Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/CommotioCerebri: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:20, 4 March 2019 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,866 edits →01 March 2019: move comment to appropriate section← Previous edit Revision as of 18:25, 4 March 2019 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,866 edits →01 March 2019: re Geo SwanNext edit →
Line 37: Line 37:
* {{U|Bbb23}} clarification please. How old is too old? When I opened this discussion the most recent edit was only a few hours old. * {{U|Bbb23}} clarification please. How old is too old? When I opened this discussion the most recent edit was only a few hours old.
: Are you recommending I not document IP sockpuppetry when the most recent instance is more than 48 hours old? 24 hours old? 12 hours old? 6 hours old? 3 hours old? Could you please clarify how old is too old? ] (]) 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC) : Are you recommending I not document IP sockpuppetry when the most recent instance is more than 48 hours old? 24 hours old? 12 hours old? 6 hours old? 3 hours old? Could you please clarify how old is too old? ] (]) 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)



====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== ====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
*IP edits too old. Closing. ] (]) 17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC) *IP edits too old. Closing. ] (]) 17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
*{{re|Geo Swan}} There is nothing wrong with your filing a report about IPs who have edited recently. However, IP reports often go stale before anyone evaluates them, and your original good-faith filing will then be closed. This happens frequently, so if you want to continue to file these kinds of reports, you need to adjust your expectations. Also, SPI is '''not''' a venue for you to promote an IP-less Misplaced Pages, so do not file reports for that reason, and do not discuss it here. Finally, you said something about a "named IP", which is a contradiction in terms, having been blocked indefinitely. What IP is that?--] (]) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 18:25, 4 March 2019

Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b

Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b (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/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/Archive.

Please note that a case was originally opened under CommotioCerebri (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b. Future cases should be placed under Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b.



01 March 2019

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

This horrible wikistalker has been wikistalking me for about two years. About once a week they target my contributions. I am going to keep documenting their vandalism here, even if the SPI clerks are tired of these reports, as I see their ongoing abuse of IP addresses as an argument to retire the policy of allowing anonymous contributions. I contributed to about a dozen non-WMF wikis. Their choice to not allow anonymous contributions is one of the factor that improved their civility. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  1. this edit, with the edit summary "Undid revision 885529175 by Geo Swan (talk)" removes a properly defined reference, that was in use. It is clearly indefensible, and the wikistalker made no attempt to offer any kind of explanation for it.
  2. this edit, with the edit summary "Undid revision 885211895 by Geo Swan (talk)" is a revert, solely for the sake of reverting my edit. It is clearly indefensible, and the wikistalker made no attempt to offer any kind of explanation for it.
  3. this edit, with the edit summary "Undid revision 885422964 by Geo Swan (talk)" removes a properly defined reference, that was in use. It is clearly indefensible, and the wikistalker made no attempt to offer any kind of explanation for it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    update
  4. From March 2nd... no edit summary, but unexplained reversions when I have reverted an unexplained excision is typical of my wikistalker.
  5. I didn't mention this one, when I opened the SPI, since I thought it was too old, and was merely a nonsensical edit to an article I started. But they re-used the IP for a clearly disruptive edit. I think what it shows is that they get away with their whittling at my contributions, where I don't notice. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

  • Question. As this ip editor has been persisting for allegedly two years now, when does this become a case for WP:LTA? ―MattLongCT -Talk- 04:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The named IP they created was indefinitely blocked, within a few months of its creation. The final solution at LTA would be an indefinite block, wouldn't it?
I think the only real solution would be the fairly massive change of no longer allowing anonymous IP contributions. I've contributed to about a dozen non-WMF wikis, which don't allow anonymous IP contributions. Disallowing anonymous IP contributions goes a long way towards keeping discussions civil.
If the main justification for allowing anonymous IP contributions is to enable brave freedom lovers to make brave edits from behind the great firewall of China, or some similar repressive situation. However, if I am not mistaken, any brave freedom lover, in China, who trusted that using an IP address, rather than a named ID, to make daring edits, would quickly find they were on their way to make a series of deposits at the organ bank.
In my over fourteen years here I have NEVER come across an anonymous edit that showed any sign of beint a daring freedom edit.
A very small number of IP editors do have a good record of making good edits. They could all be encouraged to create an ID.
However this small number of IP editors who make good edits are vastly outnumbered by creeps like my wikistalker - embittered people using their anonymity for vandalism, or for incompetent edits - the stuff that got them blocked.
I have been ready for us to retire anonymous contributions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Bbb23 clarification please. How old is too old? When I opened this discussion the most recent edit was only a few hours old.
Are you recommending I not document IP sockpuppetry when the most recent instance is more than 48 hours old? 24 hours old? 12 hours old? 6 hours old? 3 hours old? Could you please clarify how old is too old? Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Geo Swan: There is nothing wrong with your filing a report about IPs who have edited recently. However, IP reports often go stale before anyone evaluates them, and your original good-faith filing will then be closed. This happens frequently, so if you want to continue to file these kinds of reports, you need to adjust your expectations. Also, SPI is not a venue for you to promote an IP-less Misplaced Pages, so do not file reports for that reason, and do not discuss it here. Finally, you said something about a "named IP", which is a contradiction in terms, having been blocked indefinitely. What IP is that?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Categories: