Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby

Scibaby

Scibaby (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

• Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/1
• Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/2
• Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive/3

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive.

A long-term abuse case exists at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby.

– This SPI case is open.

27 August 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• Steve Handersman (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ruska25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mark Tooele (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The usual. Prioryman (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

"The usual" means the typical scibaby behavior. A "new" (scarequotes because they are obviously not new) user in the climate change area pushing through edits which subtly tweak the POV. See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby for more details. I strongly recommend that a clerk endorse this case for CU, as we've had multiple reincarnations recently and we need a check for sleepers. I've added the most recent duck-blocked sock above.... which obviously has a fair bit in common with the most recently discovered and unblocked sock. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Added Mark Tooele. All three accounts are now blocked. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Unfortunately, "the usual" doesn't help me. I'll pass on the case as a lack of evidence...
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• For a checkuser there should still be evidence. Please see this discussion and this requirement. It is passing an undue burden to the SPI staff to expect us to build the cases for the filers.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• For the clerks and checkusers who are familiar with Scibaby, the contribs should be enough evidence. Spelling it out to everyone would in this case be detrimental to the project. Prolog (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, no; the contributions are *not* enough. Using contribs alone in the past resulted in literally millions of IP addresses being blocked because users from all over the world were adding "Scibaby-like" edits to the project. It became clear that all one had to do to be labeled a Scibaby sock was to make any modification to a climate change related article. Be specific: identify the problem with the edits, and why the reporter believes that this is Scibaby. You might find it helpful to refer to the related Arbcom case, in particular this section. Risker (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see how ancient rangeblocks are in any way relevant here. For almost three years, this sockmaster's accounts have been identified with extreme precision, and innocent users haven't been blocked. One of the reasons for the high success rate has been the quiet collaboration between Scibaby "experts" and checkusers. Prolog (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Prolog, in what way is this edit in any way abusive? I don't want to hear "someone else made that same edit before", I want to hear exactly why this edit is POV pushing. In fact, I'd like to hear why the version that keeps being returned to the article isn't POV pushing.

The same with this one: [1]. Why in heaven's name is Wikipedia stating "For the campaign to undermine public confidence in the scientific opinion on climate change, see climate change denial." Now, how is that *not* POV-pushing? Risker (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Checkuser comment) I am of the same mind as Risker, and would not run a check based on this evidence. Please be specific. Prolog, if some discretion in handling your evidence is needed, you may e-mail the functionaries' mailing list. However, evidence sent by e-mail that does not really need to be considered in private will probably be sent back to here. It may also be worth bearing in mind that: 1) Scibaby has very rarely been active in 2012; and 2) we are extremely reluctant to return to the days of yore, when any new user who edited about climate change was blocked as a Scibaby sock with alarming severity. AGK [•] 18:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So how do you suggest editors of these articles deal with a massively prolific sockpuppeteer? It takes Scibaby 5 seconds to create an account, while a constructive editor has to jump through days worth of hoops to get it blocked. Compiling detailed technical reports on each new account basically condemns the responsible, legitimate editors of these articles to do pretty much nothing else with their time. The editors who deal with Scibaby have developed a very accurate sense of which accounts belong to him, but not only is that experience rejected - they're criticized and hung out to dry if their success rate ever falls below 100%. (And yes, their success rate has been very close to 100% over the past few years. Bringing up a bunch of inept rangeblocks performed by someone else three years ago doesn't have a lot of bearing on the current request).

I want to hear constructive suggestions and solutions from ArbCom, instead of blaming the ever-dwindling number of legitimate editors who have to put up with this massive abuse of the project. I asked a similar question during WP:ARBCC and got no response, so I'll ask it again: how do you want to see editors handle Scibaby? Please be specific. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---