Stumink and the IP have a remarkable number of pages that they both edit. On all of them, they both attempt to push a rather subtle pro-western POV, although I have not (yet) come across explicit edit warring. I have given some examples below; there are doubtless many more.
I am confidant that a user compare report will show many many more. Again, neither user is explicitly edit warring, but rather using the accounts to make it appear as though some consensus exists for their edits. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I don't think that anyone thtat is that prolific would bother logging off every few minutes. Not to mention that that WP provides the option to "keep me logged in for 30 days" and a warning that you are not logged in when you hit edit without logging in. Can anyone be that forgetful? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Darkwind:; I can see that that would be an issue. What if you issued a warning saying that if he is found soft-socking again, the account Stumink will be blocked? He is not a disruptive editor, and a block would be a major inconvenience. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional IPs suspected to be the same user
Cambodia [ * Guatemala [ * Football * and others POV mentioned in four edits Use of word "unneeded" and removal of text on US * "Liberation" becomes "independence" (and impossible construction too!) * "Freedom" becomes "independence" * April 2014 *
Claimin POV 10 times * Use of terms "adjusted" and "unneeded * Cambodia * Football * April 2014 *
Vietnam * POV * Guatemala * Deletion of text on US * Footballer * "More accurate" * April - May 2013 * Deletion of positive text on Iran *
Guatemala *
Football * Cambodia * Nicaragua * Deleting text on US * December 2011 - January 2012 *
Football *, * Two measures "exucuted" * Cambodia, Massacre at Hue * Deleting negative text Saudi Arabia * April 2014 *
Cambodia, Massacre at Hue * POV claim 5 times * Use of the word "undue" five times; "adjust" 5 times * Football * April 2014 *
Cambodia, Guatemala, football, delete text on US, 5 x Pov, 4 x "adjust" * May 2013, March 2014
Prior admissions of editing as IP
PLEASE Note that this IP was subject of an investigation in October 2013, in which Stumink, TheTimesAreAChanging and the IP were suspected of all being puppets of Student7. Stumink again admitted to being the IP
Prior warnings
Editing despite being blocked
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Stumink has a significant previous track record of Sockpuppetry, using IPs that look like 88.104.2XX.XX They were blocked once before for socking. Immediately after, they were warned about evading that block, and told that further violations would lead to further blocks. I filed an SPI against them last year, which ended with another logged warning that further such behavior would be met with a block on the parent account.
There are also numerous other instances of getting into trouble for editing/edit warring with the same IP range; [2], [3], [4].
In this particular case, the IP is from the same range, 88.104.2XX.XX. They display a very similar interest in political history articles. Specifically;
Iraq-war related; Stumink, Stumink, IP Vanamonde93 ( talk) 02:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
New World indigenous peoples; Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP
Leftist movements in Latin America; Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP
European Football; Stumink, IP
Very similar tendency to push a subtle neocon POV. Specifically, minimizing the role of While colonials in violence against Native Americans; Stumink, Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP.
Very similar terse edit summaries, often concealing the fact that the POV of the page had been shifted (regardless of whether the change was appropriate); Stumink, Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP.
I could provide a lot more such; there are overlaps in Indian colonial history, and SE Asia as well. Since one of the accounts is an IP, I believe that a CU cannot be requested, but I think behavioral data is pretty clear in this case. It seems to me that since multiple logged warnings seem to have no effect, it is time to walk the talk and impose a longer block on the parent account. Even if my assessment of the POV is incorrect, and I believe it is not, there are still changes in article POV being made, and the multiple accounts suggests a support for that kind of change that does not in fact exist. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Checkuser comment: It is very likely that Stumink has been editing logged-out on multiple occasions over an extended period of time. However, he is doing so with dynamic IP addresses in extremely busy ranges. There is sufficient evidence of deliberately editing logged-out that one could probably justify an extensive block of the main account; that won't do anything to prevent the logged-out editing, though. In fact, he appears to be doing more logged-out than logged-in editing already. IP range block would not be appropriate due to heavy legitimate usage. Risker ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Stumink makes this edit at 9:44AM, followed quickly this similar removal by the IP 4 minutes later. As the archived case will show, Stumink has been blocked several times for socking, and it has always been with IP addresses which look like 88.104.211.XXX. The last block was for two weeks, applied 4 months ago. There have also been several warnings. Mike V, you dealt with this the previous time, so your input would be appreciated, and might make this quicker to close. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
That is indeed my IP. I edited the page without realizing I had logged out after the first edit. Stumink ( talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The link here is quite obvious; the IP's edits match Stumink's interest in modifying content critical of colonialism in Africa and south Asia to make it less critical. The IP matches a range which Stumink has been known to frequent; see the archived reports.
