Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stumink/Archive

06 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Stumink and the IP have a remarkable number of pages that they both edit. On all of them, they both attempt to push a rather subtle pro-western POV, although I have not (yet) come across explicit edit warring. I have given some examples below; there are doubtless many more.
 * Genocides in history; here and here
 * Cuban intervention in Angola; this and this (similar wording is also seen here).

I am confidant that a user compare report will show many many more. Again, neither user is explicitly edit warring, but rather using the accounts to make it appear as though some consensus exists for their edits. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * I blocked Stumink for 72 hours in October 2012 for what appear to be similar circumstances: (this followed this ANI discussion). The IP range in use back then appears to be similar to that which has raised concerns here. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On the 6th of May, in the last line of this edit editor Stumink admited that "Just to clarify that is my IP but always forget to login." I personally don't buy that, as edits are made by either account within minutes of each other: on the 4th of May, he/she edited as:

I don't think that anyone thtat is that prolific would bother logging off every few minutes. Not to mention that that WP provides the option to "keep me logged in for 30 days" and a warning that you are not logged in when you hit edit without logging in. Can anyone be that forgetful? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Stumink at 21:16,
 * IP 88.104.212.92 at 21:24,
 * Stumink at 21:27,
 * IP 88.104.212.92 at 21:35.
 * Perhaps Stumink's actions are more premeditated than they appear, but I do not think it is obvious that most of his IP edits are calculated tag-teaming. Stumink is not a prolific edit warrior (although he's no saint), and it's by no means clear what he stands to gain from IP editing, especially considering the extra scrutiny and sanctions it has imposed on occasion. It's been a long time since I directly interacted with Stumink, but in my experience his use of IPs has been quite blatant. For a particularly jarring example, consider that back in September 2012 I asked Stumink a question, and he directly replied minutes later using an IP on his own talk page! Carelessness might seem like an implausible excuse, but what explanation is there for that? For a sock puppeteer, Stumink has seemingly made no effort to conceal his use of IPs or to use a different persona when logged out. I don't just mean that he admitted his IP editing to Rui Gabriel Correia/Darkness Shines and during the SPI with Student7; he casually confessed it when asked long before anyone had subjected him to investigation. He has been warned so many times that his refusal to stay logged in is somewhat baffling, but if Stumink explains himself and makes a serious pledge to stop, I would suggest he be given a degree of leniency when sentencing (that is, I don't believe his behavior is actually serious enough to merit an indefinite block or ban). And while I appreciate the work Rui Gabriel Correia has put into this overdue SPI, I have to agree with Nick-D and Dodger67 that the evidence for Stumink's "severe bias in editing" (i.e. this) is lacking.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (It seems that content disputes between Stumink and Rui Gabriel Correia have continued, for example here. Again, Stumink's version is attempting to be NPOV, even if he is misunderstanding the policy. Stumink should be able to see, however, that the IP editing has not helped his case.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * TTAAC, you will notice that in the original SPI, I mentioned "subtle" POV pushing, not blatant. What he gains is simply added credibility on a given page, though of course he loses it in the long run. What is more pertinent is that he has been blocked previously for socking, and it didn't help. If a short block didn't work, why would essentially a warning help? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know why you think my comment was directed at you, except inasmuch as you started this SPI, but I am not interested in a debate. I was simply offering my two cents, which others are free to completely disregard if they so choose. I quoted Rui Gabriel Correia's accusation of Stumink's "severe bias in editing" verbatim, and even linked to the section on Dodger67's talk page where he used that phrase. My comment was meant as a warning to Stumink that his actions are more serious than he may realize, to the point where is on the verge of an indefinite block. You apparently believe anything short of that would be too lenient, while I argued Stumink should be given one more chance before so fateful a decision; even if you are right, I would resent any implication that I am soft on sockpuppetry.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not implying that you are soft on socking, I was saying pretty explicitly that you are unable to recognize a certain form of POV pushing, but that is a longer argument with little direct relevance. Also, I am hardly a hawk when it comes to socking; I was not suggesting an indefinite block for stumink. If the choice were mine, I would indef block his IPs and maybe give him a brief block, forcing him to only edit from his actual account (similar to a school block). But of course, the choice is not mine, and I have essentially done all there is to be done here from my side. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we are in agreement on what should be done.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, for a change. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see that that would be an issue. What if you issued a warning saying that if he is found soft-socking again, the account Stumink will be blocked? He is not a disruptive editor, and a block would be a major inconvenience. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Additional IPs suspected to be the same user


