockpuppetry as documented in ], and is explicitly limited to the use of a single account in editing Misplaced Pages per ]. It is also believed that ] engaged in abusive sockpuppetry by editing from IP addresses in September and October of this year, as described in the (now blanked) fourth checkuser request concerning him . ] 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
:: Additional evidence is being gathered at ]. --]]] 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

*{{unlikely}} to be SA himself; I would take him at his word that he was recruited . ] 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

*I ran checks before this was reported here, and I concur with this finding, as I related at SA's talk page in ++]: ]/] 12:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

* I think it is either a Joe job, or else SA is goading us by telling his friends to behave like obvious meat puppets. Either way, the IPs should be blocked for disruption, and SA has behaved badly enough to get banned, so whether he is socking or not makes very little difference. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
{{declined}} based on above evidence. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)}}

'''''This request has been blanked as a courtesy'''''

=== ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)}}
*{{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}
*{{checkuser|LOGANA}}

Code letter: '''B'''

Evidence: See . ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
*Technically {{unlikely}}; same (very large) city but different residential ISP as well as other features that fail to match. ] 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
**I believe this was a ]. Can you identify the responsible party? ] <sup>]</sup> 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
***Nothing obvious. ] 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


=== ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}<!--Please do not edit this line-->
<!-- Add suspected sock puppets and IP addresses below this line. The above line will list an account matching the pagename. -->
* {{checkuser|74.63.84.70}}

* '''Code letter:''' B
* '''Supporting evidence:''' ]

There have been ] that an opponent of SA may have used open proxies to frame ScienceApologist. The most recent sock of that user is {{checkuser|Queue Pea Are}}. 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. ] (]) 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 {{user|Monkey See Monkey Die}} and {{user|Niet Comrade}} are both Davkal sockpuppets. ]·] 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{rfcu box|case=ScienceApologist|filed=03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{checkuser|ScienceApologist}}<!--Please do not edit this line-->
<!-- Add suspected sock puppets and IP addresses below this line. The above line will list an account matching the pagename. -->
* {{checkuser|PouponOnToast}}

* '''Code letter:''' B, F
* '''Supporting evidence:''' ]

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 ].

We have a suspected sock puppet report with credible evidence, but it would help to have a checkuser opinion. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. <font face="Verdana">]]</font> 05:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:Potential area of overlap here:
::# 2008-02-12 17:49:40 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Caney, Kansas (Undid revision 190939262 by Phlip888 (talk))
::# 2008-02-12 17:49:11 by ScienceApologist (hist) (diff) Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? (→Here's a better version - r)
::# 2008-02-12 17:48:49 by PouponOnToast (hist) (diff) Real estate investing (rewrite (mostly cut))
:&mdash;] (''']''') 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.--] 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. ] (]) 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 " ] <small>(]) (])</small> 17:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
::: for the quote Seicer is quoting. Diffs are always a good idea when quoting... ] 18:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{unlikely}} - ] <sup>]</sup> 07:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

:{{deferred}} another checkuser for second opinion here - ] <sup>]</sup> 09:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

::ScienceApologist and PouponOnToast are {{unrelated}}. With respect to PouponOnToast, {{fishing}} ] 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
<center>''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. <font color=red>'''Please do not modify it.'''</font></br>Subsequent requests related to this user should be made ''above'', in a new section.</center></div>
</br>
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 17:08, 28 June 2012

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.