Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHUastro/Archive

Report date February 26 2009, 14:26 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk)

Random stalking and vandalism by sockpupetry:

User:129.21.55.83, User:SisDivComp, User:1211Beckett, have been stalking my edits and randomly reverting them without comment. User:129.21.55.83 is connected to User:JHUastro since he/she also correct a very obscure typo by User:JHUastro (dif) (dif). User:JHUastro, User:IrishFilmBuff, User:JBHarshaw and User:UMinnAstro (last three accounts have very close creation dates) all took a sudden interest in Dobsonian telescope (history) and the talk page with edits along the line of "This is all BS about Dobsonians" and started making a series of similar edits after I reverted an unreferenced addition to Dobsonian telescope(dif) by User:129.21.240.56 with User:IrishFilmBuff stepping in to support User:129.21.240.56's edit (dif) (dif). User:129.21.240.7 made a following series of edits right after User:IrishFilmBuff at Altazimuth mount(dif). Along with User:129.21.240.7, User:129.21.55.82 and User:129.21.240.56 are also contributers to the "Dobsonians are crummy" additions so I suspect an IP range. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * According to dig the IPs are all assigned to the Rochester Institute of Technology. What is more the 129.21.55.xx IPs all are allocated internally to the Center for Imaging Science within that institution - the 129.21.240.xx IPs appear to be pan-University machines - quite possibly proxies.  That strongly suggests to me that those are the same person.  The evidence for the named users is less conclusive short of a full CU: I find it interesting that the first contributions of all these users is between January 3 and February 6 but I do not see conclusive evidence of sockpupetry in their edit histories.  They have all edited telescope articles but some have edited on other areas, with no overlap between those other areas between the users that I can determine. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I do believe that before a CheckUser is filed, perhaps an abuse report to the university might be in order. Generally speakingm it's good to use as many other options as possible before resorting to checkuser. Also, it might allow us to find out how the university structures its proxy system, thereby seeing if it's even possible for these IPs to be the same people. It might also allow us to get the list of the university's proxies, which would be helpful once the CU results come in.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * The ips are all on the same range: 129.21.0.0/16, I don't think we can block the IP due to activity. A checkuser might be able to double check my crude contrib search. (Toolserver database query). As far as the accounts, they are interesting and if another admin does not look into this case soon I'll take a second look. I think regardless we will need a CU to comment on the IP addresses at the least. We might have to disable account creation on that range. ——  nix eagle email me 16:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Like Nixeagle said above, collateral damage check. Also, getting a final answer on if those sock accounts are related would be great too. Also, sleeper check to preempt any future disruption. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * Per Foxy.  Syn  ergy 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * in progress -- lucasbfr  talk 21:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't close this request until Lucasbfr has completed it. He's warned it could take a while. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it took a while, I was waiting for meaningful explanations from some users (which I never received). These users are related with each other, however the amount of editing going on makes me believe there might be multiple users (school project?). If their edits continue to be a source of concerns, please open a new case and we'll see if we can block the IPs. No comment on the IPs you provided. -- lucasbfr  talk 13:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Fountains of Bryn Mawr
This is the second go round with "Dobsonians are cheap" sockpuppet POV push, first time around centered on JHUastro (JHUastro's SPI), although his/her primary account this time seems to be User:GHJmover. ANI Report on the suspected activities of GHJmover.

My "encounter" with JHUastro(re: first ANI Report) culminated on 24 February 2009 in 2 different accounts and an IP (User:129.21.55.83, User:SisDivComp, User:1211Beckett) performing a revert vandalism attack on a whole series of my past edits.

GHJmover popped up after that and did much constructive editing but also started doing similar "Dobsonians are low quality/cheap/don't exist" wording (example diff dif) and notability pushing, changing redirects to articles he/she created diff diff, and blanking links to articles he/she did not like (such as Amateur telescope makingdif).

After I changed the wording on a Dobsonian "low optical and mechanical sophistication"-"cheap" statement at Amateur Telescope Making diff (reason left at Talk:Amateur Telescope Making) GHJmover repeatedly reverted the language back diffdiffdiffdiff, then IP's picked it up the edit starting with 130.183.86.193 on 11:43, 27 June 2010 with comment "GHJmover got it right."diff, 130.183.135.87 on 11:42, 29 June 2010 diff, 79.240.2.239 on  20:07, 29 June 2010 diff.

