Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th)

User:Nimbley6 (4th)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Nimbley6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Prior cases: Nimbley6 (2nd) and Nimbley6 (3rd)
See also, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bennet556

Report submission by

Alanraywiki (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Multiple disruptive entries in articles related to Scotland and related cities.[1]. In addition, vandalism in the entirely unrelated article of Huntington Beach, California, an unusual connection done several times by this sockpuppeteer.[2]. Lastly, IP address fits in range of earlier SSP case.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/June 2008#17

Added User:Mixedupworld. Typical disruptions in Scottish cities (Glasgow,Kilmaurs), and attributing to Scotland things that are not ([3]). Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:78.148.125.88 and User:89.241.141.16. The edits are remarkably similar to those from the other accounts listed here. The articles are the same and the quality of the edits are the same, i.e., there are successive edits attempting to change infobox pictures and tweaking official names of cities.
- Articles for 89.241.141.16 include Edinburgh and Hurlford and edits similar to the Italian Job edit for Mixedupworld: to wit, Trainspotting and Outpost.
- Articles for 78.148.125.88 include Edinburgh, Kilmaurs, and Kilmarnock. -Rrius (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added user:Martinnutini. Edits to Scotland are very similar to those by user:Mixedupworld. Likes to introduce multiple extra headings, eg Mixedupworld diff vs Martinnutini diff. Mixedupworld is currently blocked, hence this may also be block evasion. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 78.148.56.202. Similar heading-inserting edits to Scotland, eg this diff. Compare to edits (already given above) by Mixedupworld and Martinnutini. Mixedupworld is on a week long block, so this may be more block evasion. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added user:Amywinehouse22. More disruption to Hurlford and Glasgow, and a low-quality new article in Kilmarnock Bus Station including the same kind of badly framed, through-the-windscreen photo that user:Martinnutini was propagating. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After being added to this case, User:Amywinehouse22 vandalized this very page, acknowledging he is a sock. -Rrius (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added user:89.240.251.201. They removed a map image, reverted and added a semi-protection tag, were reverted, then added more sub-headings. When reverted they claimed that England, Wales and Northern Ireland have them so why can't Scotland (sounds familiar!) Cheers, This flag once was red 23:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added user:78.151.54.70, same operating procedure as previous examples - sub-heading fascination, etc. Cheers, This flag once was red 11:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a google search, I believe this is the identity of our puppet master. --Jza84 | Talk 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that explains a great deal. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite. It indicates we're dealing with a 12 year old child who lacks maturity rather than a disgruntled adult... which made me change my whole perspective on this rather odd episode to say the least! --Jza84 | Talk 22:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The next question is: What action is going to happen? Has someone blocked the registered sockpuppet accounts? What advice has and sould be given to the guy, given that he is only 12 years old? (And, as a more rhetorical one: where on earth was the parental/guardian supervision to help ensure appropriate use of the Internet in all of this?) DDStretch (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's said here that he is sorry for any distruption. We may be getting through to him now. --Jza84 | Talk 11:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If only it were that easy. See user:78.148.124.171. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addinga few more IP addresses that seem to display the characteristic style of this child. DDStretch (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And another (user:78.148.203.81), preceding similar edits by user:89.241.142.169. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And another, with identical vandalism to Scotland: 84.13.96.170. DDStretch (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And 78.144.142.134. Typical fiddling with area maps and changing UK to Scotland. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And 78.148.191.141 added. The ISP is the same; however, the modus operandi seems now to be page-blanking. This flag once was red 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection for Scotland seems to have driven our favourite child to "Still Game": 78.144.86.67 has struck at Jack Jarvis (Still Game character), Victor McDade and others. This flag once was red 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, this user also exists on Wikimedia Commons as Scotland2345. He has posted numerous copyright-violating images there, including two used today in List of Still Game characters. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added 78.144.80.150. Excess subheads, changing UK flags to Scots, plenty of image adds to Kilmarnock railway station from the Scotland2345 Commons account. Kevin Forsyth (talk)

Added Yes I Can Try, he's continuing to add images to Kilmarnock railway station and Ayrshire from the Scotland2345 Commons account. In desperation, his first edit was an attempt to request admin status. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Ohhh nooo; not another sock? GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding Nimbley6, which is itself a sock of Bennet556, I count 21 socks as of 01:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC). Of those, six are accounts and fifteen are IPs. At what point does it become appropriate to range block. -Rrius (talk)

Well, a range block is to be used as an absolute last resort. Presently, I'm more in favour of using mentoring with a combination of WP:RBI. However, I'm open to suggestions on how to manage this child as effectively as possible. --Jza84 | Talk 01:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had an exchange with the puppetmaster on 15 July wherein he at one point said, "The only way ill stop is if the scotland page gets protected because that seems to my most eddited point so far. So i would probiably portect scotland." He later said, "Sorry for annoying wikipedia. Ill just use what the site is for reading information."

I doubt that he was serious with that last bit. If he was, he went back on his word in less than 40 minutes and made 15 more useless edits at that IP. He has subsequently made more from other IPs. A week later, I find it hard to believe that he has any interest in being mentored.

Moreover, he is violating policy by evading a block. If he wants to be mentored, he should go back to Bennet556 ask for it to be unblocked and in exchange for being adopted and behaving himself (perhaps with additional promises). Mentoring a person who goes from IP to IP and account to account in knowing violation of policy without bothering to attempt the avenue of appeal he has been informed of seems both wrong-headed and futile. -Rrius (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that's fair - I'm certainly not from the school of thought that this child should continue with his distruption. We need a user/admin who is familliar with range blocks to take a look at this case then in that case. Does anybody know of one? --Jza84 | Talk 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, though I agree that action needs to be taken quickly now: I've just reimposed protection to Scotland for example. I think we may need to request a CheckUser on all the IP addresses he has used to see if there would be any legitimate users who might be inconvenienced by a range block. (We may also flush out some other sleeping socks that way too.) I still wonder if the age of the child would merit finding out who might be responsible for any supervised access to the Internet on the machines that have been used for this vandalism, given that it is so extensive and determined: it certainly ranks above a one-off series of actions that a child might blunder into through accident and momentary lack of attention by any responsible supervising adult. I'm not pushing for this, but I think it is something worth considering if only to clearly reject it. DDStretch (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's also a measured observation and consideration you put forward. Likewise, I'm coming round to the idea that we need some impartial and experienced bodies to actually take a thorough look at this case and advise accordingly. I have to say though, that as frustrated as we all are, and as liberal as some other admins can be, I would be comfortable with "no action" at all - we're editors, not mole whackers. --Jza84 | Talk 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just came across Wikipedia:Long term abuse, which may be an appropriate page for us to look through as a collective. --Jza84 | Talk 02:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had been indefinitely blocking the IP addresses so that only registered users could use the addresses, with a suitable message advisng people to register and telling them how to. However, I've just been told that we must not do this (see User talk:Ddstretch#IP blocks), as it locks out legitimate users, and so I'm not sure how else we can solve this without calling in other help now with some urgency. I'm not able to do much for a while now for various reasons, but something should be done with some urgency, I think. DDStretch (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure an indef block is necessarily that effective, anyway, since our mutual fiend gets a new IP address every 24 hours or so. If you're able to block for, say, 24 hours each time that should be just as effective (I do appreciate you may not be around Wikipedia as much as you have been, however). Cheers, This flag once was red 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

This is too big for SSP. Request a range block perhaps. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]