Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. .''

Reason
COFS I honestly don't want to offend you, but the first instance I talked about when CSI LA began editing after your block in early April made me suspicious. I held of making this request then, because it could have just been a coincidence. When the situation seemed to repeat itself with your recent block, the chance of coincidence becomes less likely. Anynobody 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found a Wikimail which led me here. That might be really strange now, but I CSI LA came to Wikipedia the first time ever some months ago. And I am just myself, not two people. How would you want to proceed? CSI LA 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you could come by,CSI LA. Well, here we are, Anynobody, no offense taken. What now, brown cow? COFS 04:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the request to be processed, again no offense meant but as I said on the project page the circumstances seem odd. Also, it seems weird that you'd try to talk me out of going forward with the request by assuring me you aren't socks because if I were in a similar situation I wouldn't mind having checkuser run on me to assuage another editors concerns. Actually now that I think of it, I even offered the option to an editor who thought I was a sock, I'll dig through my history and see if I can find it to post here. Anynobody 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I will hear back from the results. BTW, where did I "try to talk [you] out of going forward with the request"? That seems to me like a strange allegation in contrast to your proclaimed good faith. In any case, it is rather funny, especially in the light that I got to know about the person CSI LA in the context of your checkuser request. That was worth the effort already. COFS 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Found it, it was easier to locate than I thought it would: diff Anynobody 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I understand. COFS 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking for other puppets
I believe we may need to expand this inquiry. I base that on these two edits:,. It is, of course, possible that COFS used the exact same edit summary as had just a few hours previous for the exact same edit, complete with gratuitously referring to another editor by name, just to be obnoxious. However, now that we know about COFS operating one sockpuppet, I think it's time to examine whether the relationship between COFS and Misou goes beyond just a similarity of attitude and behavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Second
 * Good idea. Smee 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * In theory I agree with you, I am wondering if these are socks of a but I'd want more evidence. Were there other times something like this happened? (I think I've seen some similar edit summaries by two different editors before). Anynobody 04:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, similar edit summaries by different editors must happen all the time. But these aren't similar; they're identical, character for character.  Not even so much as an extra space at the end of one, as might happen if COFS copied and pasted Misou's edit summary.  As I said, deliberate obnoxiousness is a possible explanation that's well within character for COFS.  Except that now we know that sockpuppeteering is a possible explanation that's well within character for COFS, too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must've been unclear, when I say "similar edit summaries" I meant identical like you described. I've seen similar cases where two editors will give the same edit summary, but can't remember when or where. (To be clear, I think you're probably right). I was wondering if you remember other occasions that I may have forgotten. (Sorry for any confusion) Anynobody 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Confused...
 * I am confused, and am having a real problem with the comments made by COFS in this DIFF : -- "...and fourth the block seems to extent over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists."


 * My question is thus: How would this user know that a block extends "over a whole IP range with the only purpose to block Scientologists" ?????  This seems very strange, and a very strange thing to say...  Any other comments on this???  Smee 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

