Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
This page is an archive for recent Scibaby cases
The usual. Prolog ( talk) 14:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Almost all of the technical data we have for Scibaby is Stale. However, the IP range this account is using has been checked previously in conjunction with Scibaby accounts. I would say that at least makes it
Possible -behavior will be the bigger factor here.
TN
X
Man
14:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The usual. Prioryman ( talk) 06:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The usual pattern of sockpuppeting: a "new" user in the climate change area pushing through edits which subtly tweak the POV. See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby for more details. The accounts are clearly sockpuppets of the same individual (compare the edit summaries) and the MO matches Scibaby. I suggest also checking for sleepers as we seem to have had a flurry of sockpuppets lately. Prioryman ( talk) 08:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Courcelles 18:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Three "new" users in three months making the same edits [2] [3] [4] to the same pages, partiularly Roman Warm Period. It's possibly they might not be scibaby (they're certainly the same person), but given the short editting history of each it seems awfully similar. Checkuser requested because there are probably more accounts on other articles, if history is to be any guide. Sailsbystars ( talk) 16:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Sparked from this AN3 report, SPAs on a 1RR-restricted article making the same edits ( [5] [6]) as the user in question ( [7]). slakr\ talk / 03:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It's been a long time... but I'm pretty sure this prolific sockmaster has returned (and perhaps getting a bit lazy?). One of the most obvious "tells" for Scibaby was always a new user making edits that subtly tilt an article towards a climate contrarian point of view with an edit summary containing "NPOV," which this user has done on two different articles.
CU request for sleepers, but probably stale for verifying against most recent socks. Sailsbystars ( talk) 06:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same contributions as User:Slymgyms, who is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Outside of own user and talk page, has edited only global warming related pages using Scibaby's hallmark "NPOV edit" edit summary. Everymorning (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
He's not even trying to be clever or evasive any more. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
William M. Connolley ( talk) 06:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
While it would be best in the long run to ban any socks, I Am The Cheez should be blocked for edit-warring. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Contributions seem to loosely coincide with Umjamba, who is a confirmed puppet of Scibaby. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I've asked for a CU as I think there's a couple more out there. Similar edits on same articles starting around October 15th. Similar short edit summaries. Nary a talk page post between them. -- NeilN talk to me 04:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
See recent cases, e.g. Byejove, I_Am_The_Cheez — Jess· Δ ♥ 06:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed to the accounts in the archives, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
12:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
See recent cases, i.e. Xavier Kutts, and others. — Jess· Δ ♥ 12:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, tagged and blocked.
Jess, I appreciate your identifying socks. However, you've presented zero evidence. A clerk or CheckUser who, unlike me, is not familiar with this master may reject the case without evidence. This case is relatively straightforward, so a lot of evidence is not required, but a couple of comparison diffs for each puppet shouldn't be that hard. Thanks. Closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
13:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
See recent confirmed socks, including Long Term View and Xavier Kutts. — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks Yehuix and Disprosiam. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
05:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
See recent confirmed socks:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
01:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
See recent confirmed socks, including
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Fairly obvious quacking, based on recently confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The usual, note similarity of user pages. Please check for sleepers, thanks. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I semi-protected
Global cooling for one month. Closing.--
Bbb23 (
talk)
01:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recent confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
WP:DUCK given edits to Anthony Watts (blogger) in line with now-blocked sock User:Aswertly. Everymorning (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same edit [8] [9] as many already blocked socks. RolandR ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See recently confirmed socks, including:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Familiar characteristics in various respects. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this isn't the usual M/O and so is indeed unlikely William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hello, to whomever is reading this. Shareride and Splendus are obvious socks of SOMEONE, and the sockmaster is most likely Scibaby. They have similar POVs on Global warming, and their (as well as scibaby's socks, for that matter) edit summaries have the same tone, if you get my drift. Shareride and Splendus have edited the same article, /info/en/?search=Laura_Skandera_Trombley , to remove puffery and POV-pushing. While this is a good thing, it is odd how they somehow came to the same article and agreed 100% with each other. One of Scibaby's socks used the exact same word as Shareride did in one of their edit summaries, namely qualitative, which is a rarely used word. I request a CheckUser to confirm if these editors are socks and to flush out any sleepers if they are socks. 92.30.178.11 ( talk) 14:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I noticed this new user, Soonthereafter, added back material to an entry on my watchlist after another user had removed it for block evasion. Following the thread back, I understand the first account to add the material, User:A_Simple_Name, is a confirmed sock of an LTA focused on climate change, User:Scibaby. User Soonthereafter has gone on to edit one fuel-related page to date. Innisfree987 ( talk) 17:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
Duck: choice of name, interest in whitewashing climate change denial are typical. JBL ( talk) 15:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Readded misleading material previously introduced by two other Scibaby socks at Rising Star (book); has already made edits to global-warming-related pages. Innisfree987 ( talk) 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Hello. /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Tuvax is obviously a sock of Scibaby -- the edit and edit summaries prove it. 92.30.189.185 ( talk) 22:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.
Has added same misleading quote to Rising Star (book) as Scibaby socks I reported on September 17, 2017 and January 10, 2018, as well as a third Scibaby sock reported by a different user. Innisfree987 ( talk) 02:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
These two editors are likely the same person, which with slightly less confidence is Scibaby. As instructed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Scibaby I will refrain from giving details, but those who have been around a while will be familiar with some of the tells. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 03:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Readded same book review quote added by four previous Scibaby socks. Other edits to climate science subjects. Innisfree987 ( talk) 07:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.