Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:46, 2 May 2011

220.255.1.45

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

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/220.255.1.45/Archive.

– This SPI case is open.

01 May 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• 220.255.2.120 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 220.255.2.100 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 220.255.2.149 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 220.255.2.82 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 220.255.2.21 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

220.255.1.0/26 was blocked for three days. Unfortunately, after the block expired, it goes on () and on (, ) and on () and on ().

Please see the previous reports for the complete story. Just a brief summary:

1. The user intentionally adds incorrect information into the article. The user keeps pushing his edit saying that single-handed backhand is still used effectively by players like Pete Sampras (see their latest version). Which is varifiably false. Pete Sampras, retired in 2002, is not an active player anymore. The editor knows it. The editor has been reminded of it many times. Yet, he keeps re-adding the misinformation. Intentionally, knowingly. Knowingly adding misinformation constitues vandalism. In addition, their version is broken grammatically, and the editor was reminded of it countless times, too.
2. The user has been asked countless times to communicate, to explain their edit in the edit summaries, to reply to warnings on their talk page, and to discuss the matter on the article talk page instead of reverting the edits. He was asked by several Misplaced Pages administrators and editors to stop doing it and start communicating. The editor ignored all requests.
3. The user ignores clear consensus established by 4 people to keep the original version.
4. The user has already been blocked for their vandalism. The article was protected, too. The editor knows very well that their behaviour is unacceptable. The editor has been told many times already. The user received numerous "last warnings" already. There is no point in warning him again. Yet, he always starts doing it again.
5. The user keeps abusing multiple IP addresses, and again, intentionally, in bad faith, as you can see in their double edit (, ). That's why it's reported here, even though it may also fall under vandalism, disruptive editing, it could also be reported at requests for page protection and various other places. But the IP address hopping is the most serious problem.

I can see only 3 possible solutions:

1. Block the IP address range again, but it would have to be a longer block this time (more than 3 days, possibly a month or so), because of the chronic, stubborn, incorrigible recidivism. The problem is that with the increasing number of IP addresses used, the block would affect an increasing IP range. But not doing anything would be a much worse choice. This cannot be tolerated anymore.
2. Block all the individual IP addresses used by the vandal in the Backhand article. That is, all addresses listed in these three reports. The problem is that the user would use yet another one. But a possible solution might be: block all the individual addresses for 2 weeks, when the user reverts the edit under yet another address when the block is active, add the new IP address to the list of blocked addresses and restart and prolong the block for all of them (for a month), and so on.
3. Protect the article. Not a bad option, it helped before, but of course nothing could prevent the vandal from registering an account and start doing it again, which would be even more difficult to track down for non-admins who don't see the IP addresses.

I still see No. 1 as the best option—as you can see, the IP addresses are abused for vandalism in other articles, too (e.g. ), so I don't think Wikipepdia would lose much by blocking an IP range constantly abused for vandalism, at least for some period of time.—J. M. (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) J. M. (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Administrator note I've protected Backhand for two weeks. Just some notes:

• We are dealing with another range here, different from the last investigation. The new range is 220.255.2.0/24, the old one being 220.255.1.0/26. The combined range would be 220.255.1.0/22. Elockid 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Based on this report, Backhand is the main page being targeted. Assuming this then, the other edits to this range may or may not be related. They may have no relation as this range appears to be highly dynamic.

• Going by what I stated above, some collateral damage is likely. I looked into some of the edits from this range. There are some obvious vandal ones, however some appear to be at good faith. Note, I am not an expert nor involved with many of the articles being edited, so a person who has more knowledge in the editing areas needs to verify whether the edits fall under sneaky vandalism.

Rangeblocking does not seem to be the best option then. Elockid 23:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just checked some edits from the range, too, and you're right. While there are quite a lot of reverted edits (sometimes they even immediately revert their own edit under a new address—like vs. or vs. —apparently, these are just test edits to test the IP address changing, which is then abused for disruptive editing; this for me is really a confirmation that the user is changing the IP addresses intentionally), there appear to be many legitimate edits, too. Even though the vast majority of them still follow the same pattern, that is, no edit summary.

So which option would be the best? Or where should this be reported? The admins seem to be passing this issue around like a hot potato, as it's so awkward to deal with, and if I might add something personal, I am getting sick of this user's bevaviour already. I wasted several hours in the last month just dealing with this problem. As an editor who spent most of his time on Misplaced Pages in the last five years fighting vandalism and spamming, I have never enountered anything as tiresome as this. It really deprives me of energy I might have used more productively elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. And letting it be is not an option. That's why I'm really hoping something more radical is done about it.—J. M. (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless we get better tools in the future, page protecting or whack-a-mole is our best option for right now. Perhaps a filter could work. This range is currently being filtered, it's under a private filter though, and you could request for it to be expanded. The best place where you can get a prompt response on this issue I would say is ANI/AN. Elockid 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases awaiting review