Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
I know it isn't my job to clerk the page and move comments, but the Clerks seem busy and I would think appreciate it. Pardon if I'm wrong.
Line 82: Line 82:
*I know that [[User:DeltaQuad]] and the other CUs and Clerks are busy, but if I were still a clerk, endorsing a CU would be a no brainer considering the linkage of named accounts. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
*I know that [[User:DeltaQuad]] and the other CUs and Clerks are busy, but if I were still a clerk, endorsing a CU would be a no brainer considering the linkage of named accounts. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


**No range blocks? Really? Just to verify my impression of what ranges are being used, I looked at the contributions of the first 50 IP addresses under 166.137.191. Fifteen have never had any contributions and are probably not available to the socker since they are consecutive (166.137.191.0-15). Five seem to have legitimate contributions with no recent socking (only one of these has been active in the last month). Three have been used by the apparent socker in the last rwo months but have since made legitimate edits. The other twenty-seven IPs in this range have all been used by the apparent sock in the last two months with no subsequent legitimate edits. Thirteen of the thirty IPs used by the socker have been used in the last week alone. I'm curious. What does it take to justify a range block? {{unsigned|Meters}}
*No range blocks? Really? Just to verify my impression of what ranges are being used, I looked at the contributions of the first 50 IP addresses under 166.137.191. Fifteen have never had any contributions and are probably not available to the socker since they are consecutive (166.137.191.0-15). Five seem to have legitimate contributions with no recent socking (only one of these has been active in the last month). Three have been used by the apparent socker in the last rwo months but have since made legitimate edits. The other twenty-seven IPs in this range have all been used by the apparent sock in the last two months with no subsequent legitimate edits. Thirteen of the thirty IPs used by the socker have been used in the last week alone. I'm curious. What does it take to justify a range block? {{unsigned|Meters}}
**That is part of a /9 network, or half of a Class A network, 8,388,608 hosts. Narrowing it down can be tricky and often not fruitful. Having 50 addresses that have no action on them doesn't influence the decision much if many of the other 8 million do have action, and have known good users on them. Range blocks are often handy, but not a cure-all, and sometimes impractical. CUs have access to better tools than you and I, so when they say it isn't practical, there is usually a good reason but they can't fully disclose why. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 23:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>======

Revision as of 23:28, 1 April 2014

Altimgamr

Altimgamr (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
10 March 2014

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK - same editing patterns on Buick Lucerne (deliberately adding in unencyclopedic information). Both also have an infatuation with "weebly"-hosted sources, as [1] shows, as does the master's edits like [2]. I wonder if we could get a range block on the first range of IPs, and have monitors on the other ranges this user used. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • information Note: I added some additional accounts following an email from Altimgamr admitting that he is Jasons99Contour, Mrtacos2, and Jason London. Some of the articles highly edited by him have been protected allowing only autoconfirmed contributors. This has brought on the creation of some new accounts Jason London and KimJMykle building up their edit count to become autoconfirmed. (A review of the edit history of KimJMykle indicates another sock based on behavioral patterns.) Once the account becomes autoconfirmed, I'm seeing the same editing as before. Accordingly, I would request a sleeper check for additional accounts. Cindy(talk) 20:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a diff in which IP 166.137.191.46, in one of the normal ranges, cites a fake video that they have added to YouTube. This is at least the second one I've seen by this user. Bahooka (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Given new accounts were created after the block can a CU take a look please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - Given the amount of CU cases, I must ask for more diffs. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural decline since there's a case below. --Rschen7754 20:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29 March 2014

– A checkuser is in the process of checking relevant users.

Suspected sockpuppets

First two accounts are obvious, and already blocked accordingly: both created Ford Shelby CV525 (44thPresidentOfUSA: [3], Nissan Maxima: [4]), which is a recreation of the same hoax Altimgamr propegated as Saleen S281 Sedan (with the same claimed sourcing to Motor Trend that didn't hold up). Abcdef(etc.) popped up doing the exact same thing: [5].

However the thirdfourth account is an oddity; while not (yet?) making any edits itself, its name is an obvious reference and the edit by Nissan Maxima to its talk page [6] raises an eyebrow (why would they go and do that, as the only edit not the recreation mentioned above, unless it was because it was their own account?). Requesting CU for confirmation on Annoying duck and for a sleeper check. The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to adding the third account above, CindamuseBot (talk · contribs) popped up and laid down a string of gibberish at Talk:Ford Shelby CV525; obviously the same fellow. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • I've blocked a few of these hard, no email, autoblock, no talk page, finally had to salt the talk page where they were recreating the article. Basic bored troll with access to a lot of IPs. It would be helpful for a CU to explore the idea of a short term range block if that is practical. In my opinion, a CU is strongly recommended, to check a range and perhaps snag any accounts he hasn't used yet. Note: he published his password on the 44th account, I revdel'ed, logged into his account to verify it was really the password, then hardblocked. That account log should show an IP from NC, which is me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that that 166.137.191. 166.137.208. , and 174.141.208. should be considered for the range block also. I've see at least 20 IPs from these ranges that seem to be the same car article vandal (commenting on each other's talk pages, referencing the bogus Ford Shelby CV525 source, trolling on the car talk pages, etc.). Meters (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can add 166.137.191.20 to the list when considering a range block. Same types of edits. Bahooka (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also just added User:Give me your own laptop under March 10. I'm not quite sure where to put new ones to the ever-growing pile of socks. Bahooka (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE to CU. The 44th account mentioned the sockmaster in his talk page revert summaries, if that helps. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE 2 - I semiprotected for a week and added User:The water bottle after two obvious blanking attempts. Feel free to modify without asking. IP was blocked, verified by their last edit as well as blanking, I didn't bother listing them above. ADDED: I also blocked an IP and protected the talk page after some more socktrolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No range blocks? Really? Just to verify my impression of what ranges are being used, I looked at the contributions of the first 50 IP addresses under 166.137.191. Fifteen have never had any contributions and are probably not available to the socker since they are consecutive (166.137.191.0-15). Five seem to have legitimate contributions with no recent socking (only one of these has been active in the last month). Three have been used by the apparent socker in the last rwo months but have since made legitimate edits. The other twenty-seven IPs in this range have all been used by the apparent sock in the last two months with no subsequent legitimate edits. Thirteen of the thirty IPs used by the socker have been used in the last week alone. I'm curious. What does it take to justify a range block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)
    • That is part of a /9 network, or half of a Class A network, 8,388,608 hosts. Narrowing it down can be tricky and often not fruitful. Having 50 addresses that have no action on them doesn't influence the decision much if many of the other 8 million do have action, and have known good users on them. Range blocks are often handy, but not a cure-all, and sometimes impractical. CUs have access to better tools than you and I, so when they say it isn't practical, there is usually a good reason but they can't fully disclose why. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • @Risker: could you comment on this? --Rschen7754 20:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will comment further later on; however, having done some checks in relation to this already, please NO RANGE BLOCKS. The primary related ranges are active with many appropriate accounts, including many "good editor" new/unconfirmed users who would be shut out. Risker (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- --

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Altimgamr&diff=602338756&oldid=602337595

Leave a Reply