The reason I am reporting this, however, goes far beyond three logged out edits. Frankly, I am fed to the teeth with Stumink's logged-out editing. To me, it is clear that Stumink is attempting to avoid scrutiny. Consider the following:
Stumink has been blocked thrice for logged out editing. He has also been formally warned and/or reminded numerous times. Nonetheless, in November this year he was at it again: and the logged out editing was quite obviously deliberate, as I outlined in my reminder here.
Despite that warning, Stumink has edited logged out on 16, 17, and 20 December, despite editing with his main account on all of those days. All of the edits in question were shifting the POV of an article, making the avoidance of scrutiny much more of a problem. How much more slack are we going cut this user? Vanamonde ( talk) 16:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same edits as the editor about adding famines in India which were out of the British control. Here are the diffs [6] and [7] Adamgerber80 ( talk) 16:42, 22 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.
Censoring the term "Kaffir" in relation to Africa and Mahatma Gandhi, [8] [9] like Stumink. [10] Capitals00 ( talk) 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See below. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Page overlap is considerable, particularly for the first two named accounts. The pattern of pages edited are a Stumink hallmark; the vast majority are related to conflicts between colonizers and indigenous people, or between western militaries and communist forces, in a wide variety of countries. Indeed the geographic range is so wide, that colonialism or cold war conflict is the only real theme to the editing here. The edits are consistently attempting to shift our portrayal of colonials in a more positive light, particularly with respect to famine under colonial governments. Similar time cards, of edits occurring all over the place except for 2-6 AM UTC; the clustered editing to me also suggests socking. Similarly heavy tilt toward mainspace edits. I'm aware that a CU cannot look at the IP, but it's within or close to ranges we have previously blocked for Stumink. Full disclosure: I was alerted to these accounts off of en.wiki, for reasons that are quite unclear to me. But I have investigated them myself, and am quite convinced, particularly as to the first two: I tangled with Stumink quite a bit, before his indef. If the above is unconvincing, I can attempt to explain in greater detail, but I've had a long work day, and can't face up to it at this moment. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Stumink and the IP have a remarkable number of pages that they both edit. On all of them, they both attempt to push a rather subtle pro-western POV, although I have not (yet) come across explicit edit warring. I have given some examples below; there are doubtless many more.
I am confidant that a user compare report will show many many more. Again, neither user is explicitly edit warring, but rather using the accounts to make it appear as though some consensus exists for their edits. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I don't think that anyone thtat is that prolific would bother logging off every few minutes. Not to mention that that WP provides the option to "keep me logged in for 30 days" and a warning that you are not logged in when you hit edit without logging in. Can anyone be that forgetful? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Darkwind:; I can see that that would be an issue. What if you issued a warning saying that if he is found soft-socking again, the account Stumink will be blocked? He is not a disruptive editor, and a block would be a major inconvenience. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 17:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional IPs suspected to be the same user
Cambodia [ * Guatemala [ * Football * and others POV mentioned in four edits Use of word "unneeded" and removal of text on US * "Liberation" becomes "independence" (and impossible construction too!) * "Freedom" becomes "independence" * April 2014 *
Claimin POV 10 times * Use of terms "adjusted" and "unneeded * Cambodia * Football * April 2014 *
Vietnam * POV * Guatemala * Deletion of text on US * Footballer * "More accurate" * April - May 2013 * Deletion of positive text on Iran *
Guatemala *
Football * Cambodia * Nicaragua * Deleting text on US * December 2011 - January 2012 *
Football *, * Two measures "exucuted" * Cambodia, Massacre at Hue * Deleting negative text Saudi Arabia * April 2014 *
Cambodia, Massacre at Hue * POV claim 5 times * Use of the word "undue" five times; "adjust" 5 times * Football * April 2014 *
Cambodia, Guatemala, football, delete text on US, 5 x Pov, 4 x "adjust" * May 2013, March 2014
Prior admissions of editing as IP
PLEASE Note that this IP was subject of an investigation in October 2013, in which Stumink, TheTimesAreAChanging and the IP were suspected of all being puppets of Student7. Stumink again admitted to being the IP
Prior warnings
Editing despite being blocked
Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 00:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Stumink has a significant previous track record of Sockpuppetry, using IPs that look like 88.104.2XX.XX They were blocked once before for socking. Immediately after, they were warned about evading that block, and told that further violations would lead to further blocks. I filed an SPI against them last year, which ended with another logged warning that further such behavior would be met with a block on the parent account.
