Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scientus/Archive

Evidence submitted by Trilemma
Users Doorworker and Sam Albrecht  have only contributed to the Alan Grayson page, on which Scientus, for months, has been aggressively editing. Their edits are quite similar, sometimes identical, to the language that Scientus has been insisting on adding, some of which has been decided, through discussion, to be NPOV violations. Trilemma (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Trilemma: "Their edits are quite similar, sometimes identical, to the language that Scientus has been insisting on adding"
 * I just looked at all the edits of the users in question and I see absolutely not evidence of this. In fact, I was initially against saying that the lobbiest that Grayson criticised was "Enron's chief lobbiest", as the interview didn't support this, only suggested it.  user:Doorworker later added a WP:RS that this was a fact.

Trilemma: "some of which has been decided, through discussion, to be NPOV violations"
 * . The only claims of NPOV by user:trilemma have been in edit summaries, where Trilemma rarely explains what makes it NPOV, or who's opinion in being incorrectly represented. Often Trilemma claims NPOV simply when something is against the user's own POV. 1 2, there is more.

Trilemma's claim is really quite baseless, and I believe it is a continuation of Trilemma wishing to WP:ATTACK or censor my criticism and discussion of issues around the Grayson article. I view these baseless claims of Trilemma as a continuation of the user's immature approach to the Alan Grayson article.

For more context, and disclosure:
 * my edit warring claim against Trilemma
 * Trilemma dual-posting this claim to ANI
 * Trilemma's postings on my talk page
 * Link to Alan Grayson page

While there is no request for checkuser here, Trilemma has requested it on a ANI that went undiscussed.Scientus (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I have mediated disputes in the past from Scientus and Trilemma. It seems that the Montagues and the Capulets were more reasonable than these 2. All I'm saying is that I hope this is legit and if nothing comes out of this I will impose a community topic ban on both editors from each other. A8 UDI  17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to this, Scientus was blocked from editing for repeated talk page vandalism. Trilemma (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requesting that a CheckUser look into this. I'm not totally convinced by the behavioral evidence and the contributions that there is sock puppetry going on here. However, the timing behind these new accounts, as well as the editing on the Alan Grayson article sparks just a little suspicion in that I think some technical evidence could be helpful here. MuZemike 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * All accounts are ❌ to one another based on technical evidence. Didn't look any further than that. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
I don't think there is sock puppetry going on here, at least from the lack of convincing evidence brought forth. MuZemike 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

23 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Nearly same name and edits same kind of religious pages.  Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 20:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Both of these are me. user:scientes was created because scientus is a misspelling of the Latin. Calling this sockpuppetry is kinda silly, although blocking the other account would be benificial as then i wont accidentally log into the wrong account.Scientus (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Scientes has in fact edited his own post under the User:Scientus identity on Talk:Jesus. There can be no doubt that they are identical; the only question is whether this is a legitimate alternate account or not. There doesn't seem to be any attempt at deception. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

, you should have requested any admin to block your another account, anyway it seems that you never used your another account abusively but having two accounts is not allowed on Wikipedia. You should take care. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 20:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MULTIPLE. I have clarified on user:scientes. I would actually prefer is user:scientes remain open for use in public locations, and the real reason I left the user page blank was so I could tell the difference by the red link on the top of every page. IIRC I actually asked that user page deleted. Scientus (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The user:scientes use to declare that it was the same account, but I requested it deleted so I could tell the difference by the red link at the top. I actually wish that status to be returned, and the alternate account user-box to be on the talk page.Scientus (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * please log into your other account to make the CSD request as proper owner AND leave notice on that talk page of the connection between the accounts. I'd suggest that you watchlist the alternate accounts if you haven't done so already to avoid talk page confusion. You don't have to do this next part but I would recommend that you setup email accounts also to help avoid confusion.
 * Also, please explain what happened here on Feb. 6 where you used both accounts within minutes of each other as well as here on Feb. 28 2009 where you used both accounts and an apparent IP.
 * In both of those cases I logged into user:scientes by accident, noticed it, and then switched to this account as I wanted by edits to be on my main account. The IP is me, and it was not meant to confuse anyone---as was said before, I put user:scientes on CSD so I could notice that I am on that account by the red link at the top.Scientus (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is ? Is that also you?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you do perform checkuser? There are no edits.Scientus (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly advice you to immediately declare the connection between the accounts at every account's user page (not user talk page, as per WP:VALIDALT). I don't care if you like to have a red link, you have to do it unless you want to be blocked. If you have even more accounts, tag them as well. You can use User alternative account or some similar template. Thank you.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  11:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh the account creation log points to it being me. If you can see this was years ago and I had it for approximately 2 minutes. Please delete that account.Scientus (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * An account cannot be deleted. Just don't use any undeclared alternative accounts any more, and everything will be OK. Closing this now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

16 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

New user that became active after the suspected sockmaster became dormant. (Suspected master is himself a fairly new user, so there may be older ones I've missed.) Similar area of general interest, but the relevant evidence is the sock's continuance of the same BLP-violating edits to Reza Aslan  that the master was making (and blocked for)  , with edit summaries similar to some of the ones of the suspected master. I'd like a CU. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

That username looks rather strange... I don't know about Big-Endians, but checking if NonInappropriateUserName is connected to anyone else might be worth a check. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)