Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Scibaby

Scibaby

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

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 page is an archive for recent Scibaby cases

20 March 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual. Prolog (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Almost all of the technical data we have for Scibaby is   Stale. However, the IP range this account is using has been checked previously in conjunction with Scibaby accounts. I would say that at least makes it   Possible -behavior will be the bigger factor here. TNXMan 14:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked and tagged the account. The behavioral evidence left no doubt in my mind that this is Scibaby. Prolog (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27 August 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual. Prioryman (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

"The usual" means the typical scibaby behavior. A "new" (scarequotes because they are obviously not new) user in the climate change area pushing through edits which subtly tweak the POV. See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby for more details. I strongly recommend that a clerk endorse this case for CU, as we've had multiple reincarnations recently and we need a check for sleepers. I've added the most recent duck-blocked sock above.... which obviously has a fair bit in common with the most recently discovered and unblocked sock. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Mark Tooele. All three accounts are now blocked. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit
  • For the clerks and checkusers who are familiar with Scibaby, the contribs should be enough evidence. Spelling it out to everyone would in this case be detrimental to the project. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no; the contributions are *not* enough. Using contribs alone in the past resulted in literally millions of IP addresses being blocked because users from all over the world were adding "Scibaby-like" edits to the project. It became clear that all one had to do to be labeled a Scibaby sock was to make any modification to a climate change related article. Be specific: identify the problem with the edits, and why the reporter believes that this is Scibaby. You might find it helpful to refer to the related Arbcom case, in particular this section. Risker (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how ancient rangeblocks are in any way relevant here. For almost three years, this sockmaster's accounts have been identified with extreme precision, and innocent users haven't been blocked. One of the reasons for the high success rate has been the quiet collaboration between Scibaby "experts" and checkusers. Prolog (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prolog, in what way is this edit in any way abusive? I don't want to hear "someone else made that same edit before", I want to hear exactly why this edit is POV pushing. In fact, I'd like to hear why the version that keeps being returned to the article isn't POV pushing.

The same with this one: [1]. Why in heaven's name is Wikipedia stating "For the campaign to undermine public confidence in the scientific opinion on climate change, see climate change denial." Now, how is that *not* POV-pushing? Risker (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Checkuser comment) I am of the same mind as Risker, and would not run a check based on this evidence. Please be specific. Prolog, if some discretion in handling your evidence is needed, you may e-mail the functionaries' mailing list. However, evidence sent by e-mail that does not really need to be considered in private will probably be sent back to here. It may also be worth bearing in mind that: 1) Scibaby has very rarely been active in 2012; and 2) we are extremely reluctant to return to the days of yore, when any new user who edited about climate change was blocked as a Scibaby sock with alarming severity. AGK [•] 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So how do you suggest editors of these articles deal with a massively prolific sockpuppeteer? It takes Scibaby 5 seconds to create an account, while a constructive editor has to jump through days worth of hoops to get it blocked. Compiling detailed technical reports on each new account basically condemns the responsible, legitimate editors of these articles to do pretty much nothing else with their time. The editors who deal with Scibaby have developed a very accurate sense of which accounts belong to him, but not only is that experience rejected - they're criticized and hung out to dry if their success rate ever falls below 100%. (And yes, their success rate has been very close to 100% over the past few years. Bringing up a bunch of inept rangeblocks performed by someone else three years ago doesn't have a lot of bearing on the current request).

I want to hear constructive suggestions and solutions from ArbCom, instead of blaming the ever-dwindling number of legitimate editors who have to put up with this massive abuse of the project. I asked a similar question during WP:ARBCC and got no response, so I'll ask it again: how do you want to see editors handle Scibaby? Please be specific. MastCell Talk 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "new users who edit about climate change". It's about accounts which are very obviously created by someone who is an experienced editor, editing a consistent range of articles, with a consistent POV and a consistent MO. If you've seen dozens or hundreds of Scibaby socks before - as editors like MastCell and Prolog have, and as I have to a lesser extent - the patterns are obvious. Has anyone presented any evidence that the wrong accounts are being blocked? As MastCell says, if there's a better way of dealing with Scibaby, let's hear it. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't involve myself in content matters in this area; I have no expertise and very little interest in it. The edits were made in violation of ban. Our policy doesn't include a "one editor, 1187 accounts" exception for those serial sockpuppeteers who occasionally make a useful or semi-useful edit. I suggest you take your questions to the relevant talk pages as they're off topic here. Prolog (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this conversation is moved to and continued at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Evidence_clarification...diffs_are_required_for_CU, as it has gone beyond the scope of an individual SPI case. WilliamH (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MastCell. Prolog has been reporting Scibaby socks at SPI for a long time now, and as far as I can remember their reports have always been quite accurate. I see no reason to not trust their judgment. Risker and AGK, has there been any actual case in the past couple of years with mistaken Scibaby blocks from SPI? T. Canens (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AOL. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12 December 2012
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

