Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrantLumb/Archive

Report date April 26 2009, 00:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

These are fairly obvious sockpuppets. Each account is a single-purpose account. And they all submit the same text &mdash; one of two things, "employees" or "proper rights", dividing the accounts into two sub-sets &mdash; to Spacetoon. The contributions histories are short (2 or 3 edits, mostly) and speak for themselves. I've picked GrantLumb because it was the first, and the most prolific, account. The RichardLumb account links the two sub-sets of sockpuppets together. And the IP addresses are all assigned to Toronto. This is not about determining whether these are sockpuppets. That much is glaringly apparent.
 * Evidence submitted by Uncle G (talk)

I should point out that the supposed "sources" that are included for the "employees" content don't even mention this company, let alone the incident claimed.

Uncle G (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Uncle G (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC) This vandalism has been going on for two years. Blocking accounts won't stop it. The accounts are clearly treated as disposable entities. Semi-protecting the article won't stop it, because that would (ironically) penalize the wrong group of editors. In this particular case, the editors without accounts are busy undoing the vandalism of the editors with accounts. Witness the positive contributions of 74.12.84.53 (diff, diff) and 76.91.28.64 (diff), for examples. Blocking the underlying IP address, and account creation from that address, seems to be the best way to proceed. So I'd like either (a) CheckUser confirmation that one of the above IP addresses is the underlying IP address, or (b) a checkuser block of the underlying IP address, whatever it happens to be. Of course, this is predicated on the assumptions that such a block wouldn't cause collateral damage by blocking legitimate accountless editors, and that there's a statically-assigned underlying IP address to be had. Uncle G (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

to check for sleepers and/or the possibility of a rangeblock. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It looks like we have a spate of accounts beginning on April 19, and none since December before that? All of the recent edits were on the same two IPs, which I've blocked, but I'm not really sure how static it is with such a short window. Let me know if it returns. Looks like the accounts still need to be blocked, too. Dominic·t 23:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * blocked all accounts, please tag and archive. ——  nix eagle email me 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)