Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/R3ap3R.inc/Archive

Evidence submitted by Cirt
Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) -- with deceptive edit summary of: "/fixed typo/", changes word "Church" in article about Scientology, to instead be replaced with word "cult",
 * 2) -- reverts, to same version as,.
 * 3) -- Uses same edit summary as, "/fixed typo"
 * 4) -- Reverts, again, to version edited by ,
 * Please note, violation of multiple Arbitration Committee case rulings
 * 1) All articles within the topic of Scientology are on probation, per remedies in the Arbitration Committee case, COFS.
 * 2) It is a violation of Arbitration Committee ruling to use IPs combined with user accounts in such a manner on articles within the topic of Scientology, especially with the purpose of obfuscating WP:3RR in order to cause disruption within the topic, per remedies in the Arbitration Committee case, Scientology.

Comments by accused parties

 * Was unaware the article was under arbitration control / the meaning of that, and was simply not logged in. See also rebuttal below, albeit it is a moot point R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - CUs are not likely to reveal the IP and issues with arbcom violations should be taken to ArbCom Requests for enforcement. --  DQ  (t)  (e)  00:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you for this decision. Request that this remain open as a case, admins may be able to issue a determination if it is a sock based on above evidence without technical data. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not able to determine if this IP is a proxy or not; all ports are showing as filtered. Without more edits from this IP address, it's a little hard to establish a firm relation between these two, even with the shared edit summary noted in the evidence. My guess here, especially given that R3ap3R.inc has no edits logged the day that the IP edited, is that this user forgot to log in that day and this won't be a recurring problem. The fact that it's on an article under ArbCom restrictions is curious, but there's nothing to indicate this is malicious beyond the misleading edit summary, which the user should be spoken to about if they haven't been already. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. They have not been spoken to, about the misleading edit summary. Request that an uninvolved administrator other than myself please do that. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ here -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just not familiar with articles that are under arbitration control, and based on two years of edits you can see that I have no COI with the subject matter; in fact, after logging in (yes, was simply not logged in my bad) I backed it with a reference to TIME. For that matter, I can find 10 mainstream media that call COS a cult, but I digress. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Per above. Editor warned. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do, closing case Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)