A day later On 30 June 2010 IP 12.230.218.121 preformed a random reverting/vandalism attack on 21 of my edits in 8 minutes and then made 7 more article edits whose article titles, read in order, make up one very uncivil messagecontrib of "Hubris-Narcissism-Egotism-Arrogance-Superiority complex-Vanity-Brynmawr (Fountains of)"

After The vandalism attack and ANI report the only GHJmover activity was an edit at The Amateur Scientist that removed a link to Amateur telescope making and blanking of his/her talk page ANI notice diff.

There have been further IP reverts of the same "dobsonian" edit at Amateur Telescope Making re:170.170.59.138 diff, 81.253.28.46 diff, 81.253.12.65 diff.

Latest activity seems to be back at Dobsonian telescope with 74.42.36.182 (an IP used to correct User:IrishFilmBuff's edits of the same material in February 2009 diff) reverting that material back and then 67.208.5.162 reverting and expanding diff and supporting 74.42.36.182's edit in talk diff.

Account and IP relationships:


 * GHJmover - Created user page 22 September 2009 with (' ')


 * User:UlmPhysiker - Created user page 20 March 2009 with (' ') Dobson's "cosmological theory" is hokkum diff. Edits GHJmover created article diff. "Fixes" GHJmover created articlediff after I point out incorrect statementdiff  UlmPhysiker connection to User:JBHarshaw who also created user page  20 March 2009 with (' ') (see also first ANI SPI Report).


 * Mpa.mpg.de - Defending GHJmover created article from deletionTalk:Telescope_Nutdiff and linking article contrib.


 * Mpe.mpg.de - Works on GHJmover created articlediff. Follows around UlmPhysiker editsdiffdiffdiff. Inter edits with ClarketheK diff.


 * User:ClarketheK - (Created user page 22 March 2009 with (' ')) moved John Dobson (astronomer) to John Dobson (amateur astronomer) diff. Adds mention of "'Atlas Coeli Skalnate Pleso" entry at DAB page diff 9 March 2010, GHJmover creates page 20 March 2010 Revision history.


 * 202.127.144.200 - History shows a series of anti-dobsonian edits contributions and an edit reverting back to a GHJmover edit diff.


 * 65.217.238.202 - At John Dobson (amateur astronomer) edited intro to "Dobsonian telescope, a design for Newtonian reflectors based on low-cost materials" diff. Removed mention of Dobsonians at PLate OPtimizer diff. Same edit brought back by 72.149.89.151 diff, by 97.76.43.210 diff.

Common editing style:


 * Activity at Altazimuth mount (GHJmover hiding the words "Dobsonian telescope" in an easteregg link diff, easteregg link reinstated by 65.42.208.134 diff, by 211.136.117.146 diff. 211.136.117.146 went on to easteregg link "Dobsonian" at Perkins Observatory diff, de-link "Dobsonian" at Bowen Mountain, New South Wales with note "By definition, a Dobsonian is low-quality." diff, note Dobsonian "lower" optical quality at Deep sky object diff with further edits picked up by GHJmover diff.


 * A common mode of operation is to edit from and IP and mask activity by bracketing the sockpuppet edit with minor edits at random articles:


 * Activity at Dobsonian telescope (67.208.5.162 diffdiff, diff diff) (74.42.36.182 diff )


 * Activity at List of telescope types (68.248.62.130 diff diff diff)


 * Activity at Amateur Telescope Making (81.253.28.46 diff diff diff diff) (170.170.59.138 diff diff) (79.240.2.239 diff diff) (130.183.135.87 diff diff) Same IP off by a few numbers (130.183.86.193) came in supporting GHJmover diff


 * 12.230.218.121 Minor edit diff before revert/vandalism attack


 * 79.240.36.138 minor edit, then two revert edits contributions supporting an original GHJmover notability push diff


 * 12.130.106.205 minor edit diff, then revert attack diff then restored GHJmover notability pushdiff


 * 97.76.43.210 minor edits around John Dobson (amateur astronomer) contrib


 * 72.149.89.151 minor edits around John Dobson (amateur astronomer) contrib Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

(Following copied from User_talk:Trilobitealive):


 * I see my name on "Fountain of Bryn Mawr"s SPI page.


 * I've butted heads with FOBM on a couple of occasions. He has some, shall we say, very definite opinions.  If you have the temerity to disagree with him, he doesn't hesitate to revert your edits, even if they are well supported by solid references.  And he will do this again, and again, and again, until you finally give up and walk away.


 * I glean from the SPI page that FOBM has used this tactic on a lot of people. Apparently, if he can't intimidate you that way, he resorts to accusations of sock-puppetry or worse.


