Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/1

Report date June 26 2009, 06:35 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Awickert


 * User:Lauof Pinch's first two edits were to continue in a debate at Talk:Global warming, promoting the argument that was put forward by User:Slongshot, a recently blocked confirmed sockpuppet of scibaby. Awickert (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User contributions show an uncanny attraction to current climate change debates and skilled use of edit summaries. Awickert (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Already quoting policy. Awickert (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Already by Raul654. CheckUser done, ranges blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 12 2009, 15:13 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Roux


 * Keeps asking who Scibaby is, which if memory serves is the usual MO for this sockmaster/puppet. Please run a CU, nuke the sleepers. → ROUX   ₪  15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: user is now blocked, but we should clear the drawer, CU still needed. → ROUX   ₪  23:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by → ROUX  ₪  15:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * - Tiptoety  talk 04:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * ✅, underlying IP blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 3 2009, 21:58 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets
 * - sockpuppet of user:Scibaby
 * - Scibaby meatpuppet

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:
 * Evidence submitted by Raul654


 * Tim Ball, March 17-18 2009: Scibaby edits Tim Ball's article to make false claims.. Scibaby is reverted. GoRight revert wars to include it, claiming Scibaby's edit is true. GoRight is proven wrong.
 * Capitol Power Plant, March 11 2009: Scibaby adds biased, irrelavant information to an article. It's reverted. GoRight revert wars and later claims his revert wasn't a revert.
 * A new account, user:Barstoole, starts editing Wikipedia articles, inserting inflammatory or misleading statements pertaining to global warming. In some cases, these edits are word-for-word identical to edits made by previously blocked Scibaby sockpuppets. . GoRight then complains that previous checkuser evidence pertaining to sockpuppetry was manufactured, implying that the word-for-word identical edits are just a coincidence.  Subsequent investigation by Nishkid shows that Barstoole is one of 15 newly registered scibaby accounts.. GoRight continues claiming the evidence is fabricated  until informed that Nishkid made the identification.

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 Ban and Ban (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)


 * (Replying to Nathon) - As you said, GoRight must prove that all of his restorations of Scibaby's edits were verifiable and that he had independent reasons for making them; otherwise he is in violation of the banning policy. All we have is his self-serving word that he made them independently, which is not credible on its face. What he is saying, in essence, is that he just happened to restore Scibaby's edit character-for-character, and was not influenced by Scibaby's edit? That is absurd on its face. Raul654 (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

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:
 * 1) I was never recruited by Scibaby.  If Raul has evidence that I was he should present it here and now.
 * 2) I have never acted at the direction of Scibaby.  If Raul has evidence that I have he should present it here and now.
 * 3) I have never acted with the intention to specifically aid Scibaby in any way.  If Raul has evidence that I ever had such intent he should present it here and now.
 * 4) If I ever unknowingly restored something of Scibaby's that cannot be considered meat puppetry.
 * 5) If I ever knowingly restored something of Scibaby's all of the following will have been true:
 * 6) * I will not have done so at the direction of Scibaby.
 * 7) * I will not have done so with the intent to aid Scibaby in any way.
 * 8) * I will have personally verified any material that I restored as being WP:V.
 * 9) * I will have personally accepted responsibility for the content that I restored.
 * 10) * I will have had my own independent reasons for restoring the content.
 * 11) WP:MEAT and WP:BAN make it clear that when someone is banned it is the user who is banned and not the POV or ideas that they may have held.  As such WP:BAN provides a number of important exceptions to protect users such as myself from needless and disruptive accusations as we see here from Raul.  The simple fact that I might hold views which resemble Scibaby, or that I choose to adopt some theme that was once posited by Scibaby, does NOT make me a meat puppet for Scibaby.  This should be obvious.

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: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence and 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 ..." 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:
 * I see that Abd has pretty much put a stake through the heart of that already (see below), so I shall simply refer you to that.

Capitol Power Plant, March 11 2009:
 * : I restore material added by a user named Illustria. I do not regularly check the user pages of people who have been reverted so I was unaware that this was even an edit made by Scibaby.
 * : Raul reverts indicating that his was a Scibaby edit. I am now aware that Scibaby was involved.
 * : I verified that the information was WP:V, improved the citation accordingly, and used one of my edit summaries to state "Once I reverted it became my edit, not scibaby's. Just because some sock made the original edit doesn't make the material unusable by others.".
 * Bottom line: I verified that the material was WP:V, I announced that I was taking personal responsibility for the material, and my independent reasons for including the material is simply that I believe that it improved the article.

