Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommotioCerebri/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


CommotioCerebri

CommotioCerebri (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

08 May 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

2605:8D80:6A4:7C4E:9883:EC1C:31FB:AED0 placed a {{prod}} on Marisa Lazo. Rather than erase the {{prod}} I requested the prod placer explain their reasoning more fully, on Talk:Marisa Lazo.

But it wasn't the prod placer who explained the prod, it was CommotioCerebri.

There is something odd about CommotioCerebri's contribution history. They have only made a total of four edits, and yet they are citing all kinds of wikipolicies and wikidocuments. It is incredible, not credible, that someone could have become familiar with all kinds of wikipolicies during the course of making just four edits.

Given their familiarity with wikipolicy this individual may employ dozens of IDs. Geo Swan (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Making one logged-out edit is not abusive sockpuppetry. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

09 November 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

UPDATE
This individual has used three new IP addresses since I opened this SPI. Geo Swan (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE
About six months ago addresses in this range 2605:8D.... were used by Cebr1979. Geo Swan (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE
24.114.78.19 complained I seemed to be trying to "out" an anonymous IP contributor. Initiating an SPI is not an outing.

Let me put the most recent activity first. Ip contributor 24.54.93.58's pattern of edits is alarmingly similar to the pattern of disruptive edits of CommotioCerebri/Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b/2605:8D80:6A4:7C4E:9883:EC1C:31FB:AED0. In particular, their disruptive nomination of Jack Letts for deletion followed my edits to Jack Letts and Talk:Jack Letts by just two hours. That's very similar to 24.54.93.58's wikistalking. Their edit to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ned_Parfett followed mine by just one hour. Their next three edits, [3], [4], [5] are reversions of my edits, thoughtlessly applied, in my opinion.

CommotioCerebri acknowledged, in this comment on the User talk page of an uninvolved third party that they had been contributing using anonymous IP addresses for some time.

I made my first request for an SPI investigation when this individual first targeted my contributions, in May. Clerk Vanjagenije closed it, writing "*Making one logged-out edit is not abusive sockpuppetry. Case closed. "

Note, in their request on Jytdog's user talk page they said "recently I decided to create an account instead of editing as a 'IP'." The record shows, however, that their first edit was over four months earlier.

Global renamer Jmvkrecords and I discussed their decision to accede to CommotioCerebri's request for an obfuscating replacement wiki-ID. In my comment there I noted that almost 75 percent of CommotioCerebri's edits were either reversions of my edits, or were somehow connected with my contributions. I had advised them I thought they were not in compliance with WP:WIKISTALKING in five separate comments on their talk page - [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

I told Jmvkrecords "I think it is unlikely that they logged on, once a week or so, and picked a couple of my contributions to disrupt, only to then log off. I can't help wondering whether they may maintain a stable of sockpuppets, using each one to target a different victim." That is why I've initiated this SPI. I suspect that, with the right tools, it could be confirmed that this individual was targeting multiple other good faith contributors, using multiple IDs.

Why did this individual start targeting my contributions? If you read the comments addressed to me you'll see that they resented what they regarded as my attitude of superiority. In this comment they wrote: "Sorry, I am new to editing on here but took the approach of learning as much as I can before participating. I find it extremely off-putting that you felt the need to flood your response with accusations in a condescending tone."

I think I kept my responses to this individual within the bounds of civility, questioning their edits, not their intelligence. Should new contributors feel condescended to when another contirbutor thinks they have more to learn about the intricacies of wikipedia policies, guidelines, and accepted conventions? I have made over 80,000 edits during my thirteen years of contributions here, but I would never claim to have completely mastered all the wrinkles of our standards. Our policies can be ambiguous, contradictory, and are in a constant state of flux. So no-one, not even Jimbo Wales, should resent a civil good faith expression of disagreement over policy interpretation.

