Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci

Mathsci

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

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

– A checkuser has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments.

26 May 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• Mathsci (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aixoisie (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.

Used solely to gather accusations against opponents in various, now defunct cases. Linked back to Mathsci's main page but such an odd way as to defeat scrutiny. The oddity of the attribution and the use solely for storing attack pages makes it hard to assume good faith. Why does Mathsci need these multiple alternate accounts -- User:Altmathsci and User:Alternative-mathsci have already reported -- if not to avoid legitimate scrutiny of his main accout? Why does he not store this stuff on his own hard drive? Why is this out-of-date material still here? Jello carotids (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci has produced no explanation of why this material needs to be under another user name or why it is retained beyond the end of the R&I Review. Clearly abuse (per WP:UP#POLEMIC) and of an alternate username. That is I believe the definition of sockpuppetry. As to the other accusations: no evidence beyonf Mathsci'own personal view was presented that User:Southend sofa was a sockpuppet of either of the users mentioned. Jello carotids (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This is a legitimate alternative account, clearly labelled on the user page, created to gather diffs during the arbcom review and efterwards. The reporter here, as before, is a sockpuppet of the banned editor Echigo mole, who has been extensively trolling in the last few days on various high project pages. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

On the evidence page, I think I mentioned that rough diffs were being gathered on alternative accounts. The dots were to prevent Echigo mole (the indefinitely blocked user above) from creating more mischief, since the labelling of the previous alternative account allowed him to find it previously and advertise it. I have sent a detailed account to the arbcom mailing lists and do not wish to discuss this further here. Because so much evidence was submitted in private by the site banned party and her site banned partner, the only way of gathering diffs involving mutliple parties was in this fashion. You found out about this because of the trolling of Echigo mole and, instead of asking questions on my talk page or by email, have taken a confrontational position in which you assume extreme bad faith. You have not on the other hand carried out a checkuser on either of the two sockpuppet accounts (now blocked) of Echigo mole. Please could you do so and leave the discussion of these pages (for rough diffs) to the arbitration committee when they have received my mail? Just to correct Jclemens, evidence is not usually permitted on subpages. Roger Davies copied part of my response during the Requests for amendment to a subpage of the review. These pages for rough diffs were not evidence subpages, but pages for rough diffs. I hope that makes things clearer in your mind. But please could you look at the two accounts Krod Randoon and Jello carotids? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the subpages was mentioned explicitly and openly in this diff [1] on the talk page of the evidence page of the review. Here is what I wrote: "That page was created for the convenience of arbitrators, because of a comment by Roger Davies . It is not part of my evidence but simply a historical record of what I placed on the amendment page before motions were announced. There are also four subpages elsewhere on an alternative account where diffs were gathered." The first page is now a subpage of the review pages, which Roger Davies requested me to create. The other four pages were on Alternative-mathsci before Echigo mole started making mischief. Perhaps when you read the talk page of the evidence page, you accidentally missed that comment. I can't remember now exactly how Echigo mole trolled on the first alternative account Alternative-mathsci, but you can look at the deleted pages more easily than me. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

@FPaS: I wrote an explanation slightly longer than the above to the arbcom mailing lists. At the end of the message which I sent before seeing your posting here, I stated, "Now that the amendment has passed, I would normally request that these pages be deleted." So yes if you can delete these pages (which were still in use during the request for amendment), that would be very kind. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

While MathSci admits User:Aixoisie is his, use of this account is problematic and merits further investigation:

• While he claims the account is disclosed, the actual wording in WP:SOCK is "fully and openly disclosed". The contents of the User page, on creation and unmodified since, were "Alternative account of m·a·t·h·s·c·i." Obviously, that's an obfuscation sufficient to fool a simple search, and there is no Wikilink either way, such that "What links here" would not find the account.
• Preserving extensive evidence on-wiki after a closed case is generally frowned upon, but was specifically forbidden in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Evidence sub-pages (remedy), the case proceeding the closed review which prompted this collection. Thus, using a tenuously-linked account in order to do so would be either "Circumventing policies or sanctions" (the former, obviously) or "Avoiding scrutiny". Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A separate problem is that MathSci edited this page to remove an accusation against him. He did this after he had indicated his belief that the account making the accusation was a sockpuppet of a banned user, but before that accusation had been objectively investigated by any administrator. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem about reverting the sock. Obvious harassment socks get reverted on sight, by anybody. There is no need to wait for prior administrator investigation in such a case – having such a requirement would have the effect of enabling the abusers. To Mathsci: do you agree those pages can be removed now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

---