Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
I was told that SPI is the proper venue to bring meatpuppetry complaints. user:GoRight has on multiple previous occasions meatpuppted on behalf of Scibaby:
GoRight has been warned many times about this behavior, but continues to flagrantly violate the meatpuppetry policy. (In fact, there's an ongoing arbitration case where Abd is accused of behavior identical to GoRight's. GoRight has, in that arbitration case, made workshop proposals to redefine meatpuppetry to exclude his and Abd's actions)
Recently, Scibaby showed up and made this edit. The account was tagged, blocked, and reverted, and a "this user is a sockpuppet" comment was made in the edit history. GoRight later showed up and reverted back to that edit. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Ban#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users and Wikipedia:Ban#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits (Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry.). Since this is his fourth violation, and since he's had multiple previous warnings, I think a substantial block is in order. Raul654 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I deny having ever been a meat puppet for Scibaby or anyone else. Any content that I have added or removed to or from the project I have done as a result of my own free will and a sincere desire to improve the encyclopedia.
I can make a few blanket statements at the outset:
In this case Raul is seeking to use Scibaby as a tool to control and intimidate those with whom he disagrees in content disputes as a means of pushing his own personal POV. In so doing he abuses his substantial administrator and checkuser privileges to gain advantage in those content disputes, and he does so to the detriment of the project. This is not the intended purpose of either WP:MEAT or WP:BAN.
I hereby claim that it should be all too obvious that this is merely another in a long line of actions on Raul's part to try and have me banned or otherwise sanctioned merely because he disagrees with my POV on global warming and other issues. A brief summary of that history can be found here and more recently on the following ArbCom pages: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
As a example of Raul's veracity in making such charges against me, please take the time to review the descriptions he has placed in the WP:ATTACKPAGE he maintains against me here and then follow the links and read my edits in context. I believe that they demonstrate a clear propensity on his part to stretch the truth beyond all reasonable recognition or proportion. The same is being done here today, but merely in a different forum and from a newly devised angle of attack.
As a single example of what I mean, Raul previously claimed that I had "provoked [an incident for which he blocked me and was subsequently overturned] by making this series of inflammatory edits [9][10][11] ..." to which an uninvolved administrator, User:B, remarked "There is nothing inflammatory about those edits - all three were in good faith and there is no way that an unbiased, uninvolved admin would consider them to be disruptive."
The bottom line is that you CANNOT take Raul at his word on ANY of these issues. You will have to follow the links and read them in context to form your own opinion of the reality behind his facade.
I will attempt to address the evidence he has provided in detail over the next day or two but I have other pressing matters at the current ArbCom proceedings to attend to first. I ask your indulgence in this regard. If this is not an acceptable timeframe please let me know and I shall try to accommodate you accordingly. There is no pressing danger to the project here. Given the literally thousands upon thousands of edits that Scibaby has likely made in total the paltry few incidents that Raul has been able to dredge up actually speaks volumes on whether I am a meat puppet for Scibaby, or not. --GoRight (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Specific rebuttals to Raul's "evidence":
Tim Ball, March 17-18 2009:
Capitol Power Plant, March 11 2009:
His third bullet which begins with "A new account ...":
Fred Singer:
I think that this is pretty much all I have to say on the matter unless the investigators have any questions for me. If so please notify me on my talk page. --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll reproduce the relevant portions of the applicable policies here:
From WP:BAN
|
---|
Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted. WP:SOCK defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus. It strongly discourages this form of editing, and new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.
Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a ((db-g5)), or its alternative name ((db-banned)), to mark such a page. If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do. |
From WP:MEAT
|
---|
Meatpuppetry is a Wikipedia term meaning the recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion. Meatpuppetry gives a misleading impression of participation in the discussion, and of the support and opposition to different views expressed. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care. |
As to meatpuppetry; while the ban policy does say that reinstating edits of a banned user may be considered meatpuppetry, the meatpuppetry policy is clear that it refers to editors who have been recruited to Wikipedia "for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus." No evidence has been presented that Scibaby recruited GoRight, or that GoRight is a new user. In order to "be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior [he is] joining" GoRight must be substantially replicating the behavior that led to the ban against Scibaby. It's not clear, from the evidence posted above, what led to Scibaby's ban - from the history of the Scibaby case at SPI, it would appear to relate to abusive sockpuppetry. Has GoRight engaged in this type of behavior?