 * Please add more IPs to this investigation. I picked up the following commonalities (time ranges of activity of different addresses differ) but other characteristics are shared:


 * IP edits pages with an obvious 'Cold War' aspect, where he/ she edits to favour a better view of the US/ the West and US allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia)
 * Deletion of text that puts the US in a negative light/ deletion of text that puts US enemies in good light
 * These 'Cold War' edits all include Cambodia (most often Massacre at Hue) and/ or Vietnam
 * South Africa, Israel and Guatemala are a common thread
 * Only exception all of these users make to point above, is editing football pages
 * the use of the word "unneeded" (as opposed to "unnecessary"), "not needed", "undue" (not sure if as WP policy or as a synonym for "not suitable"/ "not justifiable"), "adjust(ed) (words/wording)", "more correct"/ "more accurate", "not important", reducing Angolan governmento to MPLA, changing "liberation"/ "freedom" changes to Independence", claiming that existing version is POV
 * Two measures - one side kills (or people die), other side "assassinates"/ "executes"

Cambodia [* Guatemala [* Football * and others POV mentioned in four edits Use of word "unneeded" and removal of text on US * "Liberation" becomes "independence" (and impossible construction too!) * "Freedom" becomes "independence" * April 2014 *
 * USER: IP 88.104.216.130

Claimin POV 10 times * Use of terms "adjusted" and "unneeded * Cambodia * Football * April 2014 *
 * USER: IP 88.104.209.93

Vietnam * POV * Guatemala * Deletion of text on US * Footballer * "More accurate" * April - May 2013 * Deletion of positive text on Iran *
 * USER: IP 88.104.219.139

Guatemala *
 * USER: IP 88.104.216.174

Football * Cambodia * Nicaragua * Deleting text on US * December 2011 - January 2012 *
 * USER: IP 88.104.217.24

Football *, * Two measures "exucuted" * Cambodia, Massacre at Hue * Deleting negative text Saudi Arabia * April 2014 *
 * USER: IP 88.104.219.146

Cambodia, Massacre at Hue * POV claim 5 times * Use of the word "undue" five times; "adjust" 5 times * Football * April 2014 *
 * USER: IP 88.104.214.166

Cambodia, Guatemala, football, delete text on US, 5 x Pov, 4 x "adjust" * May 2013, March 2014
 * USER: IP 88.104.208.231


 * The same goes for:
 * USER: IP 88.104.222.189
 * USER: IP 88.104.222.163
 * USER: IP 88.104.214.202
 * USER: IP 88.104.209.86
 * USER: IP 88.104.214.36
 * USER: IP 88.104.220.55

Prior admissions of editing as IP PLEASE Note that this IP was subject of an investigation in October 2013, in which Stumink, TheTimesAreAChanging and the IP were suspected of all being puppets of Student7. Stumink again admitted to being the IP
 * Editing as 88.104.221.99
 * Editing as 88.104.211.73
 * Editing as 88.104.219.76

 Prior warnings
 * Editing as 88.104.211.73
 * Editing as 88.104.219.74
 * Editing as 89.168.123.112
 * Editing as 88.104.219.76
 * Editing as 88.104.221.99

Prior blocks

 * Editing as Stumink
 * Editing as 88.104.211.73

 Editing despite being blocked
 * Editing as 88.104.211.73

Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is really very little that can be feasibly done at the moment. The IPs (all but one) resolve to *.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com, which strongly implies that he can IP hop by just resetting his DSL modem. I could block the range (which is a /20, 4096 IPs would be affected -- probably his whole town).  I can't really justify blocking a /20 unless you can make a case that there is active, community-harming disruption going on as we speak - and even then, the block must be fairly short - no more than a week.  There's no point in blocking the individual IPs if he's already been hopping this much. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Warning left as suggested above, closing case. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

03 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Stumink has a significant previous track record of Sockpuppetry, using IPs that look like 88.104.2XX.XX They were blocked once before for socking. Immediately after, they were warned about evading that block, and told that further violations would lead to further blocks. I filed an SPI against them last year, which ended with another logged warning that further such behavior would be met with a block on the parent account.