His third bullet which begins with "A new account ...":


 * Yes, I have been vocal about the potential policy abuses of Raul in his obsessive pursuit of Scibaby. I have good reason.  He clearly states that he regularly runs checkuser on any new accounts that express a skeptical view of AGW.  Merely expressing a skeptical view of AGW is NOT evidence that one is a sock puppet of Scibaby, and I assert that this is borderline abuse of the checkuser policy which requires that there be reasonable evidence so suspect sock puppetry prior to running checkuser.  Real people are having their privacy invaded by Raul on a regular basis and this is an abuse of his privileges IMHO.  Fishing is not allowed per the checkuser policy.


 * Expressing concerns over the potential abuse of checkuser privileges does not make me a meat puppet of Scibaby or anyone else. If I had reason to believe that he was doing the same thing because of some other puppet master I would have the same privacy concerns there as well.


 * I also have serious concerns about other aspects of Raul's pursuit of Scibaby. These actions are feeding Scibaby's desire for attention by giving him exactly what he wants.  When Raul issues range blocks for large segments of the known universe, this clearly disrupts the ability of users and administrators alike to simply run the project which in turn enables Scibaby to indirectly and disruptively impact the project.  As far as I can tell Raul himself has actually become a tool of Scibaby.  Through his unwitting efforts Raul has effectively given Scibaby indirect access to highly privileged tools (i.e. range blocks) in Scibaby's apparent quest to disrupt the project and in ways far greater than he could otherwise accomplish.  This is clearly a serious matter and one deserving of further analysis and investigation.

Fred Singer:
 * : This shows that the Scibaby edit on Singer's page that Raul is referring to was actually restored by User: John G. Miles. There is no allegation that Miles is anything other than a good faith editor seeking to improve the project.  In his edit summary Miles clearly acknowledges that the edit may have been by a sock but that he himself feels that the change in question was proper and should be retained.
 * : Miles defends his position a second time and expounds upon his own reasons for supporting the change independent of any relationship to Scibaby.
 * : Noting that Miles seemed to be confronted with a WP:TAGTEAM, see and  and, and having my own independent reasons for agreeing with the edit in question I sought to lend assistance to Miles in the form of a single revert of my own.  None of this suggests that Miles or myself are sock puppets of anyone, and nothing about this sequence is out of the ordinary on global warming pages (sadly).
 * Note that in the end Miles' changes prevailed and the article was improved by his efforts.

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)