What I suspect is that this individual started targeting my contributions in response to something I wrote when they were making anonymous edits. Even if, for the sake of argument, something I wrote to an anonymous IP would seem like something I should apologize for, how would I ever know to do that, when that contributor was jumping around between IP addresses and sockpuppet IDs? Geo Swan (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added two more IP addresses.
  1. This brief and inaedqute coment was clearly intended to be time-wasting and harrassing.
  2. Left a BS warning on my talk page
  3. Removed an infobox from my talk page with a bogus claim it was inaccurate. I just checked, I am, today, the 562nd most active contributor.
  4. An uninvolved third party reverted their vandalism, and they restored their BS. Geo Swan (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most recent vandalism from 2605:8D... has anapparently innocuous edit summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fireboats_of_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=810467959

  1. I added what I thought was a new reference to Fireboats_of_New_York_City.
  2. But that reference used the same refname as an earlier reference. When I checked I saw the two references used the same ISBN, definitively establishing that the two references were to a single book. So, I combined them.
  3. 2605:8D80:621:BF5D:30A:9331:CF04:A2FE apparently innocuous edit summary: "Undid revision 810207385 by Geo Swan (talk) rv please don't remove valid references" is not a good faith mistake. A good faith contributor who actually looked at my previous two edits should have realized what I had done. If they hadn't the warning generate by re-adding the reference that used a duplicate refnam with non-identical content should have been a warning sign.

    The individual behing 2605:8D... is clearly not interested in improving the wikipedia, at all. They are experienced enough to mask disruptive edits with innocuous edit summaries, but their true motivation is to get revenge against those who dared disagree with them.

Is it possible to block contributions from a range as broad as 2605:8D...? Less than a dozen IP addresses in that range have edited the wikipedia, all within the last year or so. As I noted, some of those IP addresses were noted as sockpuppets in an earlier SPI. I haven't checked every single one, yet, but, so far, it seems even the once not identfied as sockpuppet edits, yet, were disruptive, or non-productive.
If this block is possible, on a temporary basis, could it be implemented, indefinitely? Geo Swan (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Checkuser note: After checking, I do not see any other accounts.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rangeblock has been applied. I'm not seeing any relation to Cebr1979, other than a shared IP range. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • The IP, 129.100.58.76, recently initiated a complaint about me at ANI. CommotioCerebri, the wiki-ID who started wikihounding me in May showed (1) an easily offended temperment; (2) very poor attention to detail, so they took offence where none was given; (3) a cargo cult limited and damaging understanding of policy; (4) frankly a large measure of meanspiritedness, and an unwillingness to comply with our civility and collegiality conventions.

    I think this complaint, at ANI, shows the same pattern of lack of attention to detail, and meanspiritedness as the original... Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • While this may be the same person, the IP seems to be sufficiently dynamic that blocking individual addresses is unlikely to accomplish anything. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

As I noted, on 2018-01-25, this IP shows the same pattern of malice, wikihounding, and fundamental misunderstanding of policy as CommotioCerebri, the ID used by the sockpuppetmaster, when I first encountered them.

SPI trainee Sir Sputnik wrote "...the IP seems to be sufficiently dynamic that blocking individual addresses is unlikely to accomplish anything." Yeah, I disagree. They made three more edits, two of which were further wikihounding.

  • This reversion targets my contributions, with an edit summary that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of RS.
  • This talk page comment is directed at me. Some contributors, including CommotioCerebri, regard even civil and collegial questions as personal attacks. CommotioCerebri started wikihounding me after misinterpreting my civil questions and comments as personal attacks. Here we see them interpreting a civil question I posed to an uninvolved third party as ... I don't know, something to trigger more drama.

I disagree with Sir Sputnick. No other person tried to use this IP address.

FWIW, I posted a request for information about detecting when a proxy was used to circumvent a block, at WP:VP, because these edits mangled 61 urls.

