Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sciologos/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets










Evidence submitted by Cirt

 * Related ArbCom remedy
 * Note: Please see remedy from Arbitration Case, Scientology, specifically:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology


 * Evidence
 * 1) 17:34, 10 May 2010 -- Sciologos signs post previously posted by IP,.
 * 2) IPs grouped by similar sets, often the user posts in tight groups of IPs, and within the same timeframe for some reason each post is signed by a slightly different IP.
 * 3) All above IPs have posted to Talk:Xenu.
 * 4) IPs have posted in much the same manner of trolling, extended complaints about the article, and general WP:NOTFORUM type behavior patterns.


 * The primary pattern here appears to be to disrupt at Talk:Xenu, raise frivolous complaints, and when challenged, refuse to back up claims with independent reliable secondary sources - instead preferring to utilize primary sources to advance a stated agenda and propose violation of site policies including WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. -- Cirt (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I can confirm that I a couple of times (as a beginner regarding Wikipedia editing) wrote comments without being logged in as ScioLogos, but I have never commented on the Xenu article before in my entire life prior to this.Sciologos (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * in that case what did you mean by "I have never brought this up on Wikipedia before"? What other edits are you referring to that don't include this discussion, and didn't appear on the Xenu talk page?  We know by your behavior that you have a past editing history, so it is in your best interest to explain what that history is, and why you are using a proxy.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation:

85.160.13.191 83.189.78.161 90.128.5.227 213.29.115.8

I guess the IP staring with 85 are mine? How come you think IP starting with 90 has anything to do with me? And what about 213?? That's quite a different number from 85. The only Wiki editing I've ever done have been very minor, probably 3-6 years ago and was very small, like a couple of sentences here and there in some articles from what I can remember. I don't think I have had another user account. It might be possible I had an old one from several years ago I used shortly, but if that's the case (I can honestly not remember) I could not remember it. I came up with (ScioLogos) since I wanted to add some suggestions. What is a proxy? I'm using my broadband as a paying customer, that's all. I don't have any "hiding" IPs if that's what you're referring to. I've never edited the Xenu article prior to my recent edits. I can tell you you're making very loose assumptions here.

I also suggest you investigate the user Cirt and his suitability as an editor as he apparently does not support freedom of speech and shows lack of understanding with newcomers on Wikipedia (at least me), but instead tries to shut everything down quickly when arguments become interesting. What is he afraid of? Not very scientific and neutral. I had to learn a lot of rules before faintly understand how Wiki works.

Also, may I rephrase my original intention since I had no idea how Wikipedia works (in all perfect honesty): To add NEUTRAL articles about Xenu, geological evidence, auditing stories etc wihout breaking any cornerstones, rules or similair. I appreciate neutrality since I appreciate truth. Thanx. Sciologos (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * I only had time to look briefly, but it seems User:Sciologos mostly pro-Scientology comments, and the IPs listed post mostly anti-Scientology views. Scientology is such a polarizing topic I wouldn't expect this from a single person. However, the IPs listed are mostly from Central Europe, which is a suspiciously tight grouping. Again, I didn't spend much time looking into this, and I believe more research is needed. Foobaz·o&lt; 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you check, the IPs and the account post along a similar POV regarding the subject matter. It is confirmed that  is User:85.225.240.16, and thus likely is also the other IPs among the groups. -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is also worth noting that 85.225.240.16 modified a comment made by Scilogos an hour before on May 10. I am not sure there is good evidence tying all the previous IP addresses to Scilogos specifically, since that is a very new user account and most of those IPs have not contributed to Wikipedia in years.  I do agree that the 85.225.x.x IP addresses represent editing patterns that seem suspiciously connected to Scilogos.  On a more general level, the pattern of many different IP addresses each editing Talk:Xenu only a handful of times does appear to suggest some kind of proxy abuse, which is clearly contravened by the RfA that Cirt referenced. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting similarities in these edits. for example:
 * 1) IP 85.228.216.135 sets up their only edit under "is this a joke", which is responded to by IP 90.135.103.105 and IP 90.135.144.74 the third IP responding in the first person to the comment directed at the second. after that several other IP's attempted to continue the conversation.
 * 2) several of our suspects also contributed anonymously to the this article is not a joke section in the same tone as the latter edit (you can read the IP's I am not tracking down each change).
 * 3) in the current discussion several IP's presented the same line of thought and didn't attempt to mask that they were the same person, responding to things in the first person.
 * 4) IP 85.225.240.62 only edit starts by responding to my question posed to IP 85.225.242.164 and mentions that "I have never brought this up on wikipedia before" referencing a past editing history.
 * 5) the current conversation mirrors those past conversations in both evidence and tone, as well as POV.
 * 6) Sciologos has made 2 references to the past editing styles of both myself and Cirt the tone making a very familiar argument that I have heard before, especially the statement that Cirt edits a lot of anti-scientology articles, and the call for impartial judges referencing past editing histories.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you also have a look at, who turned up on a talk page out of the blue citing an old arbitration case on a long-blocked user's page . This may be the same guy you're dealing with here - it's clearly not a new user. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find, added. -- Cirt (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Possible sock of already-banned-user, ? -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the most logical explanation, since I doubt many other people would be familiar with that user's talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was hesitant at bringing that up, but as I noted in the comment section I feel like I am working with a more cautious Justa. His immediate turnaround to personal dismissals based on perceived bias as well as the statement "Cirt seems to have participated in many anti-Scientology articles on Wikipedia." was a common editing habit by Justa.  additionally his appeals to the (non-existent after he finished qualifying them) unbiased crowd, and his aggressive/ passive/ "oh wait it was just a misunderstanding" style reminds me a lot of my interactions with justa.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sciologos is definitely 85.225.243.21 - he's just slipped up and posted while logged out. See and . -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, added. -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain this is the same guy, as all the factors are the same in almost every post. The fact that the Sciologos was mostly anti scientelogist was either because he is a simple troll, or was trying to look credible. The fact above really makes this laughable. I say indef block. Old Al (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Sciologos was blocked 1 week on 16 May for violating WP:ARBSCI. To me, it looks clear that he's used many of the abovementioned IPs. Furthermore, he hasn't edited in about 2 days (on his talk page that is since he's blocked). Has he been trying to evade his block at all since 16 May? If not, then I find the decision to indef block a bit harder to make, especially if he has indeed stopped. –MuZemike 01:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology, the account's use of the various IPs above, violates multiple points of that particular ArbCom ruling. An appropriate remedy would merely be to enforce this particular ArbCom ruling, and restrict the account to usage as defined in the ArbCom ruling. -- Cirt (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. Sciologos is reminded that they should edit Scientology-related topics only from the Sciologos account, which excludes editing while logged out. In the event that they edited the topic area while logged out by accident, they should immediately log in and remedy the mistake. Failure to do so may result in an expanded topic ban from the entire Scientology topic area. No other action taken at this time. Tim Song (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)