 * Comments by other users
 * This is nothing more than continued harassment of GoRight, going on for more than a year, and which is related to a current RfAr in which Raul654 raises the claim of meat puppetry against GoRight and myself without a shred of evidence, based on viciously wikilawyered interpretations of WP:MEAT. . Hence this is forum-shopping in a long-standing crusade to persuade other administrators to block GoRight. Sockpuppet investigations are not to be used in the service of content disputes, which is what this is at root. The most recent sequence described by Raul is three months old.
 * The first Timothy F. Ball edit is IP. No evidence is provided other than Raul's statement that this is Scibaby, and surely the edit itself is hardly evidence of that. While it's possible that checkuser Raul654 has secret or other evidence on this, he is a vigorous and dedicated anti-Scibaby crusader, Scibaby being a massive sock farm, 300 socks and counting, that he inspired in 2007 through his abuse, and the battle is doing substantial collateral damage; if that edit is typical for Scibaby, and it seems it is, this is hardly worth extensive range blocks which result in massive inability to edit Wikipedia by IP editors, confounding Foundation policy.
 * The reverting editor is Raul654 himself, highly involved in the overall content dispute.
 * It's true that GoRight responds to Raul654's revert, which was a bald revert, the kind that matches the intention of the prohibition for edit warring, whereas GoRight restores different content, with three sources. That's not revert warring, and even if we accept Raul's claim that this is Scibaby, and that Scibaby is banned, bans are not of content, but of editors, and if a banned editor asserts content that is later sourced and reinserted, this is not meat puppetry unless it was done at the direction of or with the intention of acting for another editor.
 * Raul654 then reverted GoRight's sourced edit as "vandalism."
 * More revert warring ensued, with Raul654 reverting up there with the rest. I fail to see anything resembling meat puppetry. If that IP was Scibaby, so what? It was a bare suggestion of a fact; we are not prohibited from asserting facts because a banned editor first points them out. Was this a fact? I don't know. Raul654 asserts that GoRight was "proven wrong." He cites as the proof, above, his own revert, apparently referring to a link he gives in his edit summary. He doesn't mention that the paragraph he restored was then removed by a sitting arbitrator, Cool Hand Luke, who was apparently not convinced by this "proof." I wonder why Raul isn't filing SSP reports claiming meat puppetry for the arb?
 * The current article does not have the material that Raul654 was revert warring to keep in. It was all removed March 23 by Atmoz, and that stuck. Great edit summary: (BLP; UNDUE; OR; RS; and a partidge in a pear tree) I.e., Raul654, one of our most highly privileged editors, was editing to maintain material that violated numerous policies. Read it and weep.
 * What I see here is what I've seen by a group of editors, including Raul654, since I first noticed and investigated Raul654's charges in Requests for comment/GoRight, a year before: Tag team revert-warring and incivility, by several administrators and certain supporters. It's shameful that it's been allowed to continue.
 * When the first example is this bad, I won't bother to cover the older reports. The claims of revert warring are irrelevant, this is not the 3RR noticeboard, which Raul654 shopped at previously to this. The meat puppetry charges are being addressed before ArbComm already, so this is pure disruptive distraction. --Abd (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm uninvolved in this and don't know about the history here, the RfAr, etc., all I know is what I saw in the recent AN3 report. No offense intended to Raul, but personally I don't see any evidence there that GoRight is nothing but a meatpuppet. Per the MEAT policy, simply restoring edits of a banned user doesn't automatically make you a meatpuppet; it may be frowned upon, but the fact of the matter is sometimes a user will see a banned edit that they happen to agree with, and restore it. I myself have done so before (on Montpellier, when a banned user made an edit that happened to include a useful copyedit without any pov problems ). The definition of a true "meatpuppet" is much stronger than this; it requires not only that you did a similar edit as a banned user, but that you literally are getting e-mails from the banned user or whatever and doing what he tells you to do. Raul's diffs above might show that GoRight was inappropriately edit-warring or inappropriately restoring banned-user edits without consensus, but as of yet I don't see evidence that he is truly getting instructions from SciBaby and carrying them out; without such evidence, I don't see how we could take any administrative action. Note: I don't know anything about the other edits discussed, I'm only referring to the ones I saw at the AN3 report; I'm not really interested in all the drama so I don't have any comment on the other edits. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 19:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - I have informed GoRight of this SPI. NW ( Talk ) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll reproduce the relevant portions of the applicable policies here:


 * Editing on behalf of banned users

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.


 * 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. 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.


 * Meatpuppets

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)


 * Just note from another, previously uninvolved editor (me)...lately I've been getting involved with a few of the Global Warming articles, because I've observed for some time (several years) that a group of editors appears to actively try to minimize mention of contrary opinions or views in those articles. I notice that suspected Scibaby edits get reverted immediately, no matter how credible they are, and other heavy-handed tactics appear to be used, such as range blocks, which may have blocked unsuspecting editors .  If I see an otherwise policy-compliant edit reverted simply because it's from a "suspected Scibaby sock" I may redo the edit myself.  I guess, judging from this page, that, as a result, I might be earning myself a Scibaby meatpuppet investigation. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Disclaimer: I have previous involvement with both Raul and GoRight. This is just more harassment of GoRight by Raul because of differing POV's. Let's try a thought experiment here: if Scibaby adds "President Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theater" to an article and is reverted because he's Scibaby, does the next editor who comes along and restores that edit automatically become a meatpuppet? Of course not. In fact, such a reactionary meatpuppet policy would create opportunities for abuse: someone poses as a Scibaby sockpuppet to make edits that agree with the other side, and thus those editors in opposition automatically become Scibaby meatpuppets. Now, admittedly, most cases are not so clear as the Lincoln example, but the point is that meatpuppetry is not simply agreeing with another editor. There has to be some evidence that there was communication and coordination for a meatpuppetry charge to stand, and even then it's shaky. Meatpuppetry is never as cut-and-dried as sockpuppetry, because it involves intent of editors, which is impossible for others to truly know. In any case, the facts here are clear: Raul has a long history of expressing a strong POV in support of AGW, and has sometimes expressed those views in questionable ways, e.g. seeking out anyone who has even the remotest ties to Exxon and putting Exxonsecrets-sourced material in their BLP articles. GoRight doesn't agree with Raul, and opposes him frequently. In some cases, GoRight may have crossed the line and overstated his own POV, but nothing worse than Raul himself has done. Unfortunately for Raul, GoRight is not abusive, so Raul has no way of kicking him off using actual Wikipedia policies, so Raul comes up with attempts like "Civil POV Pushing" and meatpuppetry to try to rid himself of an ideological opponent. By the way, my own personal POV on AGW is probably more aligned with Raul's than GoRight's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATren (talk • contribs)