For the record, if courtesy user renaming is only intended to be a courtesy extended to good faith contributors, who are genuinely retiring, I question whether CommotioCerebri merited a courtedy renaming. Geo Swan (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The IP is now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I continue to be plagued by wikihounders. The individual or individuals who first used CommotioCerebri turned out to be a sockpuppet-master. So, while trying to get to the bottom of who my new wikihounders are, I went to User talk:CommotioCerebri, which should have redirected to the courtesy obfuscated ID they were allowed.

I found that Commotio had obfuscated that redirection -- a clear lapse from the courtesy renaming guidelines, which states that courtesy renaming is not intended to hide past misbehavior. I reverted that obfuscation, and Commotio obfuscated it again. Commotio is under an indefinite block, and should not be using IP addresses to evade that block.

FWIW, courtesy renaming is only supposed to be open to good faith contributors, and since 75 percent of their edits were clear wikihounding, they never should have been granted a courtesy renaming.

It would probably be best if User talk:CommotioCerebri was locked, to point to User talk:Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b.

Pinging @Jmvkrecords: the administrator who approved Commotio's courtesy renaming, in the first place. Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates: Since I started the most recent instance of this SPI the individual or individuals behind CommotioCerebri has obfuscated the redirect, multiplie times:

  1. 99.255.218.181 obfuscated, yet another time. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2607:fea8:2d1f:fa39:14e1:93af:7d60:74cf obfuscated, yet another time. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2605:8d80:689:e22a:530c:1fa1:7c4d:4e1a obfuscated, yet another time. Geo Swan (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 2605:8d80:6a7:8a83:e077:2d7e:ef25:821b obfuscated, yet another time. Geo Swan (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 2605:8d80:6a7:8a83:e077:2d7e:ef25:821b obfuscated, yet another time. Geo Swan (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Since CommotioCerebri was reregistered following the renaming, it is now a separate account and should have it's own talk page even if it is the same person. Please stop redirecting it. I've tagged the userpage appropriately. I'll leave it at that for now. Blocking individual IP's won't do much good here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

For one reason or another my edits are a magnet to wikihounders and sockpuppets. I don't know whether these two vandals are one indefinitely blocked contributor, or two.

2605:8d80:6ab:5b98:4709:ced:1ed7:2e51's edit, another counter-policy obfuscation of User talk:CommotioCerebri, just like those in my last report, but made after my last report was closed.

The contributor originally known as CommotioCerebri wikihounding efforts included petty reversals of my edits, like this one.

No IP address makes his or her very first edit the unlinking of a redlink.

This edit comes from the same block of IDs that CommotioCerbri has used in the past:

  1. 2605:8D80:6A4:7C4E:9883:EC1C:31FB:AED0,
  2. 2605:8D80:620:DD8F:B26:F0B9:46AD:93C0,
  3. 2605:8D80:621:9057:ABBD:2A7:96DC:3706,
  4. 2605:8D80:621:BF5D:30A:9331:CF04:A2FE,
  5. 2605:8d80:689:e22a:530c:1fa1:7c4d:4e1a,
  6. 2605:8d80:6b0:1b64:ec3d:1079:1d4f:1d98,
  7. 2605:8d80:6a7:8a83:e077:2d7e:ef25:821b Geo Swan (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
update

As with their previous wikistalking attempts my wikihounders continued, even after I informed them of this SPI:

