User:Elvey/169.230.155.123

STATUS: It has been found that Formerly 98 has been using one or more accounts or IPs abusively. But only 2 of the >100 socking IPs were blocked.

05 Janury 2016
Would really like to see this get reviewed and endorsed for CheckUser runs. [Note:This is a fork from the SPI that can be found at SPI/169.230.155.123&diff=694824394 that I now cannot safely edit.]


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Checking ranges turns up:
 * An unknown regular user(s) temporarily logged out - active on MEDRS pages and opposed to rigorous evidence based-medicine.
 * SAME edit - revert of User:SageRad; reverted by User:Wuerzele. Dec 1.
 * STILL AT IT from yet another IP Single edit - revert of User:SageRad; reverted by User:Amortias. Dec 13.


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

example of mentioned results - needs attention! seek help/more eyes on this.
 * Editor interaction utility

(Policy states, :"If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.") Someone is using sock puppets in the form of at least the first four listed IPs. They are being used by user(s) to do abusive things socks typically are used to attempt/do - including avoid scrutiny, give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists, edit project space, avoid sanctions, contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people, editing logged out to mislead.

Their handful of edits (<10, <10, <100) (some diffs below) show this. Edits indicate that one longtime editor is using multiple IPs. I'd like a clerks and/or checkusers to indicate whether they see evidence that the IPs are connected to each other, and whether or not any are connected to users with accounts. I encourage the IPs to come clean - to at least indicate (yes/no) whether they have any wikipedia accounts - or not. I don't think checkuser evidence is needed for an initial evaluation, which can be done by any admin, of whether there's a connection - I think there's enough behavioral evidence for a yes on that, but a checkuser should therefore follow to find the additional connected account(s). Random add'l info/clues: Someone keeps hiding/covering up this information, even deleting it from archive pages. It's valuable for the SPI process. That's at *LEAST* three different ISPs this one user is using.
 * 3 of the four edits by 2600:1010:b043:ec75:efad:9d0c:d710:2720 (For short: 2600...2720) included edits to MY signature.
 * 169.230.155.123 is AKA udp071243uds.ucsf.edu . 102 edits.
 * 169.230.155.132 is AKA DIR-601-169230155132.ucsf.edu. 9 edits.
 * 169.230.155.104 is AKA null-c42c03300974.ucsf.edu. 1 edit.
 * 169.230.155.30 is AKA rainbowscr.ucsf.edu
 * 169.230.155.31 is AKA srcxrx3220.ucsf.edu
 * 169.230.155.35 is AKA xenopus.ucsf.edu    (Ron Vale / Cellular Molecular Pharmacology Department / UCSF School of Medicine)
 * 169.230.155.36 is AKA hille.ucsf.edu   (Bertil Hille)
 * 169.230.155.37 is AKA degrado.ucsf.edu  (William DeGrado)
 * 2600:1010 is Verizon. many IPs (25/100), edits.
 * 73.162.132.47 is c-73-162-132-47.hsd1.ca.comcast is Comcast.
 * 2601::/20 is Comcast, but a different type of IP.many IPs (25/100), edits.

This person claims to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet is still working (per User_talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts - and has claimed to have never been paid for editing and have no COI with respect to pharmaceuticals. I just discovered Formerly 98 has admitted to using multiple named accounts in the past. source Anyone know what it was? I've identified a couple of them that are not blocked. :-(  Wonder if the folks involved in the SPI knew that.  One's been identified at the 'real' SPI and is now Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6.  The statement, "I am curious as to the conditions that would pertain if I were to register." is particularly blatant evidence of the worst of sockpuppetry, since establishing that the user has quite certainly registered at least 3 accounts.

He got into it with User:Doors22 at Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877 and User:SlimVirgin over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharmaceutical_industry&diff=prev&oldid=541804937 this.

I'm not sure why this category didn't exist 'till I created it and remains empty: I've added totals above, in parentheses. (That was reverted too. Summary: about 130 IPs are listed as socks of this user.) --Elvey(t•c) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=693827373&oldid=693825836
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=693887733&oldid=693887394 New user referencing WP:ANI!
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=693825710&oldid=693825647 (revert)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=prev&oldid=693825972 (revert)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=prev&oldid=693887979 (revert)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=prev&oldid=693887394 (revert) SMOKING GUN
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=693825972&oldid=693808751 (revert) - BRAND new user referencing WP:MEDRS AND tagging policy!
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1010:B043:EC75:EFAD:9D0C:D710:2720&oldid=693886518 User warned not to sock.

RFC
I feel drawn to open an RFC as we may need community to speak to the necessity of action on this socking. CORE POLICY (Which "apply to Wikipedia discussion pages" states, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (except in a list of exceptional cases, none of which apply). Please acknowledge.

RFC: I'll put it on the talk page of this page when I feel it's ready.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Looked at these two, both COI
 * This IP edits look very COI, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=693825972&oldid=693808751 <-- Who is this IP user, see content edits, sock or second account.
 * This looks very COI http://web.archive.org/web/20140226022943/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Formerly_98

Though, while this certainly should be investigated, unclear how there is evidence to connect these. There are at least overlapping interests prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you're taking a self-imposed break, prokaryotes. When you get back - let me know if you can't find the info to connect specific dots, and what dots you have connected .  The evidence is there; it's been laid out in various places, some linked from here, like SPI talk and archive pages.  -- Elvey (t•c) 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)