There are also numerous other instances of getting into trouble for editing/edit warring with the same IP range;, ,.

In this particular case, the IP is from the same range, 88.104.2XX.XX. They display a very similar interest in political history articles. Specifically;

Iraq-war related; Stumink, Stumink, IP Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

New World indigenous peoples; Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP

Leftist movements in Latin America; Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP

European Football; Stumink, IP

Very similar tendency to push a subtle neocon POV. Specifically, minimizing the role of While colonials in violence against Native Americans; Stumink, Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP.

Very similar terse edit summaries, often concealing the fact that the POV of the page had been shifted (regardless of whether the change was appropriate); Stumink, Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP.

I could provide a lot more such; there are overlaps in Indian colonial history, and SE Asia as well. Since one of the accounts is an IP, I believe that a CU cannot be requested, but I think behavioral data is pretty clear in this case. It seems to me that since multiple logged warnings seem to have no effect, it is time to walk the talk and impose a longer block on the parent account. Even if my assessment of the POV is incorrect, and I believe it is not, there are still changes in article POV being made, and the multiple accounts suggests a support for that kind of change that does not in fact exist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Mike V, thanks for dealing with this. I noticed that the IP I reported has not been blocked; is this because it is dynamic, and therefore pointless? Just wondering. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2015 (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
Checkuser comment: It is very likely that  has been editing logged-out on multiple occasions over an extended period of time. However, he is doing so with dynamic IP addresses in extremely busy ranges. There is sufficient evidence of deliberately editing logged-out that one could probably justify an extensive block of the main account; that won't do anything to prevent the logged-out editing, though. In fact, he appears to be doing more logged-out than logged-in editing already. IP range block would not be appropriate due to heavy legitimate usage. Risker (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the main account for 2 weeks, given the logged out editing. If further IPs pop up, it may be best to post them here and they can be blocked on a case by case basis. Mike V • Talk 00:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP hasn't made an edit for over 2 weeks, so there's no immediate need to block it right now. Mike V • Talk 00:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

23 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Stumink makes this edit at 9:44AM, followed quickly this similar removal by the IP 4 minutes later. As the archived case will show, Stumink has been blocked several times for socking, and it has always been with IP addresses which look like 88.104.211.XXX. The last block was for two weeks, applied 4 months ago. There have also been several warnings. Mike V, you dealt with this the previous time, so your input would be appreciated, and might make this quicker to close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, so you admit it. You've been warned at least 3 times and blocked at least twice that I remember, so why do you keep doing it? And since you can quite evidently switch IPs very easily, how are we supposed to know that this is the only instance? I'm not so much interested in punitive action here; but I don't have the technical tools to check whether this is the only such edit or not. If it were, I'd be happy with a warning; if not, whatever action is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Everybody accidentally edits while logged out at some point or another. I reported this because Stumink has been told, many many times, that it is unacceptable, and has continued to do it anyway. In my eyes that was actual abuse. Stumink's interests overlap with mine, but not completely; therefore, when he edits pages off my watchlist with his IP, I have no way of knowing, because the IP is dynamic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

That is indeed my IP. I edited the page without realizing I had logged out after the first edit.Stumink (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Stumink, this has been a problem with your editing for almost three years now . In light of the lengthy block you received earlier this year you need to take great care that you are logged in. Given the block and the fact that that a prominent message appears at the top of editing windows which alerts users that they are editing while logged out it's hard to believe that this is accidental. It's not courteous to other editors to be doing this. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I looked through Stumink's recent contributions and I found no evidence that he has been taking advantage of logged-out editing. Unless there is evidence forthcoming of actual abuse, I recommend this case be closed with no action. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkuser comment: closing without any action appropriate under the circumstances. First off, accidental logged-out edits are understood to occur to even the best editors, and we even have a suppression criterion specific to this. Secondly, MediaWiki has been regularly logging me out once or twice per editing session for the past month or so, and it's only because I have some additional protective mechanisms that I haven't been caught in this boat.  Risker (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The link here is quite obvious; the IP's edits match Stumink's interest in modifying content critical of colonialism in Africa and south Asia to make it less critical. The IP matches a range which Stumink has been known to frequent; see the archived reports.