There are also numerous other instances of getting into trouble for editing/edit warring with the same IP range; [2], [3], [4].
In this particular case, the IP is from the same range, 88.104.2XX.XX. They display a very similar interest in political history articles. Specifically;
Iraq-war related; Stumink, Stumink, IP Vanamonde93 ( talk) 02:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
New World indigenous peoples; Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP
Leftist movements in Latin America; Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP
European Football; Stumink, IP
Very similar tendency to push a subtle neocon POV. Specifically, minimizing the role of While colonials in violence against Native Americans; Stumink, Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP.
Very similar terse edit summaries, often concealing the fact that the POV of the page had been shifted (regardless of whether the change was appropriate); Stumink, Stumink, Stumink, IP, IP, IP.
I could provide a lot more such; there are overlaps in Indian colonial history, and SE Asia as well. Since one of the accounts is an IP, I believe that a CU cannot be requested, but I think behavioral data is pretty clear in this case. It seems to me that since multiple logged warnings seem to have no effect, it is time to walk the talk and impose a longer block on the parent account. Even if my assessment of the POV is incorrect, and I believe it is not, there are still changes in article POV being made, and the multiple accounts suggests a support for that kind of change that does not in fact exist. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Checkuser comment: It is very likely that Stumink has been editing logged-out on multiple occasions over an extended period of time. However, he is doing so with dynamic IP addresses in extremely busy ranges. There is sufficient evidence of deliberately editing logged-out that one could probably justify an extensive block of the main account; that won't do anything to prevent the logged-out editing, though. In fact, he appears to be doing more logged-out than logged-in editing already. IP range block would not be appropriate due to heavy legitimate usage. Risker ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Stumink makes this edit at 9:44AM, followed quickly this similar removal by the IP 4 minutes later. As the archived case will show, Stumink has been blocked several times for socking, and it has always been with IP addresses which look like 88.104.211.XXX. The last block was for two weeks, applied 4 months ago. There have also been several warnings. Mike V, you dealt with this the previous time, so your input would be appreciated, and might make this quicker to close. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
That is indeed my IP. I edited the page without realizing I had logged out after the first edit. Stumink ( talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The link here is quite obvious; the IP's edits match Stumink's interest in modifying content critical of colonialism in Africa and south Asia to make it less critical. The IP matches a range which Stumink has been known to frequent; see the archived reports.
The reason I am reporting this, however, goes far beyond three logged out edits. Frankly, I am fed to the teeth with Stumink's logged-out editing. To me, it is clear that Stumink is attempting to avoid scrutiny. Consider the following:
Stumink has been blocked thrice for logged out editing. He has also been formally warned and/or reminded numerous times. Nonetheless, in November this year he was at it again: and the logged out editing was quite obviously deliberate, as I outlined in my reminder here.
Despite that warning, Stumink has edited logged out on 16, 17, and 20 December, despite editing with his main account on all of those days. All of the edits in question were shifting the POV of an article, making the avoidance of scrutiny much more of a problem. How much more slack are we going cut this user? Vanamonde ( talk) 16:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same edits as the editor about adding famines in India which were out of the British control. Here are the diffs [6] and [7] Adamgerber80 ( talk) 16:42, 22 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.
Censoring the term "Kaffir" in relation to Africa and Mahatma Gandhi, [8] [9] like Stumink. [10] Capitals00 ( talk) 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See below. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Page overlap is considerable, particularly for the first two named accounts. The pattern of pages edited are a Stumink hallmark; the vast majority are related to conflicts between colonizers and indigenous people, or between western militaries and communist forces, in a wide variety of countries. Indeed the geographic range is so wide, that colonialism or cold war conflict is the only real theme to the editing here. The edits are consistently attempting to shift our portrayal of colonials in a more positive light, particularly with respect to famine under colonial governments. Similar time cards, of edits occurring all over the place except for 2-6 AM UTC; the clustered editing to me also suggests socking. Similarly heavy tilt toward mainspace edits. I'm aware that a CU cannot look at the IP, but it's within or close to ranges we have previously blocked for Stumink. Full disclosure: I was alerted to these accounts off of en.wiki, for reasons that are quite unclear to me. But I have investigated them myself, and am quite convinced, particularly as to the first two: I tangled with Stumink quite a bit, before his indef. If the above is unconvincing, I can attempt to explain in greater detail, but I've had a long work day, and can't face up to it at this moment. Vanamonde ( Talk) 04:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)