The usual pattern of sockpuppeting: a "new" user in the climate change area pushing through edits which subtly tweak the POV. See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby for more details. The accounts are clearly sockpuppets of the same individual (compare the edit summaries) and the MO matches Scibaby. I suggest also checking for sleepers as we seem to have had a flurry of sockpuppets lately. Prioryman (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

Courcelles 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2013
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Three "new" users in three months making the same edits[2][3][4] to the same pages, partiularly Roman Warm Period. It's possibly they might not be scibaby (they're certainly the same person), but given the short editting history of each it seems awfully similar. Checkuser requested because there are probably more accounts on other articles, if history is to be any guide. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want some more evidence to connect these three to scibaby, one of the previous confirmed socks of scibaby was named LovelyButz (talk · contribs) which seems to bear a similarity to Trulybutz. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly Scibaby. Prioryman (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree it's pretty obvious in my mind, but I want to be as thorough as possible after the cavalry decided charge in to chastise those trying to fight the scibaby disruption in the last case I was involved in. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one guaranteed way to get the cavalry to disappear is to ask them to put their money where their mouths are. Works every time. MastCell Talk 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

09 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Sparked from this AN3 report, SPAs on a 1RR-restricted article making the same edits ([5] [6]) as the user in question ([7]). slakr\ talk / 03:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
10 September 2014
edit
Suspected sockpuppets

It's been a long time... but I'm pretty sure this prolific sockmaster has returned (and perhaps getting a bit lazy?). One of the most obvious "tells" for Scibaby was always a new user making edits that subtly tilt an article towards a climate contrarian point of view with an edit summary containing "NPOV," which this user has done on two different articles.

CU request for sleepers, but probably stale for verifying against most recent socks. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, this shows the usual characteristic Scibaby editing pattern. Prioryman (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add User:Goglognio to this - same smell, edits at the same time of day as Leevarns, and starts editing the day after Leevarns stops (all based on fairly small samples, as both editors as of now have less than ~10 edits - Special:Contributions/Leevarns/Special:Contributions/Goglognio). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this appears to be the same user, most likely Scibaby. I've tagged both user pages accordingly. If there are two socks then there will very likely be more sleepers - Scibaby's usual MO. Prioryman (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
edit

14 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Same contributions as User:Slymgyms, who is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

30 September 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Outside of own user and talk page, has edited only global warming related pages using Scibaby's hallmark "NPOV edit" edit summary. Everymorning (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, since this is still open

He's not even trying to be clever or evasive any more. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second the Cheez... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: The edits are unmistakable in style and content. Similarly, it's the "minimal blue link" homepage we've seen hundreds of times before. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley (talk) 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

While it would be best in the long run to ban any socks, I Am The Cheez should be blocked for edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  • The following accounts are   Confirmed to each other:
Umjamba (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Slymgyms (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Feel the Bern (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Shoalshone (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Valentine Michael Smythe (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Tafortos (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Given the technical information available, I think it's   Likely to be scibaby. Could a clerk merge this case? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 03:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby, which explicitly recommends against discussion of details. I've added a little bit above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 October 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Contributions seem to loosely coincide with Umjamba, who is a confirmed puppet of Scibaby.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

I've asked for a CU as I think there's a couple more out there. Similar edits on same articles starting around October 15th. Similar short edit summaries. Nary a talk page post between them. --NeilN talk to me 04:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

27 October 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent cases, e.g. Byejove, I_Am_The_Cheez   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed to the accounts in the archives, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent cases, i.e. Xavier Kutts, and others.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we also have a CU on Whenzler? He was tagged by William M. Connolley here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 12:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed, tagged and blocked. Jess, I appreciate your identifying socks. However, you've presented zero evidence. A clerk or CheckUser who, unlike me, is not familiar with this master may reject the case without evidence. This case is relatively straightforward, so a lot of evidence is not required, but a couple of comparison diffs for each puppet shouldn't be that hard. Thanks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