 * Conclusions
 * - As this case has not gone anywhere in the last ten days, and it does not look like there is enough to suggest that a meatpuppetry block would be valid here, I am closing this case. Feel free to reopen it if more evidence arises. NW ( Talk ) 18:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Report date October 27 2009, 23:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

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:,. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by ScienceApologist (talk)

More evidence, as requested:

Both users employ an idiosyncratic use of single-words in "quotations" in edit summaries:

by User:Scibaby: ,

by User:Q Science:, ,


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

The evidence against Q Science is the same evidence that could be used against ScienceApologist 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)
 * Comments by other users

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)

is a possible scibaby sock, but no energy to report. Feel free to delete this comment. ► RATEL ◄ 09:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * There's no user by that name. Could you check the spelling? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Typo, it's . ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested by ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Possible, but I'm not sure if it is enough to endorse a checkuser. Could you please provide additional evidence? NW ( Talk ) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided a bit more. Please let me know if you want even more. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * - That is great. Thanks. NW ( Talk ) 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

and are ❌. 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. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Scibaby account has been blocked for years. You need to check against users in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. The list of confirmed IP's at the start may be useful. Some recent confirmed additions are User:Guartem, User:Fits & Starts, User:Novo Ordo Seclorum. There has been a long suspicion that at least one experienced user is behind the wall of socks, and I also suspect that this is an organized attempt. It's unlikely that a single person has the stamina to create 2-3 socks per day over years. On the other hand, I'm not convinced of any connection to User: Q Science - it's possible, the POVs agree, but it does not quite jive for me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on above accounts, ❌. Brandon (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets


And a few more, that turned up since this was filed:

Evidence submitted by Atmoz
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)
 * Comment: Scibaby uses a lot of different IP addresses - please compare to a representative sample from Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Scibaby. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Atmoz (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

We may have some sleepers lying underneath here. MuZemike 20:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Corridors of Power, Spatz8, Chaved, Tom K. Ivins, Jarsten8, Tindlet, Aba Eplet, Stephen Graetzel, Martin Felstein, Festoon47, Pete Wayon, Ditchweed, Ibn Jor-El, Cause For Alarm, King Korn, Flavius Butkis, Bre8r, I End My Quest and Flaston all blocked and tagged. Brandon (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Huffington380 and Stanford Ng are also ✅. Brandon (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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 Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive, especially the two most recent cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Add User:Forest001. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
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)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * - It certainly seems possible, though I don't think I know the behavioral evidence well enough to say for certain without a checkuser. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * is ✅, others are ❌. Brandon (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen
Shows typical behavior for category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby. Please also take a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive, especially the three most recent cases. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nb: While the duck-test at least in Suite Pete's case is rather revealing - there can (as usual) be several sleeper socks, since this is typical behaviour. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
✅ -- Versa geek  05:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriately tagged. MuZemike 05:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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)


 * Behavioral evidence marks Flegelpuss as a likely Scibaby sockpuppet, Doize77 slightly less so. Short Brigade Harvester Boris

(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)


 * Not so sure about that one, but probably worth a check. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:41, 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)

Evidence submitted by ChrisO
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 Sockpuppet_investigations/Tinpac sockfarm. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(added) I've also added, which appeared when the Tinpac socks were blocked earlier and exhibits similar editing behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by EdJohnston
I've added and  (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)

Comments by accused parties
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)

Comments by other users
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)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * is ❌ to Scibaby but is part of the Sockpuppet_investigations/Tinpac sockfarm. Brandon (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the other two suspected socks? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, and  are the same person, and they are probably Scibaby.  ✅  and  are the same person, he is probably not Scibaby. his relationship to Scibaby is   However, Flegelpuss needs to pick one account and settle down a bit on his editing, if he wants to stick around. Thatcher 15:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ is the same person as .   appears to be editing from a publicly accessible terminal.  Cardinality and Iphegenia are using different methods to connect to the internet than EggheadNoir/Flegelpuss but they are geographically compatible with each other. Thatcher 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Strong behavioral evidence, in particular the narrow focus and viewpoint on special relativity, link and. 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)

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)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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 Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive). 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)