  1. 2605:8d80:5a2:fa84:619b:138:6f90:17b3 made another counter-policy reversion Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2605:8d80:6ab:c1af:8694:3678:9f5d:79a5 blanked the page again, again trying to obfuscate their record of wikihounding, with an edit summary "Looks like the stalker is back you were warned already by an admin stop". I probably don't need to say this, but no one has warned me to stop trying to re-astablish the link between the CommotioCerebri ID, and Renamed user 49274c4c204245204241434b. Geo Swan (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2605:8d80:6aa:1b18:b87d:1a0f:f88f:8d23 -- CommotioCerebri has failed to recognize that their request for WP:Courtesy vanishing obliged them to halt trying to contribute to the wikipedia, and thus to wikihound my contributions. They should also have recognized that their indefinite block bars them from trying to use anonymous IP addresses for wikihounding. Geo Swan (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2605:8D80:6AB:C1AF:8694:3678:9F5D:79A5 left a brief, cryptic note here, in the section for the concerned party. I moved it to #Commmens by other users. It contains a diff to March 27, the last time this SPI was archived. Geo Swan (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Umm what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Renamed_user_49274c4c204245204241434b&oldid=832720274 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8d80:6ab:c1af:8694:3678:9f5d:79a5 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2018 April 4 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The archived earlier reports show markedly similar disruptive editing to [11] and [12]. Both IP addresses are brand new addresses, whose only edits are reverting my edits.

This edit seems to me to be a specious use of WP:CSD, again by an anonymous IP whose only edit is to material I worked on.

Note: Many of the edits in the archived earlier reports are from the same range 2605:8D80...

The comment on the talk page [13] also follows their pattern of wikilawyering, particularly highly questionable assertions that BRD required preserving their version.

I am going to request semi-protection of the page in question. Geo Swan (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Sro23 wants this discussion closed, as stale.

In my experience our protections against sockpuppetmasters harassing contributors are extremely weak. Each act of vandalism from this indefinitely blocked wikistalker takes them less than a minute to commit, and an order of magnitude longer to document.

Over in other fora, administrators are telling me that they don't see wikistalking.

I am frustrated by this. I would appreciate more support.

These two relatively recent wikistalkings from an SPA all of whose edits have been wikistalking:

  1. removed trivia and minor news report
  2. Wikipedia is not somewhere to store your thoughts and synthesize research. This is not a webhost.

FWIW, even if someone thought the vandal had a point, they are evading an indefinite block, and that makes their edits vandalism, even if someone thinks they have a point. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These recent edits are duplicates of the disruptive edits of earlier sockpuppets... [14], [15] Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

articles under attack[edit]
  1. United States Navy SEALs in popular culture
    1. Undid revision 847598899 by Geo Swan
    2. Please actually read the talk page discussuon rather than constantly reverting.
    3. Undid revision 846310937 by Ryanoo
    4. Undid revision 846292253 by Ryanoo
    5. Again, please discuss controversial edits especially if a BLP issue exists.
    6. Undid revision 845941937 by Geo Swan (talk) WP:BRD requires consensus before restoring controversial material
    7. Removing section on moonlighting seals. This article is about seals in popular culture, not a rogue seal who had an unapproved part-time job.
  2. Crane climbing
    1. Undid revision 847494999 by TantraYum
    2. See talk, this was discussed at length
    3. rv vandalism - this was at a consensus then you have decided to re-add this against it
    4. I have removed the bit about MArisa and the article by FARLEY. As the Globe and Mail piece is an oped it would be considered a primary source and wouldn't be acceptable per Wikipedia:MEDRS.
  3. Hoodie
    1. Again, please stop flooding wikipedia with non-sense
    2. Not a sock, please focus on content not random accusations
    3. Undid revision 839689760 by Geo Swan
    4. Undid revision 839545847 by Geo Swan
    5. Poor quality source and too much weight bring put on a barely related topic. This is about a article of clothing not a court case

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IPs now stale. Closing case. Sro23 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

