Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 28 June 2012 (Undid revision 420487262 by Cool Hand Luke (talk) SA has been unvanished by WIlliamH). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ScienceApologist (sixth)

• ScienceApologist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 128.59.169.49 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 69.86.169.166 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: F

On November 30, ScienceApologist posted a merge template on the Unidentified flying object article, suggesting that the content of the Identified flying object article be merged into that one. Today, December 4, an anonymous editor, 128.59.169.49 (talk · contribs), 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, Talk:Identified_flying_object#Merge_proposal_by_User:ScienceApologist, 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. ScienceApologist was under a "one account" restriction from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted, and under a separate "respect the spirit, not the words" of the rules, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist cautioned. ScienceApologist was blocked for disruption earlier this week for violating one of his pseudoscience bans, (edit-warring at WP:FRINGE) but then appeared to be sending in meatpuppets to continue with edit-warring at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (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 WP:AE#Science Apologist and Pseudoscience 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 gaming going on, I would appreciate CheckUser confirmation, thanks. --Elonka 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

69.86.169.166 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) was previously raised as a possible sock as part of this report. At the time, it was dismissed as a likely joe job. However, I think there is additional evidence that definitively links this IP to ScienceApologist. In this edit, ScienceApologist is acknowledging a usurpation request at Wikibooks from his English Misplaced Pages account. In the same minute, this edit 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. Ronnotel (talk) 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  Stale, 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) ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the comments of FT2 (talk · contribs) 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. This user is almost certainly you, or echoing your wish of edits, and it's not the first time something like this has caused concerns.". --Elonka 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...  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. 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. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (fifth)

• ScienceApologist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 128.59.168.240 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 128.59.170.16 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: F

• Supporting evidence: On 20:50, 1 December 2008, ScienceApologist was blocked for a period of 48 hours for editing Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories in violation of his page ban. It is believed that ScienceApologist used 128.59.168.240 (talk · contribs) and 128.59.170.16 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppets to evade this block by reverting List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which ScienceApologist was also engaged in an edit war , to the version ScienceApologist favored ( , both reversions to ). Note that 128.59.168.240 (talk · contribs) and 128.59.170.16 (talk · contribs) have few contributions to Misplaced Pages either before or since the reversions. Furthermore, ScienceApologist has an extensive history of abusive sockpuppetry as documented in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, and is explicitly limited to the use of a single account in editing Misplaced Pages per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist_limited_to_one_account. It is also believed that ScienceApologist 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 . John254 00:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional evidence is being gathered at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (4th). --Elonka 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Unlikely to be SA himself; I would take him at his word that he was recruited . Thatcher 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 this edit ++Lar: t/c 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. Jehochman 13:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

 Declined based on above evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (fourth)

This request has been blanked as a courtesy

ScienceApologist (third)

• ScienceApologist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LOGANA (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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)

• Technically  Unlikely; same (very large) city but different residential ISP as well as other features that fail to match. Thatcher 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe this was a Joe job. Can you identify the responsible party? Jehochman 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Nothing obvious. Thatcher 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist (second case)

• ScienceApologist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 74.63.84.70 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: B
• Supporting evidence: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (3rd)

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

• ScienceApologist (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PouponOnToast (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: B, F
• Supporting evidence: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist

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  Unrelated. With respect to PouponOnToast,  CheckUser is not for fishing Thatcher 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)