Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

[edit] User:ScienceApologist

Suspected sockpuppeteer

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

Suspected sockpuppets

PouponOnToast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Ronnotel (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Evidence

PoT has intimate knowledge of an obscure article I had obscurely referenced. Note that I had not provided the name of the article nor the authors. He would have had to read through pages of talk page comments to resolve the reference, fetch and read the article, and then form an opinion on the authors in the impossibly short span of one minute. See this for the thread.

PoT has an arrangement to edit SA's comments and does so here.

Editing history of both user's are closely correlated - one begins an editing session just as the other leaves off. PoT becomes particularly active just after SA gets blocked.

Many common editing patterns and interests, including an intense aversion to so-called pseudo-science. How many people could have possibly formed such a visceral opinion on the Mosier-Boss paper after so short an exposure?

SA has a history of abusive use of sock puppets. See the ArbCom case for details.

SA is currently under ArbCom restriction not to use sock accounts. He is using said account abusively to evade a block for his previous violation of a further ArbCom restriction on incivility.

Comments
  • (e/c) PoT becomes active at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion after SA is blocked for 96-hours, with the following edit. It should be noted that neither SA or PoT were involved in discussions or in the fact-finding portion of the case, or with the arguments, and SA had begun edit warring and NAGF on the Mediation page itself -- which led to his block. I received a rather nasty comment in regards to my "inability" to mediate based upon my non-knowledge of SA's prior Arbitration. Since SA was not involved with the Mediation in any shape or form until late into the game, and which consisted of edit warring and POV-pushing, I had no prior reason to suspect that SA was a disruptive editor. I've not had any prior contact with PoT prior to SA's block or with SA (perhaps a long time ago, but it's something that I would not remember). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, PoT did "drop off the face of the earth" until 15 January 2008 which can correspond to a 72-hour block of SA. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm very doubtful; I think PouponOnToast is attempting to coach ScienceApologist in how to phrase things with just enough civility to avoid sanction while still irritating those he is conversing with. The evidence of SA's agreement to let PouponOnToast advise him is here. My characterization of the goal is based on the description of reasoning in the next section of SA's talk page at that time. I didn't find on wiki agreement to allow the actual editing of remarks, but it would be a logical next step given that initial agreement. GRBerry 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "I didn't find on wiki agreement" shouldn't be read as the agreement not existing. I might have missed it, or it might have been done off wiki, or it might not exist, or they might be the same editor - but I really doubt that. As I blocked SA today from WP:AE, I "expect reactive behavior", and will not myself address that behavior. It may or may not be helpful to let a blocked user vent steam, and it would be inappropriate for me, or any other admin, to decide on how much or what types of steam are acceptable when I issued the block. GRBerry 05:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But to make the statement that such an agreement exists can be called upon if no such agreement actually exists. If that is the case, then the text supplied on SA's talk page is nothing more than a personal attack, which PoT has been blocked twice for in the past. Even if not, it's still wholly inappropriate to refactor a comment based on a vague "yes" (unless proof can be stated otherwise), and it is still wholly inappropriate to resort to such petty stances when refactoring. At any rate, I'm going to wait for CU to see what the conclusion is, given that another site disputes PoT as being another user. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

GR, please carefully review the first point of evidence I provided. It seems to me to be next to impossible for PoT to have the level of familiarity with the Mosier-Boss/Szpak paper without actually being SA. Remember that PoT's first involvement with the cold fusion debate was 40 minutes prior to his comment, and he would have had to dig *deep* in that debate to resolve those two author's name from my comment about European Journal of Physics. Ronnotel (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The checkuser has come back as "unlikely". [1] Does anyone want to make an apology to SA or PouponOnToast? Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am super excited to get my apology. PouponOnToast (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreement is here. PouponOnToast (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Finding the paper to which you referred was trivial - you started a section on it on the cold fusion talk page - here. Google the names of the authors and you can see how I reached my conclusions, which were substantially formed by this review. PouponOnToast (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no needs for apologies, and forced apologies are alway bad. There was at least some evidence, and checkuser does not prove innocence. A second checkuser was requested to review the results, and that is still pending, so we should not rush to conclusions. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll take my forced apology, as it appears the only apology I'll be getting. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You won't be getting any, I think. There was evidence of sock puppetry. It has not been proven, but it also has not been disproven. Nobody, including you, has been shown to have done anything wrong as yet. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I will be asking for actions to be taken to stop the disruption created by the involved parties here after the next checkuser comes along and vindicates me. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You haven't been hearing what I've said. Checkuser doesn't vindicate. A puppetmaster with a bit of technical know-how can set up a situation that cannot be detected by checkuser. Checkuser only detects those who don't bother to cover their tracks. Jehochman Talk 14:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And, like I've said, I expect to be vindicated by a through checkuser who can easily determine enough about my identity from my IP addresses to verify I am not a sock. If a checkuser would like a tutorial on figuring out who exactly I am, one of them may obfusciate their email address and place it on my talk page and I'll lead them down the obvious steps to my home address, which is different than the known identity of Science Apologist. Hell, if said checkuser would like, I think they can even track down my phone number and call me. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:PouponOnToast has apparently retired, admitting sock-puppetry and vowing to continue. He also admits that checkuser revealed something. What's the procedure in a situation like this? Ronnotel (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Since Alison has asked for another checkuser to review the case, I'd say we sit tight until after they review whether or not that other account and PouponOnToast were used abusively. I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate what that other account might be. GRBerry 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds fine although it's clear from PoT's behavior (3 blocks for incivility) that the account was abusive even if it may not have been used for abusive sock-puppetry. Ronnotel (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From looking at editing patterns, it seems almost certain that they are NOT the same person. (All times are EST.) They both edit at 18:03, 4 February 2008 [2][3] (and SA is in the middle of a conversation at the time) and 15:32, 1 February 2008 [4][5]. Throughout the day on 1 February 2008, both are editing constantly, as opposed to having streaks of one account, then the other, which you would expect from socks. --B (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Jehochman Talk 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I, too, took a long hard look. I do see some problematic areas, particularly around June 2007 and SA's block in Jan. 2008. However, on balance, I agree that there are many areas of overlap that would take a normal person far too much effort to maintain over time. I am also not entirely satisfied with PoT's explanation of his knowledge of the Szpak article as I find the timing of it to be unlikely. However, since I assume that SA is a normal person, and PoT, whomever he is will continue to edit under another account I hereby retract my accusation and apologize to all those involved. I do believe I was justified in my initial accusation which was supported by the evidence and state for the record it was made it good faith. Ronnotel (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Conclusions

Closed. No sock puppetry between these accounts. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)