28 June 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

some of the articles under attack
  1. United States Navy SEALs in popular culture
    1. Undid revision 847598899 by Geo Swan
    2. Please actually read the talk page discussuon rather than constantly reverting.
    3. Undid revision 846310937 by Ryanoo
    4. Undid revision 846292253 by Ryanoo
    5. Again, please discuss controversial edits especially if a BLP issue exists.
    6. Undid revision 845941937 by Geo Swan (talk) WP:BRD requires consensus before restoring controversial material
    7. Removing section on moonlighting seals. This article is about seals in popular culture, not a rogue seal who had an unapproved part-time job.
  2. Crane climbing
    1. Undid revision 847494999 by TantraYum
    2. See talk, this was discussed at length
    3. rv vandalism - this was at a consensus then you have decided to re-add this against it
    4. I have removed the bit about MArisa and the article by FARLEY. As the Globe and Mail piece is an oped it would be considered a primary source and wouldn't be acceptable per Wikipedia:MEDRS.
  3. Hoodie
    1. Undue weight being put on unrelated content
    2. [16]
    3. Undid revision 847800017 by Geo Swan
    4. Again, please stop flooding wikipedia with non-sense
    5. Not a sock, please focus on content not random accusations
    6. Undid revision 839689760 by Geo Swan
    7. Undid revision 839545847 by Geo Swan
    8. Poor quality source and too much weight bring put on a barely related topic. This is about a article of clothing not a court case Geo Swan (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
update[edit]
  1. 2002_Bali_bombings
    1. Anonymous users aren't automatically wrong. Please provide a rationale for your revision.
    2. Reverting an edit that is an opinion or commentary.
  2. Talk:Crane climbing
    1. [17]
    2. [18]

update 01:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[edit]

  1. Guardian-class_patrol_boat
    1. Undid revision 850977721 by Geo Swan
    2. Undid revision 850977721 by Geo Swan
    3. Undid revision 850977721 by Geo Swan
    4. Undid revision 852013456 by Geo Swan
  2. NNS_Bomadi_(P176)
    1. Valid redirect. Talk page did not explain why this should not be a redirect.
    2. Undid revision 852142466 by Ktrimi991
    3. Undid revision 852297009 by Geo Swan
  1. Talk:Imperial_Munitions_Board
    1. Please use the sandbox feature to store rough work.

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

One thing you can say about this guy -- he is persistent.

Range blocks have been applied to other closely related IP addresses. They found at least one IP address they could use not covered by the previous range-blocks.

As in earlier reports this malicious edit is to an article that I initially started. Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • @Geo Swan: I'm afraid you'll need to make a better case than this. All I can see is that this IP's single edit was to vandalize an article you created, but this IP geolocates to California while the two ranges we identified last week geolocate to eastern Canada. Note that all IPv6 addresses currently available to use start with "260", so the range is in fact not close at all. While the IP is clearly a vandal, they've made one edit, six days ago, and so I have to close with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  1. Edit warring at The Golden Ocean: [19], [20],[21],[22],[23],[24], [25],[26]
  2. Edit warring at List_of_last_surviving_veterans_of_military_insurgencies_and_wars: [27], [28] Geo Swan (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Blocked for 2 weeks. The others are stale. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This warning is from the block of IP addresses the contributor formerly known as CommotioCerebri has used in the past. [29], [30] Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  IP blocked. GABgab 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The two previous harrassing edits [31], [32], are stale, and reported in previous incidents. But this one is recent. Following their indefinite block, this individual has become skilled at drafting expressions of concern that seem meaningful, on the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • One edit two days ago? Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


27 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I am requesting a checkuser because I suspect this individual has other targets. I suspect they do not return here once a week or so to harass me, and then go away. I suspect they were using sockpuppetry to harass other individuals, and may be using multiple IDs now. Geo Swan (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wikistalker here has mastered leaving edit summaries that give the surface appearance of legitimacy, so long as the reader doesn't actually examine them too closely.

  1. BLP issues are not resolved as per the link provided
  2. Please re read the BLP thread which has numerous admins warning against this edit
  3. BLP Warning

Another anonymous IP 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 had excised most of the article, offering only a vague BLP claim in an edit summary. After I opened a thread in BLPN, and no one offered a meaningful defence of their huge excision, I started to restore passages, one at a time.