 * I think behavioral evidence points strongly to AK being Scibaby. But I've been wrong before, and given the wikipolitical sensitivity of the Scibaby case it's worth a CU to confirm. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 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,, 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)
 * (updated) This one has been blocked as yet another Scibaby sock. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another one added -, which looks like another sleeper sock - possibly of Flegelpuss, since its MO looks similar. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * - Tiptoety  talk 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ =

is.

seems to be ❌. (>15000km away from the others, different OS) but I am not absolutely sure, since I don't have much experience with Scibaby. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 23:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Hopkinsrocks left alone as I did not think there was enough evidence to link them with Scibaby, and Climatedragon unblocked with my apologies. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ChrisO
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 Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive). 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)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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)

Evidence submitted by Kim D. Petersen (talk)
Added 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)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * I've blocked a bunch of clear sockpuppets using the same IP as Bellieflop, see my block log (easier to do it from the CU interface instead of cutting and pasting). Steve Belkins is part of that same group. Possibly Scibaby.
 * Terry798, Dalej78, Seven-7 appear ❌.
 * Cirquerider is . Thatcher 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets






Evidence submitted by ChrisO
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)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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)

Evidence submitted by Kim D. Petersen (talk)
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)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...maybe. Not totally convinced on this, but it certainly could be possible. . <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 10:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * ✅ they are socks, about 6 accounts on that IP (all blocked), likely to be Scibaby. Thatcher 14:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pricetopay, Fern, Riley, HanJ and also . Insufficient evidence at this time to check Wejer. Thatcher 14:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Wejer was just blocked, I checked, and he is ❌. Thatcher 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that behavioral evidence also indicates Wejer is not Scibaby. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by ChrisO
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)

Evidence submitted by Kim D. Petersen (talk)
Added who exhibs same patterns, although he hasn't made that many edits. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen
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 Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and Flegelpuss (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive), and which share the same or similar POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional note: While now has been blocked as a scibaby sock, it would be best to verify it, for the additional material for future CU checks, as well as sleeper socks. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional evidence submitted by User:ChrisO
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)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by ChrisO (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

✅: ❌:
 * - Wrong country

All confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. Seems to be all he had today. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 06:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * to check


 * ✅ along with, blocked and tagged. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen
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)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 04:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅



These appear to be ❌

J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 04:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Confirmed ones blocked and tagged. MuZemike 05:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen
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 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 Sockpuppet investigations/Tinpac/Archive) and User: Flegelpuss (see Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby/Archive) for as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by ChrisO
Added - the usual Scibaby pattern. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
Added - typical repeat of an attack edit by IP. --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)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅:



Most likely ❌:

J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * appears to be ❌. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Confirmed accounts blocked and tagged. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen
This mornings crop of socks, following all the usual characteristics and behaviours. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added 3 more with the usual characteristics. If a CU is interested in how i pinpoint these on behaviour, they can mail me (since GoRight seems to be disputing the requests). For each suspect i've listed there are at least 2 different characteristics that match, with scibaby's new methodology of creating a sock per edit it is rather hard to match more. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Stephan Schulz
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)

Evidence submitted by User:Atmoz

 * Added User:Jessco. -Atmoz (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added User:Tennex. -Atmoz (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added User:Blue VDR. -Atmoz (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
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 [] I request my name be removed from the above listing. mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it too much, I was accused of being a sock puppet too when I first started editting the Barack Obama article. This is just a tactic to keep certain opinions out of wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 20:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅, , and are sockpuppets of each other but not of Scibaby.
 * I'm going to upgrade this to that these are Scibaby. Thatcher 13:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Scibaby;, , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * ❌ is unrelated, but is the same person as .  AardvarkAvacado's edits are an obvious continuation of some prior dispute with Stephan Schulz and he was blocked as a "vandalism only account" which does not seem correct.  This might be a case where discussion with the user would be be warranted.
 * Hmm. What do you mean by "continuation of prior dispute"? That would mean AA already was a sock? What might have lead to the fast block (apart from the POV-pushing fantasy-edits) might be the similarity in name to User:Institute of Klimatology, who is a confirmed Scibaby sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * is ❌. Thatcher 02:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Blocked/tagged appropriately. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by KimDabelsteinPetersen
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)

Evidence submitted by Prolog
Added User:Jon Drinkwater, User:Jesston and User:Glaucel. There seems to be a separate case for Jesston at Sockpuppet investigations/Jesston, which could be merged here. Prolog (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ =

J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 02:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions

 * Blocked/tagged appropriately. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

-- Kanonkas : Talk  12:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)