 * For the record: I'm a retiree (optical engineer and professional astronomer). I don't have the energy to handle multiple accounts or "proxy servers", whatever those are.  I also don't have the energy to deal with people like FOBM. But hey - that's exactly what he's hoping for, isn't it. GHJmover (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I'm not able to really follow the technicalities of the investigation but both User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr and User:GHJmover have made comments on my talk page which appear to make sense to me. On the one side is the fact of User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr's past having been a victim of a user who was defacing his edits. On the other side (although it appears much rarer in astronomy articles than in political articles or animal welfare articles) there appear to be a few hot button issues in the articles which might polarize opinion and which might make several unrelated editors appear more similar to one on the other side.

Since the substance of the investigation confuses me to the point where I can't sort it out, if I had to make a recommendation it would be to point out the need for the two sides to talk to one another and the need for an administrator to be involved in the investigation process.Trilobitealive (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * comment by uninvolved user Sailsbystars

I'm familiar with the subject area, so perhaps I can help get this investigation moving out of limbo. A summary of socks:
 * has not edited in a year and a half and seems to have made a small number of contributions. The edits of interest are adding  tags to the Dobsonian telescope article in February 2009.  Any action on this account would be pointless
 * appears to have inserted strongly POV edits into the Dobsonian telescope article back in May 2010. However, GHJmover and JHUAstro seem to share little interest outside the Dobsonian realm and the edits to the dobsonian article are quite different.
 * is uninterested in the Dobsonian telescope, and instead criticizes (quite rightfully) the bogus cosmological theories of Dobson. This is a completely different area of expertise and I feel unlikely related to any of the other edits.
 * hasn't edited in 6 months. Their contribution was renaming the John Dobson article to show he was an amateur, not professional astronomer.  so far none of these four accounts have made the same edits.  They are all critical of john dobson, but in fairly unrelated ways.
 * Completely unrelated amateur telescope maker articles.
 * similar editing history to the account immediately above, but nothing worthy of an SPI and nothing related to the original accounts
 * as for the IPs, the first one is highly dynamic (cell network most likely). nothing that can be done on that one.

I don't see any abusive sockpuppetry among the accounts. Given the flimsy evidence on the accounts, I'm not inclined to look too closely at the IPs. What I do see again does not appear to be abusive sock puppetry. It appears that the submitter thinks that there's only one person in the world who disgarees with his/her opinion on dobsonians, whereas the various users listed in this report clearly represent a multitude of views. My recommendation? Put this SPI out of its misery. Close this case with no action. Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with people disagreeing with me as per my extensive talk on these edits, as long as they follow WP:V, the more the merrier. But that is the definition of "abusive" and merits an outright WP:BAN WP:BLOCK if the involved user can be proven. The fact that these accounts are created on similar dates, or the EXACT SAME DAY, many with the same "signature", one acting as a dedicated SPA of GHJmover, none responding to this SPI, and several "coming out of retirement" to simply blank their SPI notice has made this DUCK quack pretty loud. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to FOBM's statement, I did respond -- but on User_talk:Trilobitealive. However I have now copied that response above. GHJmover (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking back at User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr we can see that in June of 2010 I had commented to Fountains of Bryn Mawr that I was reverting some edits by User:12.230.218.121 and it looked to me that particular anonymous user had been targeting some of Fountains of Bryn Mawr's edits. To me it still looks like the anonymous edits were a possible violation of WP:NPA Looking at the pattern of edits for User:12.230.218.121 again today they still look to be abusive. Which is how I can support my previous statement here that it appears to me that Fountains of Bryn Mawr has indeed been the victim of someone defacing his edits. On the other hand looking at a sampling of GHJmover's edits they don't appear to be the same writing style as those of the anonymous user who was doing the defacing. So I'm not ready to cast any stones in that particular direction. Today it looks to me like GHJmover may also be the victim of whatever anonymous user is behind this just as an innocent bystander in a crowd might be blamed if a crime occurs near them. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stopped by to fix some of my glaring typos. Just would note that the named accounts follow GHJmover and each other around in a very improbable way that is far above random chance for such short lived accounts, fixing each others articles/edits/typos and making each others arguments/points. If GHJmover is linked by this to UlmPhysiker then he is also linked to the previous JHUastro's  sockpuppet/WP:NPA "defacing" since User:UlmPhysiker and User:JBHarshaw user pages were created on the exact same day with the exact same "signature". So...hmmm, the same crime occurred near GHJmover twice. Even then I was still willing to let it slide and not "cast stones", but the sockpuppet POV push continued so I figured I might as well post all the relationships so that we might clean house. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
, pending CU response. Nakon 07:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are awaiting a response from a CU, but there is no checkuser request. If you would like one, pls add |curequest to the status template. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  11:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please request CU next time. Anyways, ❌ with no comment with regards to the IP addresses. –MuZemike 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)