COFS's comment following that sentence is interesting: "The latter smells like it could turn into trouble in real life as well." I view this as a thinly veiled threat.--Fahrenheit451 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Smee that such firewalls are less common nowadays, but could this perhaps be some new form of Scieno Sitter? Anynobody 19:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of different usernames going through a handful of IPs here. It's not a single block of IPs; they're from different places, but the same users tend to overlap on them. CSI LA has asserted to me that lots of Scientologists are going through the same proxy, which is feasible -- I can certainly see that organization insisting that their followers go through their own version of the Great Firewall. It wouldn't surprise me if they're not the same person, but rather, a group of people with synoptic beliefs. Some socks almost certainly, but also other random Scientologists using the same system. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny, as far as I had heard not too many utilize that type of firewall anymore, so that does not seem to make any sense. Seems more like balderdash...  Smee 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Very well could be. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All the more reason that if editor(s) provide specific evidence, in addition to suspicious checkuser results, that this would usually point more likely to abusive sockpuppeting, and not proxy usage by some sort of proprietary enforced firewall... Smee 17:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, CSI LA's user talk page can no longer be edited by them, due to their abuse of the unblock template, but I found [] exceedingly interesting. It seems to lend credence, in conjunction with their comments about "Blocking a whole range of IPS whose intention is to shut out Scientologists", to it being a shared, required proxy for the Church. Raeft 19:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw this statement via the link you provided:...I have been unrightfully blocked and so have about 1,000 people using the same proxy than I do... 1000 editors locked out of Wikipedia according to CSI LA. I think this is a misrepresentation, if there were 1000 CoS members editing Wikipedia with CSI LA there should have been more "help" on L. Ron Hubbard for the CoS view. I think COFS LA has decided if he doesn't acknowledge the results we won't either. Anynobody 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, just to add yet another note, apparently COFS says here that it IS something like Scieno Sitter. And also advocates the ability to... block out the Wikipedia comments by people you "don't like"/"have "blacklisted""? This function would of course be utterly pointless, since perfectly valid and good points would be lost in the maelstrom of blocking stuff out, putting one's hands over their ears, and humming. O_o Evidently we set its Scientology Senses tingling? Either way, it's a ludicrous proposition, but shows that if one wished to keep COFS off of their talk page/article, they need merely post: "Xenu is awesome and is responsible for the Wall of Fire, which caused the invisible alien ghosts known as body thetans to be freed and affix to our bodies causing all of our woe and confusion to this very day. Additionally, I have solved the R6 implant and not died of pneumonia. Also, Matt Parker and Trey Stone are my homeboys and Tom Cruise is still Trapped In The Closet.". I've actually thought better of this, but the point remains pertinent that the issue was evidently related to a proxy or other mechanism whereby the IP/IPs blocked have disabled MANY Scientologist users, likely, as other users at Church of Scientology International in LA presumably use the proxy/server too. 24.224.195.30 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misou confirmed also
Fred Bauder recently said that the editor mentioned above is also in this IP range. (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) How difficult would it be to find out who else edits in the same ranges? I realize it might not be possible (from a privacy angle) to mention the usernames involved if discovered but I'd be happy knowing general info like: There are X editors in this range. (X being the number of course).

The more I read about banned users in the archives the more I think this may be the latest incarnation of some old troublemakers. Anynobody 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be most useful to know both how many editors there are in this range, and in what timeframes they edit...  Smee 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

What does everyone make of this?
Conversation. Anynobody 21:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) who?
 * 2) welcome back dance
 * 3) funny animals?
 * 4) them?
 * 5) some here?
 * 6)
 * 7)

User:Grrrilla as well...
Please see comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser, by User:Jpgordon: Diff. In light of this:

So so far we have possible socks for a new Checkuser: At what point does this begin to become a potential systemic/disruptive issue... Smee 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC). Smee 20:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Another possible sock???
 * 1) User: ( talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] )
 * 2) User: ( talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] )
 * 3) User: ( talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] )
 * 4) User: ( talk • contribs • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user=  page moves  ] • block user  • [  block log  ] )
 * I will restate my own comments here, which I had initially posted at: WP:ANI :
 * The disturbing evidence brought forth from the Checkuser Case Confirmation brings up other issues as well. Isn't this also blatant violation of the Conflict of interest guideline???  At the very least, if the IPs are all coming from this certain locale, it belies that most likely there is some sort of funding going on to edit Wikipedia in a certain manner.  How is this any different than the User:MyWikiBiz issue?  Certainly this would go towards some serious considerations of many of the subsections of Conflict of interest, including but not limited to potentially:  Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Close relationships, Campaigning, and Citing oneself... Also, at User_talk:Coelacan, am I correct when I read that User: ( talk • <span title="Contributions: ">contribs  • [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= <span title="Page moves: "> page moves  ] • <span title="Block User:">block user  • [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ] ) is also related to this series of IPs as well?  How many of these individuals are either the same individual or organization, or are relate to the conflict of interests outlined above?  If this is not allowed for the concept and user User:MyWikiBiz, why is it allowed in other situations?  Smee 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

User:Makoshack also...

