Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/220.255.1.45/Archive

26 March 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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 " ~ "''

This user is trying to push his addition to the Backhand article, adding Peter Sampras to the list of current players still using single-handed backhand. First of all, his edit is wrong (I explaned it in more detail on the article talk page and also on the IP talk pages, but in short&mdash;Sampras is not a current player, so the addition does not make any sense, factually, grammatically, and in the context of the section), so I reverted his/her edit, always explaining my reason why and warning him/her to stop edit warring without any discussion. But more importantly:
 * 1) The IP address does not give any reason for his/her edits in the edit summary whatsoever.
 * 2) The IP address never responds to my explanation in my edit summary in my reverts at all, he/she just always reverts it back without any aplanation anywhere at all.
 * 3) The IP address does not respond to my warnings on his/her talk page where I repeatedly asked him/her to discuss the edit on the article talk page at all.
 * 4) The IP address ignores the explanation on the article talk page . He/she is not willing to communicate in any way at all.
 * 5) Another editor stepped in, reverted his edit and asked him to back up his edit with anything. As always, the sock puppet reverted the edit without any explanation, ignoring that consensus to keep the original version has already been established. He/she is the only one preferring his/her version.
 * 6) Finally, he/she is cheating by always using a different IP address for each revert, trying to escape Wikipedia rules such as 3RR and edit warring. When you look at the IP addresses and also at his/her pattern of behavior, It is obvious that it is either the same person, or someone acting on behalf of him/her, both of which constitutes sock puppetry. In addition, his/her behavior could also be qualified as disruptive editing and edit warring, so it could also be reported as vandalism and edit warring, but since it involves sock puppetry, I reported it here. J. M. (talk) 16:54, 26 March 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

 * 220.255.1.32/27 would be the range to block (or 220.255.1.0/24 if you want to be cavalier) but there would be a lot of collateral damage, so we can't really do that. Meanwhile, Backhand has been protected for edit warring, so hopefully that calms things down. Relist if it's an issue again. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

12 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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 " ~ "''

I am relisting this report, because it just goes on and on. Please see the archived case for more details.

Let's review the situation:


 * 1) The person was asked 11 times to communicate (in edit summaries, on their talk pages, on the article talk page, in the article protection log) by 4 different people.
 * 2) The person was repeatedly warned to stop edit warring, reverting edits without giving any reason in the edit summarries, abusing mutiple IP addresses and pushing their edits against consensus.
 * 3) The person never replied to anything. The person ignored all requests. The person has never provided any explanation anywhere (edit summaries, their talk pages, the article talk page). The person just continues reverting the edits, ignoring all requests to stop.
 * 4) Two Wikipedia admins already identified their edits as disruptive editing&mdash;the admin who protected the page ("IP hopper edit warring against apparent consensus"), and the admin who closed this report (for the fear of collateral damage).

Their behavior violates the following Wikipedia policies:


 * 1) Consensus. The consensus is clear, established independently by 4 different people. The IP hopper is the only one pushing their factually incorrect edit.
 * 2) Edit warring. Even though it may not technically break the 3RR rule, it can be qualified as edit warring, that is uncollegial editing for an extended period of time. It has already been indentified as edit warring by a Wikipedia admin.
 * 3) Vandalism. This is not a content dispute. This is not good-faith editing&mdash;the editor is well aware of the fact that he/she is breaking the Wikipedia rules, as he/she has been reminded of it many times (including the last warnings on their talk pages). The person in knowingly, intentionally acting against the Wikipedia rules.
 * 4) Sock puppetry. That's why it's reported here.

An action should be taken, regardless of collateral damage. Even a short block would be OK for a start, just to send them a clear message that Wikipedia rules and requests for communication cannot be constantly ignored. J. M. (talk) 03:19, 12 April 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
I'm not sure what you would like SPI to do here. There's nothing we can tell you about the IPs that isn't public knowledge. If you would like to investigate a rangeblock, you may want to post to ANI. TN X Man 12:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think ANI needs any more noise. I've blocked 220.255.1.0/26 for three days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

01 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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 Wikipedia 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&mdash;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.&mdash;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
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  ( Talk ) 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  ( Talk ) 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&mdash;like vs.  or  vs. &mdash;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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. And letting it be is not an option. That's why I'm really hoping something more radical is done about it.&mdash;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  ( Talk ) 00:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks like were done. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  03:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)