09 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including Long Term View and Xavier Kutts.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

11 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks Yehuix and Disprosiam.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

16 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

19 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

Fairly obvious quacking, based on recently confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

19 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

20 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual, note similarity of user pages. Please check for sleepers, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

23 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Thanks for these reports Jess, in the future could you please request CheckUser as it's worth checking every time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You got it. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I semi-protected Global cooling for one month. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

24 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit


24 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Thanks @Bbb23:! I've been requesting CU each time per this note from @Callanecc:. It seems there's not complete agreement between the two of you on how often a CU should be run. I don't want to make anyone's job any harder, so I guess I'll go back to requesting it only occasionally. Duck should be sufficient most of the time. Please drop me a note if there's some other way you'd like it done. Thanks, both of you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jess: How about a compromise? You request it every time and the CheckUser who handles it will decide what's best. I don't mind running the checks that much. It just seems as if as soon as I've CU-blocked one, you add another. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good to me! :-) I wish I could promise you fewer reports too, but I have a little less control over that. Heh. See you around!   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a way to check for sleeper socks - I don't know if that still exists. It might save a couple of round trips. We had a quite time, but the last weeks have seen pretty aggressive socking - maybe because of COP21, or because the US election carnival is coming closer to town... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan Schulz: Every time I've run a check, I've looked for sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks a lot for your work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recent confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

04 December 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK given edits to Anthony Watts (blogger) in line with now-blocked sock User:Aswertly. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

05 December 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets
  1. John SaiIas (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Joking Joker Jokes (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Sasi Isas (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. The One Ring was destroyed at Mount Doom, was it not? (talk  · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


Same edit[8][9] as many already blocked socks. RolandR (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

I added #3 and #4 to the above list. If it's not as obvious to the CU as it is to me, I'd be happy to provide users to compare. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2015

edit
Suspected sockpuppets

See recently confirmed socks, including:

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

25 January 2016

edit
Suspected sockpuppets


Familiar characteristics in various respects. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

FWIW, I think this isn't the usual M/O and so is indeed unlikely William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, following certain later developments. Unfortunately it's not advisable to discuss details -- see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby, wherein admins should absolutely avoid publicly discussing specific techniques and methods for detecting him (bolding is per the original). I rather doubt he's a climate scientist as claimed but that's a separate issue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Additional information needed - @Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Hello, to whomever is reading this. Shareride and Splendus are obvious socks of SOMEONE, and the sockmaster is most likely Scibaby. They have similar POVs on Global warming, and their (as well as scibaby's socks, for that matter) edit summaries have the same tone, if you get my drift. Shareride and Splendus have edited the same article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Skandera_Trombley , to remove puffery and POV-pushing. While this is a good thing, it is odd how they somehow came to the same article and agreed 100% with each other. One of Scibaby's socks used the exact same word as Shareride did in one of their edit summaries, namely qualitative, which is a rarely used word. I request a CheckUser to confirm if these editors are socks and to flush out any sleepers if they are socks. 92.30.178.11 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

17 September 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


I noticed this new user, Soonthereafter, added back material to an entry on my watchlist after another user had removed it for block evasion. Following the thread back, I understand the first account to add the material, User:A_Simple_Name, is a confirmed sock of an LTA focused on climate change, User:Scibaby. User Soonthereafter has gone on to edit one fuel-related page to date. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

27 September 2017

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Duck: choice of name, interest in whitewashing climate change denial are typical. JBL (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

10 January 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Readded misleading material previously introduced by two other Scibaby socks at Rising Star (book); has already made edits to global-warming-related pages. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Hello. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tuvax is obviously a sock of Scibaby -- the edit and edit summaries prove it. 92.30.189.185 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

Sir Sputnik -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

26 January 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Has added same misleading quote to Rising Star (book) as Scibaby socks I reported on September 17, 2017 and January 10, 2018, as well as a third Scibaby sock reported by a different user. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Sro23 -   Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 March 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


These two editors are likely the same person, which with slightly less confidence is Scibaby. As instructed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby I will refrain from giving details, but those who have been around a while will be familiar with some of the tells. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

24 January 2019

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Readded same book review quote added by four previous Scibaby socks. Other edits to climate science subjects. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive&oldid=1142566374"