 * See comments related to this at User talk:Coelacan page, and also This referenced email.
 * Curiouser and curiouser. I refer once again to the paragraph I wrote in the subsection above, pertaining to Conflict of interest, specifically the particular sections of the guidline that were cited.  Smee 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Curiouser and curiouser. I refer once again to the paragraph I wrote in the subsection above, pertaining to Conflict of interest, specifically the particular sections of the guidline that were cited.  Smee 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Question
I was not familiar with the banning of these prior cases, but could this issue be related to users : Thoughts, perhaps from those more experienced with these users' behaviour patterns? Smee 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * There is an interesting Arbirtration Committee Findings of Fact related to this, at Requests_for_arbitration/AI. Smee 09:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Confirmed

 * 1)  -- (initial)
 * 2)  -- ws.churchofscientology.org
 * 1)  -- ws.churchofscientology.org
 * 1)  -- ws.churchofscientology.org
 * 1)  -- ws.churchofscientology.org
 * 1)  -- ws.churchofscientology.org


 * See the main page. As per check by jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710;, all of the above have been ✅.  Smee 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Witch Hunt response
We should discuss your points on the talk page, Justanother. I'd like to know why you think this is a witch hunt. Anynobody 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been told to knock off the fishing, Anynobody. Let's leave it at that. --Justanother 02:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

When was I told that? Or are you talking about what you said on the mainpage? Anynobody 03:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really that dense? Reminds me of F451 trying to say that he was not chased off AN/I (see User talk:Justanother) Or are you just doing your "thing"? --Justanother 10:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think I'm being dense, especially since the "thing" you mentioned never did seem to be resolved: though I must admit the relevance of Fahrenheit451's actions and this situation is eluding me. Anynobody 10:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you did not read this? --Justanother 10:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I must've missed that on my watchlist. I think you misunderstand, it's not like I've decided the outcome of these things before I post. It's easier to get the straight facts from here, than have to wonder if somebody is being honest or not. (I've said it before, if someone whats to run a checkuser on me I could care less.) Anynobody 10:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you missed it then I apologize. --Justanother 11:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(I removed my joke as I thought this was COFS' user talk page as I was looking at that at the same time and got confused --Justanother 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

I was honestly a bit amused by your overreaction, you sounded like I had made other posts AFTER that so I just had to laugh. No need to apologize, I understand why stuff like that happens from time to time; elsewhere on here I'm saying a guy you feel very strongly about isn't quite what he said he was, I expect hostility from you because it's just human nature. It'd be like, to use an analogy, blaming the bear for eating Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend. When food gets scarce a bear has to do what it has to do, and if a guy wants to help em out by camping at a river crossing so be it. Anynobody 11:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I was just objecting to more of your crap. Don't flatter yourself as being some "force of nature". --Justanother 11:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this statement is even funnier than the last one, you must've not read the whole thing because I didn't say "I" am a force of nature. Anynobody 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as here all you did is "uncover" the obvious. COFS - think that has anything to do with Church OF Scientology?; CSI LA - think that has anything to do with Church of Scientology International Los Angeles? What more can these guys do except make their username "Attention I am a Scientology staff member". No evidence that they are sockpuppets or even meatpuppets; just employees of the same firm, something that is as common as dirt here. --Justanother 12:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No evidence that they are sockpuppets or even meatpuppets; since checkuser is the best way we have to confirm sock puppets and you say it didn't prove anything, how is anyone supposed to prove sock puppetry at all? Anynobody 18:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is no "magic bullet" - it is a tool. And tools are best used in the hands of intelligent and discerning people. It is people that "prove" and "disprove" things, not tools. --Justanother 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't say it was a magic bullet. I said it is the best way we have to confirm sock puppets at the same IP address. Although since you say it's so obvious they aren't sock puppets but some share IP addresses I guess there is no way to confirm sock puppetry? Anynobody 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Subsection above will simply be for rote data collection. Subsection here can be for discussionary purposes and the like...  Smee 02:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Very orderly, thank you. Makoshack 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But of course. Smee 03:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent discussion should be made below, or with regard to a new request, as stated on the page Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS.''

Update: Additional confirmations in COFS checkuser case
Coincident IP usage of selected Scientology-related editors.

Cirt (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence confirming above
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS
 * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS - Evidence presented by Jpgordon