As to the ban policy; no evidence has been presented that GoRight is editing at the behest of a banned user. Reinstating edits on a constellation of articles indicates primarily that GoRight and Scibaby hold similar opinions - opinions not uncommon, despite being wrong. The ban policy includes two "loopholes" for editors who reinstate edits made by banned users. One, that users may not reinstate such edits "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." Two, that "users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing."
Further evidence is needed, in my opinion, to justify enforcement action against GoRight via SPI. I don't know much more about this conflict than is presented in this case, and its contents don't as yet form a convincing argument that GoRight should be blocked for violating WP:SOCK. Nathan T 02:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
The obsessive character of this account with regards to global warming denialism is parallel to the activities of this prolific sockpuppeteer with edits from this account becoming more prolific at the same time that the scibaby account was subject to its final set of blocks and bans. See also that this user is !voting in an AfD that other socks of this user have made similar arguments in similar time periods: [23], [24]. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
More evidence, as requested:
Both users employ an idiosyncratic use of single-words in "quotations" in edit summaries:
by User:Scibaby: [25], [26]
by User:Q Science: [27], [28], [29]
The evidence against Q Science is the same evidence that could be used against ScienceApologist [30][31][32][33][34] or myself (diffs upon request) or probably hundreds of other editors. Given the amount of time QS has been editing and the number of Scibaby checkusers that have taken place in that time, I highly doubt that another checkuser will show QS is Scibaby. Nishkid64 has blocked quite a few in the last few days for this old one to slip through. If you're right, I suspect you'll need more than 5 diffs. Also, QS doesn't fit some of the more common Scibaby redflags. -Atmoz (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Atmoz - this is highly unlikely. While Q science shares some POV with scibaby, Q doesn't exhibit any of the flags that normally gets raised by scibaby. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · count) is a possible scibaby sock, but no energy to report. Feel free to delete this comment. ► RATEL ◄ 09:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Scottca07 (talk · contribs · count) is another possible sock, I think. His behavior on that AfD is similar. (The account, however, doesn't edit much.) ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Q Science (talk · contribs) and Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs) are Unrelated. Additionally, no other users are present on their main IPs. Unfortunately, I don't have existing data on Scibaby, so I'll have to leave this open for another checkuser to handle. Unless Scibaby has been entirely inactive for months, though, I doubt this is likely; Q Science has only edited from a single IP since August. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
And a few more, that turned up since this was filed:
Same editing style as the other hundreds of socks. Note these were reported to User talk:Nishkid64 by several different users, but hasn't responded in the last few days, so I'm reporting them here so hopefully another checkuser can help with them. -Atmoz (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed We may have some sleepers lying underneath here. MuZemike 20:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
User: Artwerkgal shows typical behavior for Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. User: Gardner monk is a bit less typical, but might be a very long term sleeper sock - he/she/it only edited in 2006 and now again following the Scibaby pattern. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive, especially the two most recent cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
I have doubts about Gardner monk and Forest001. The edits are Scibaby-like, but the MO is quite a bit different. Although he has been known to change his MO, if it's pointed out... -Atmoz (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
Shows typical behavior for category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive, especially the three most recent cases. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed --Versageek 05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: Appropriately tagged. MuZemike 05:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
User: Flegelpuss is obviously not a new user - (s)he started throwing around Wikiacronyms on the 10th edit. It looks like a sleeper sock, with a grand total of 5 days of activity over the last 2 months before it hit the climate change topics today.
User:Doize77 is a new account who provided an article with perfect and non-trivial Wikisyntax on the same general topic (the CRU hack and released emails) out of the blue.