The passage I re-inserted into the article The text that my vile wikistalker has reverted said: "Golsteyn graduated from the US Army's officer college, West Point Military Academy, in 2006, and was discharged, following an inquiry, in 2015.<ref name=Wapo2015-05-19/>" There is no legitimate BLP concern here.

The vile wikistalker's first edit summary falsely implies that there was an active debate over some kind of BLP violation, at WP:BLPN#Mathew L. Goysteyn. While some contributors voiced a BLP1E concern, no one offered any kind of meaningful defense that the excised material was a genuine lapse from BLP. On December 22, five days after I started the thread, I wrote a comment that ended with My inclination is to go ahead and carefully restore the excised material, if no-one offers a further defense of the excision, in the next day or so. Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

IP edits too old. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

These two edits show the typical wikistalking of my contributions I have come to know from this indefinitely blocked vandal.

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

02 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The malice and bad faith of the following two IP edits is consistent with the contributor formerly known as CommotioCerebri: [33], [34]. Geo Swan (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IP now stale. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 January 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

As shown in the archive, this wikistalker has been using sockpuppetry to disrupt my contributions for almost two years.

While they never really understood our policies, when they used a named ID, they did learn how to draft an edit summary that gave the surface appearance of normalcy. Of course all their claims fell apart when looked at in detail.

  1. Removing BLP violation. You cannot claim something that you can't defend with a reference.
  2. Original word choice violates BLP. Unsubstantiated claims cannot be turned into certainity.
  3. Removed redirect to Department of Homeland Security Port Security Grant
  4. Revert addition of unnecessary spaces
  5. Undid addition of incorrect material.

The second most recent edit summary is a great example of their bad faith. It would be an excellent justification for a reversion -- if it were true', but the original wording did not imply "certainty". Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IP edits are too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This horrible wikistalker has been wikistalking me for about two years. About once a week they target my contributions. I am going to keep documenting their vandalism here, even if the SPI clerks are tired of these reports, as I see their ongoing abuse of IP addresses as an argument to retire the policy of allowing anonymous contributions. I contributed to about a dozen non-WMF wikis. Their choice to not allow anonymous contributions is one of the factor that improved their civility. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. this edit, with the edit summary "Undid revision 885529175 by Geo Swan (talk)" removes a properly defined reference, that was in use. It is clearly indefensible, and the wikistalker made no attempt to offer any kind of explanation for it.
  2. this edit, with the edit summary "Undid revision 885211895 by Geo Swan (talk)" is a revert, solely for the sake of reverting my edit. It is clearly indefensible, and the wikistalker made no attempt to offer any kind of explanation for it.
  3. this edit, with the edit summary "Undid revision 885422964 by Geo Swan (talk)" removes a properly defined reference, that was in use. It is clearly indefensible, and the wikistalker made no attempt to offer any kind of explanation for it. Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    update
  4. [35] From March 2nd... no edit summary, but unexplained reversions when I have reverted an unexplained excision is typical of my wikistalker.
  5. [36] I didn't mention this one, when I opened the SPI, since I thought it was too old, and was merely a nonsensical edit to an article I started. But they re-used the IP for a clearly disruptive edit. I think what it shows is that they get away with their whittling at my contributions, where I don't notice. Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Question. As this ip editor has been persisting for allegedly two years now, when does this become a case for WP:LTA? ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 04:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The named IPID they created was indefinitely blocked, within a few months of its creation. The final solution at LTA would be an indefinite block, wouldn't it?
I think the only real solution would be the fairly massive change of no longer allowing anonymous IP contributions. I've contributed to about a dozen non-WMF wikis, which don't allow anonymous IP contributions. Disallowing anonymous IP contributions goes a long way towards keeping discussions civil.
If the main justification for allowing anonymous IP contributions is to enable brave freedom lovers to make brave edits from behind the great firewall of China, or some similar repressive situation. However, if I am not mistaken, any brave freedom lover, in China, who trusted that using an IP address, rather than a named ID, to make daring edits, would quickly find they were on their way to make a series of deposits at the organ bank.
In my over fourteen years here I have NEVER come across an anonymous edit that showed any sign of beint a daring freedom edit.
A very small number of IP editors do have a good record of making good edits. They could all be encouraged to create an ID.
However this small number of IP editors who make good edits are vastly outnumbered by creeps like my wikistalker - embittered people using their anonymity for vandalism, or for incompetent edits - the stuff that got them blocked.
I have been ready for us to retire anonymous contributions. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23 clarification please. How old is too old? When I opened this discussion the most recent edit was only a few hours old.
Are you recommending I not document IP sockpuppetry when the most recent instance is more than 48 hours old? 24 hours old? 12 hours old? 6 hours old? 3 hours old? Could you please clarify how old is too old? Geo Swan (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geo Swan: There is nothing wrong with your filing a report about IPs who have edited recently. However, IP reports often go stale before anyone evaluates them, and your original good-faith filing will then be closed. This happens frequently, so if you want to continue to file these kinds of reports, you need to adjust your expectations. Also, SPI is not a venue for you to promote an IP-less Wikipedia, so do not file reports for that reason, and do not discuss it here. Finally, you said something about a "named IP", which is a contradiction in terms, having been blocked indefinitely. What IP is that?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  1. an unexplained reversion
  2. an unexplained reversion

