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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fireboats_of_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=810467959
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.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
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.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Updates: Since I started the most recent instance of this SPI the individual or individuals behind CommotioCerebri has obfuscated the redirect, multiplie times:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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:
As with their previous wikistalking attempts my wikihounders continued, even after I informed them of this SPI:
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Umm what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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:
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)
These recent edits are duplicates of the disruptive edits of earlier sockpuppets... [14], [15] Geo Swan ( talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
IP edits too old. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
These two edits show the typical wikistalking of my contributions I have come to know from this indefinitely blocked vandal.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
Of course WP:3RR doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
47.18.147.174's disruptive 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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I've blocked the IP for 31h for vandalism. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fireboats_of_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=810467959
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.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
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.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Updates: Since I started the most recent instance of this SPI the individual or individuals behind CommotioCerebri has obfuscated the redirect, multiplie times:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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:
As with their previous wikistalking attempts my wikihounders continued, even after I informed them of this SPI:
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Umm what about this? https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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:
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)
These recent edits are duplicates of the disruptive edits of earlier sockpuppets... [14], [15] Geo Swan ( talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
IP edits too old. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
These two edits show the typical wikistalking of my contributions I have come to know from this indefinitely blocked vandal.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
Of course WP:3RR doesn't apply to reverting obvious vandalism. Geo Swan ( talk) 06:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Insufficient evidence. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
47.18.147.174's disruptive 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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I've blocked the IP for 31h for vandalism. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.