As you probably know, the original Scibaby account has been stale for a while. Scibaby has a large number of alternate accounts and IP-addresses - please see the previous instances of the case and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby to get a suitable overview. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
(talk) 02:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Please add User: Twyla8 - brand-new user with the usual modus operandi. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Please note two new suspected socks (of Flegelpuss, hence possibly not of Scibaby) added by User: EdJohnston above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added User:EggheadNoir to the list. The pattern of behaviour is very similar to that of Doize77. This is clearly someone's sockpuppet, but it's not clear whether it's yet another Scibaby sock or part of the recently banned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tinpac sockfarm. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
(added) I've also added 71.209.131.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which appeared when the Tinpac socks were blocked earlier and exhibits similar editing behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added Cardinality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Iphegenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note spelling) to the suspected socks above, which were rumored in September 09 as socks of Flegelpuss due to their pushing of the view that Poincaré invented relativity, not Einstein. The discussion can be seen in the archives of WikiProject Physics. They accounts were both created within a couple of days after Flegelpuss was blocked for 3RR. Though Iphegenia only lasted a few edits, Cardinality has become quite active lately (in November) on physics articles. Cardinality was notified about the sock suspicion but never responded. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Hi! First of all, thank you for the praise of my wikisyntax in creating a new article! I have created several new articles before (and they are still there), and have constructively worked on thousands of articles over several years. However, I haven't done any editing of climate stuff before (not that I remember) - it's not my thing. Checkuser will show this. Doize77 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion of my name suggests to me a witch hunt to try to ban editors whose edits about the CRU scandal Stephan Schulz doesn't like. I have nothing to do with any of these nyms, and I'm guessing that none of the rest have anything to do with each other either. There are a large number of climate skeptics who are very interested in informing the world about this scandal over the last couple days and so it's no surprise you get a bunch of similarly viewed edits coming in the same day. How about let's ban people who make maliciously false accusations instead of banning people because you don't like them.Flegelpuss (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I see Tanshai has been blocked. Was expecting something like that after I came across their account. While I didn't see anything seriously wrong with his/her edits, the behaviour was highly suspicious quoting policies from the get go, de-redlinking his/her talk page and user page with the 2nd and 3rd edit and making a few edits to unrelated articles before jumping into the climate change stuff. Good to know I was right and not being overly paranoid/failing to AGF Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed MuZemike 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note Strong behavioral evidence, in particular the narrow focus and viewpoint on special relativity, link Cardinality (talk · contribs) and Flegelpuss (talk · contribs). Combined with a technically consistent result, and Flegelpuss' confirmed socking on the CRU dispute, I think that WP:DUCK supports linking ZoneW and Cardinality to Flegelpuss/EggheadNoir. I'm not sure about Iphiegnia; it seems possibly a throwaway account, and the edits thus far have been innocuous; while it's likely as not to be related, it can probably just be watched going forward and revisited if problematic editing crops up.
I've blocked ZoneW and Cardinality indefinitely as socks of Flegelpuss. Given the evidence of abusive sockpuppetry across multiple disputes, and the prior block for edit-warring, I've blocked Flegelpuss for 1 week. This is the next-to-last straw, though, and any further disruptive editing from this account should probably result in an indefinite block. MastCell Talk 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note Addendum: To be clear, I do not think that there is sufficient evidence at this time, either technical or behavioral, to link Flegelpuss et al. to Scibaby. The actions taken are based on Flegelpuss' sockpuppetry in and of itself. MastCell Talk 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Brand-new account, hit the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article running, speaks Wiki-talk fluently, behavioral similarity to other recent Scibaby socks.
Please not that recent Scibaby investigations uncovered two more sock-masters working on climate-related articles with a somewhat similar modus operandi, namely User: Tinpac (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29). From behavior only, these are difficult to separate, as they all behave similarly and push similar POVS. However, it is obvious that User: Alister Kinkaid is not a new user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Another one added, User:Occam eraser, identified by User: BozMo. Again brand-new account.
Added User:Pullister, who turned up with the usual patterns this morning. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
And another one, Climatedragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who made just enough token edits to other articles to allow him to edit semi-protected articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Another one added - Bigred58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which looks like another sleeper sock - possibly of Flegelpuss, since its MO looks similar. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed Scibaby (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =
Hopkinsrocks (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Possible.
Climatedragon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to be Unrelated. (>15000km away from the others, different OS) but I am not absolutely sure, since I don't have much experience with Scibaby. J.delanoygabsadds 23:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
A series of new accounts with few or no previous edits have turned up on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley making the same edit repeatedly. From the pattern of behaviour, they are obviously sockpuppets. The behavioural pattern is characteristic of Scibaby, though please note that recent Scibaby investigations uncovered two more sock-masters working on climate-related articles with a somewhat similar modus operandi, namely User: Tinpac (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29). From behavior only, these are difficult to separate, as they all behave similarly and push similar POVs. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few more. User:Bellieflop is almost certainly Scibaby, and has already been blocked on behavioral evidence. Confirmation would be useful, though. The same holds for User:Comfort & Joy and User:Steve Belkins.