The reason I am reporting this, however, goes far beyond three logged out edits. Frankly, I am fed to the teeth with Stumink's logged-out editing. To me, it is clear that Stumink is attempting to avoid scrutiny. Consider the following:

Stumink has been blocked thrice for logged out editing. He has also been formally warned and/or reminded numerous times. Nonetheless, in November this year he was at it again: and the logged out editing was quite obviously deliberate, as I outlined in my reminder here.

Despite that warning, Stumink has edited logged out on 16, 17, and 20 December, despite editing with his main account on all of those days. All of the edits in question were shifting the POV of an article, making the avoidance of scrutiny much more of a problem. How much more slack are we going cut this user? Vanamonde (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2017 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked and tagged. The IP edits are too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. The IP edits are too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. The IP edits are too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. The IP edits are too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Same edits as the editor about adding famines in India which were out of the British control. Here are the diffs and  Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2018 (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

 * - Given that this editor copied Stumink's edits verbatim, this is too obvious to require CU attention. Please block the new sock indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Censoring the term "Kaffir" in relation to Africa and Mahatma Gandhi, like Stumink. Capitals00 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2018 (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

 * ❌. --Deskana (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. There are other behavioral differences as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See below. Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (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

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Page overlap is considerable, particularly for the first two named accounts. The pattern of pages edited are a Stumink hallmark; the vast majority are related to conflicts between colonizers and indigenous people, or between western militaries and communist forces, in a wide variety of countries. Indeed the geographic range is so wide, that colonialism or cold war conflict is the only real theme to the editing here. The edits are consistently attempting to shift our portrayal of colonials in a more positive light, particularly with respect to famine under colonial governments. Similar time cards, of edits occurring all over the place except for 2-6 AM UTC; the clustered editing to me also suggests socking. Similarly heavy tilt toward mainspace edits. I'm aware that a CU cannot look at the IP, but it's within or close to ranges we have previously blocked for Stumink. Full disclosure: I was alerted to these accounts off of en.wiki, for reasons that are quite unclear to me. But I have investigated them myself, and am quite convinced, particularly as to the first two: I tangled with Stumink quite a bit, before his indef. If the above is unconvincing, I can attempt to explain in greater detail, but I've had a long work day, and can't face up to it at this moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for handling this. I know you can't comment on the IP as a CU, but surely the behavioral connection + the IPs acknowledged in the archives are enough for a block? The IP was editing quite recently, I don't think leaving it be is a good idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is true, but I'm involved, and cannot take admin action. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * The IP is in a similar range to others previously used by Stumink, albeit a long time ago - see Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . --Blablubbs (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very to each other:
 * ✅ to LutonDi:
 * to logs for the master, but that data is pretty old. . . --Blablubbs (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Added dual tags: proven to GreenCows and suspected to Stumink. : since you're familiar with the master, you are probably better equipped than me to assess the behavior of the IP. So my inaction does not preclude you from blocking it. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Makes sense. I'll reopen the case for a while for another clerk or admin to take a look at the IP. MarioGom (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced - IP blocked for a month. This all looks wrapped up, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  21:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * to logs for the master, but that data is pretty old. . . --Blablubbs (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Added dual tags: proven to GreenCows and suspected to Stumink. : since you're familiar with the master, you are probably better equipped than me to assess the behavior of the IP. So my inaction does not preclude you from blocking it. Closing. MarioGom (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Makes sense. I'll reopen the case for a while for another clerk or admin to take a look at the IP. MarioGom (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced - IP blocked for a month. This all looks wrapped up, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  21:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)