I believe these edits show the same pattern as those recorded in the archive -- edits from a wikistalker who only targets my edits. Geo Swan (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Blocked the latest IP, closing. GABgab 12:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  1. Removing unreferenced COATRACK image.
  2. Again, this image is not even referenced or alluded to in the article. Please see WP:COATRACK and stop blindly reverting
  3. Removing image that is not even referenced in the article once. There is NO rationale for including this.
  4. Removing COATRACK image. This isn't even mentioned in the article, nor is it sourced.

As per the archive, this individual, while they never really understood our policies, prior to their very well deserved indefinite block, did master the ability to leave deceptive edit summaries that are only exposed as patent nonsense, when looked at in detail.

All three edits remove an image I recently uploaded, of the freighter named in honour of Sir Henry Pellatt. These nonsensical edit summaries misuse COATRACK.

To suggest that an image of a freighter named in honour of Pellatt doesn't belong in Henry Pellatt#Military service and honours is nonsensical. I regard it as harrassment, meant simply to waste my time. Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

update

I reverted a questionable IP edit and 104.249.228.168 changed it back - a clear targetting of my edits. Geo Swan (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

update
  1. Undid revision 889103169 by Geo Swan
  2. Reverting edit war by Geo_Swan - you have been reverted 3 times today this is now justification for a 3RR ban
  3. Reverting vandalism - this is not supported by your reference and at this point this is vandalism

Of course WP:3RR doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism. Geo Swan (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The IP edits are too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

28 April 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The contributor once known as CommotioCerebri went into a rage, and started wikistalking me two years ago, when I mildly implied a contributor with less than a dozen edits under their belt might have something to learn from someone with over 100,000 edits. They have used over 75 different wiki-ID to continue wikistalking me, as can be seen in this page's archives, since their known named sockpuppets were indefinitely blocked.

Today they seem to have tried creating another named ID, in violation of their indefinite block. I reverted this edit, a typical unexplained reversion of a random edit I made, typical of this individual, a few days ago. Today VballJohnny repeated the disruptive edit 129.100.255.30 made.