User: Dalej78 is one of several accounts created around 2007, with very few intermittent edits, that now come out of deep sleep to edit the climate change article with a typical Scibaby POV. I'm not sure if there is clear enough pattern for strong conclusions, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Glocax a bit too early to be sure, but is certainly not a new user, and exhibits scibaby traits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
The usual pattern of behaviour on Phil Jones (climatologist) and other climate-related articles; brand-new accounts, created within an hour of each other, evidently familiar with Wikipedia and making a series of dovetailing edits in a pattern very typical of Scibaby. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Price to Pay - see contributions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Wejer - looks like a sleeper too me, a few bursts of activity, nearly all minor edits, and now on Medieval Warm Period with elaborate if unreliably sourced comments. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Fern360, HanJShul and Riley Ralston, completely new accounts that jump right into the typical patterns. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
An obvious Scibaby sock on Phil Jones (climatologist) and other climate-related articles. The usual pattern - brand new account, obviously a previous user, restoring/repeating edits made by previous Scibaby socks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Gherston who exhibs same patterns, although he hasn't made that many edits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Blocked and tagged:
Range 71.84.240.0/20 hardblocked for six months - that only takes out the Gherston group, the first two listed are on a range I'm not quite comfortable blocking due to high traffic. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
A series of new accounts with few or no previous edits, exhibiting usual Scibaby behaviour. Most of these have only one edit, which seems to be a new strategy - see the last scibaby archive, making it difficult to spot more than 1-2 behavioural trait, but nevertheless these fit right into the usual patterns. Please also note that there are other sockmasters with similar behaviour, Tinpac (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and Flegelpuss (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29), and which share the same or similar POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Another likely Scibaby sock has appeared - User:Todd Blago. I have reopened the case to allow this one to be dealt with. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed:
All confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Seems to be all he had today. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
The latest batch of new editors showing the regular patterns, some of these may already be blocked per the ducktest, but real CU evidence to help in later cases is preferred (of course there is also the chance of unfortunate bad blocks w. the ducks). See previous cases for related sockmasters. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Highly Unlikely based on likelihood of new user jumping into the topic with strong opinion in the Scibaby style. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed
J.delanoygabsadds 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Administrator note Confirmed ones blocked and tagged. MuZemike 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The daily batch of suspected scibaby sockets - all following the usual patterns. See previous cases for related sockmasters (although i'm rather certain on these). Since the new pattern seems to be one new sock per page, we may want to consider semi-protecting more articles :( --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Cflare which seems to be a sleeper, its rather difficult to determine if this is scibaby, but it fits the behavioural patterns withthe rather harsh attacks pinpointed towards realclimate (from out of nowhere). CU may want to check this one up against User: Tinpac (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive#Report_date_November_22_2009.2C_02:05_.28UTC.29) for as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Added Y2kproxima (talk · contribs) - the usual Scibaby pattern. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Added LibertyJane (talk · contribs) - typical repeat of an attack edit by IP 70.50.180.136 (talk · contribs). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Added - looks like a middle-aged sleeper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The daily crop is active early today. As per the new MO, single edits to contentious areas with the Scibaby NPOV. Maybe (s)he's now going for the Guinness Book? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed:
J.delanoygabsadds 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
This mornings crop of socks, following all the usual characteristics and behaviours. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Added an IP. I think Kim's report included all that I reported up in the last report, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
I object most strenuously to being labelled a "sock puppet".
There is no hand up my behind :)
My edits thus far have been factual and i fail to see how i can be accused of being [[35]]
I request my name be removed from the above listing.
mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby. Please don't continue the sniping at each other; I do not wish to ask you to stop contributing at SPI. NW (Talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The latest batch of editors that match with the established patterns. Please take notice of the last investigation, regarding the geocoding. Some of these have already been blocked (i presume by the duck-test, but confirmation as always should be preferred). Please also note the similar sock-masters that have been referred to in earlier SPI's (for instance Tinpac).
Also something seems to be wrong with the archiving bot (since the older cases haven't been archived) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Added User:Jon Drinkwater, User:Jesston and User:Glaucel. There seems to be a separate case for Jesston at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jesston, which could be merged here. Prolog (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed Scibaby (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =
J.delanoygabsadds 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 12:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)