The reason I am requesting a checkuser is that I've suspected that someone as easily triggered as this individual is very likely to have had their malice triggered by other contributors, and that they have been targetting those other individuals using other previously unknown sockpuppets. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Insufficient evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

30 June 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • typical of the contributor formerly known as CommotioCerebri - this series of edits to Maddie Rice focuses on my edits, using IP addresses: [37], [38], [39]... The most recent instance was Saturday, about ten hours ago.
  • On the 25th they initialized a disruptive WPANI section... WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1012#User:Geo Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A range block was imposed on 129.100.255.0/24. They have tried this WPANI stunt before.
  • I've been requested to note, if the evidence may be considered insufficient for a block, to note that I consider it important to document this individual's very substantial on-going commitment to disrupting the wikipedia, for the record. Geo Swan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • The first IP appears to be someone else, given the location. Closing without action. Sro23 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The following two disruptive edits follow my wikistalker's long long history of disruption... [40], [41]. In these two edits they have picked a recent edit I made, and reverted it.

I've been asked to acknowledge that filing reports on this long-term abuser, when they have made only a couple of edits, may not be enough to take action. But, on the other hand, these reports have to be timely. If I wait until I can bring a dozen edits I am told they are "stale".

I continue to consider the efforts of this individual a very serious problem.

I am convinced they were making incompetent disruptive edits long before I encountered them. I am convinced I have not been the only target of their malicious disruption. I am convinced that they make dozen or hundreds of edits per week, with the bulk of them meant to "improve" the wikipedia - which is also a problem, because they are a dangerously biased contributor, who neither respects, or really understands, our policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

update

47.18.147.174's disruptive edit of July 3rd is going to be considered stale. I am including it on this report for the sake of completeness. Geo Swan (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • You need to stop bringing these reports. They are a waste of the SPI team's time. As an aside, the third IP's location is not the same as the first two. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

99.242.112.220 is an IP address that has never been used before. Four of the five edits they made are restoration of edits made by other IP addresses that I had reverted. Note, no explanation for the edits. I left explanations on Talk:Terra Transport and Talk:Summer Walker when I first reverted them. The reversion of Summer Walker's birthdate to 1999 is clearly bogus, as various references state she had her birthyear, 1996, prominently tattooed on her neck.

These all clearly follow the same pattern as the several hundred previous harrassing edits of my indefinitely blocked wikistalker. Geo Swan (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I've blocked the IP for 31h for vandalism. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same pattern as usual - a previously unused IP contributor, who focuses exclusively on reverting my edits, with confrontational edit summaries, without bothering to consult the talk page. [42], [43]

I've reverted them. If they follow their usual pattern they will revert me again, without bothering to leave even a nonsensical explanation on the respective talk pages.

If I look at my watchlist I may find other recent instances of their disruption.

It's been suggested I acknowledge two disruptive edits may not seem enough to justify a temporary rangeblock. But I think documenting the ongoing disruption, for the record, has value. Geo Swan (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

13 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The perp here had one of his named IDs blocked, about three years ago. Since then they continue to return here, to harass me. Yes, I know the older ones are stale, but the recent ones are very recent.

All the edits from these addresses were devoted to reverting my good faith edits, or criticizing me. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

I know some administrators who close SPI requests have been impatient of requests I made here, suggesting I seek help elsewhere, like semi-protection. Unfortunately, admins at semi-protection also think I should seek help elsewhere. I have been asked why I don't try dispute resolution - which would be completely pointless as one of the main reasons vandals use sockpuppetry is to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. Some people have implied that I should keep this problem to myself, and just keep a keen eye on my watchlist, and pounce on and revert every instance of vandalism. However, since I have started over 3400 articles, and edited tens of thousands of articles, my watchlist grew too long for that kind of scrutiny well over a decade ago.

Anyhow, I have grown increasingly convinced I am not the only individual who made this individual's enemies list. I think the CommotioCerebri ID they created, when I first encountered them, had been merely the latest throwaway IDs they created. We have a couple of LTA who show a recognizable pattern of using IP addesses for idiosyncratic edits. And I think it continues to be useful to document this creep here, as we may recognize them someday to be another aspect of one of the recognized LTA, or someone who should join their ranks. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CommotioCerebri/Archive&oldid=1076202517"