User:Mutt Lunker/sandbox/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/ 92.5.0.0/19 http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/?range=92.5.8.0%2F24&limit= http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/?range=92.12.0.0%2F16&limit= http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib/?range=92.5.0.0%2F19&limit= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cassandrathesceptic

http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.5.8.0%2F24&contribs=

http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.12.0.0%2F16&contribs=

http://toolserver.org/~helloannyong/range/?range=92.5.0.0/19

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/rangecontribs/ 92.5.0.0/19 92.12.0.0/16 92.5.8.0/24

Chronological list of edits

September 2104 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.5.11.104 unsigned

Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?

I posted the following at the Help Desk earlier this evening but was advised to come here. I'm in need of advice more than intervention, at least at this point, so I hope it is suitable to place it here. This is my query:

Since mid June, or possibly sooner, there has been a sustained pattern of edits to a number of articles related to the Scots language (most recently the main target being History of the Scots language) by a variety of IPs but which seem to be by the same user, not least because they often style themself as "Cassandra". Most of the edits are to talk pages, using them like a discussion page and promulgating either unsupported WP:OR, or lately more often purporting to be supported by sources which, on investigation, say at best something quite different to what is claimed by the IP or indeed quite the reverse of what they are claiming. Although it is possible that the user is extremely incompetent in their understanding of the sources they purport to be citing, it seems more likely, particularly after such a sustained period and with such a consistent pattern, that they are intentionally misrepresenting sources to give their personal views credibility. As well as to talk pages, there is also a number of related edits to the article pages themselves.

I, and some other users, have often simply reverted these edits, with explanations in edit summaries. I have however also, at some length (e.g. at Talk:History of the Scots language, also at Talk:Scots language but much of it subsequently deleted per WP:NOTFORUM), tried to engage with the IP on article talk pages, trying to help them understand the purpose of those talk pages, explaining about OR and often providing detailed analysis of their misrepresentaion of sources, initially in the hope that they would understand how to use sources correctly, then lately that the exposure of their mendacity would get them to desist or use sources accurately and honestly.

In the main these discussions would have been better carried out away from the article talk pages as they pertain more, or entirely, to the IP's editing rather than discussion of improvement to the article per se. As numerous and changing IPs are used by the editor it would serve no purpose to address them on one of these IP talk pages. A request to engage on my own talk page has not been accepted and I have also tried to encourage them to open a user account, to no avail. The usage of multiple IPs makes it difficult to keep track of their edits and I think it is credible that they may be avoiding opening an account to avoid sanctions that could be applied (accumulation of warnings and possibly resultant blocks). Their usage of multiple IPs also unfairly calls into question any IP edits which happen to be made by another editor entirely.

It seems clear now that the misrepresentation of sources indicates that the edits are not in good faith. The IP shows no sign of mending their ways and continues to persist in making edits in the same vein as before. I'm not sure that semi-protecting affected article talk pages to discourage forum-style posts, tedious as they are to deal with, would be regarded as appropriate although I'd be interested to hear advice on this. It may be more appropriate to semi-protect article pages but as the edits in question are spread over a number of articles and, though sustained over some months now, usually made with gaps of at least several days or weeks to any individual article.

The pattern is sustained across more than one article rather than particularly frequent to any individual article, so is semi-protection an appropriate tool here? If it is, I think the most-affected article currently is "History of the Scots language". Is there any other advice as to how this matter could be addressed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we start talking about blocking, do you have instances of Cassandra editing articles to remove sourced information or insert OR or dodgy sources? At the end of the day, all sorts of people post all sorts of stuff on talkpages, which other editors are free to ignore if it really is nonsense(in this case, I really wouldn't know enough to comment without research). I have known people be blocked for overrunning talkpages with comments, but it's very rare. However, inserting duff info into articles is a different problem entirely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the most recent instance I'm aware of, which claims that a RS contradicts the text of the article when in fact it supports it (elaborated in my post on the talk page). I think it is likely that Cassandra is responsible for all IP edits to this article going back to June, which are of a similar character, largely crowbarring in superfluous/off-topic qualifications to the text along the lines of unsupported assertions on the talk page. In regard to the majority of their edits, which are OR postulation appearing on talk pages, I could just start taking the line that if Cassandra says a source says X, they are probably wrong or lying and remove them per WP:NOTFORUM but instead I have been wasting considerable time checking out the sources to see if they do support their assertions. Cassandra has already called foul regarding removal of forum-type posts from talk pages.

I wasn't particularly thinking of blocking as a remedy right now, just pointing out that they may well be aware that appearing as a new IP every other time they edit means a lack of an easily traced record of their editing behaviour or a central repository of comments made to them or warnings on a user talk page which, if seen together, might attract more severe warnings, or potentially indeed a block. I was wondering more if semi-protection would be suitable, so that at least they can't mess with the article, unless of course they finally get themself an account and if they did that, users would then know to be wary that any article edits by Cassandra would likely follow the earlier pattern of misrepresenting sources and inserting OR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any advice? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
To see how many IPs seem to be the same person, I looked through the rangecontribs from 92.5.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). I found ten IPs from 92.5.* promoting the same thesis, and noticed that the following one self-identified as 'Cassandra' at Talk:Middle Scots:
It does not violate Wikipedia policy to promote a thesis about the Scots language across multiple articles, but to do so with no concern for consensus is a problem. The views expressed by Cassandra at Talk:History of the Scots language/Archive 1#Third Opinion request argue that Wikipedia has a duty to include her side of the argument, which of course is not something found in our policy. Repeatedly pushing your views at one article using multiple IPs (against others' objections) *does* violate WP:SOCK. I suggest three months of semiprotection for Scots language and History of the Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Of concern is Cassandra's statement on Talk:History_of_the_Scots_language#Third_Opinion_request where Mutt's rebuttal of her proposal is answered by, what is effectively an affirmation that she is deliberately misrepresenting the source in order to force the reader to read the source to determine the actuality of the statement. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all for this. I'll request semiprotection as suggested.
It's also useful to know that this is in fact a violation of WP:SOCK and thanks for pointing out Cassandra's admission of misrepresentation. Now I read it again, I think I did clock it but assumed that couldn't have been the intended meaning as it is so barefaced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I had to read it a couple of times to make sure it said what I thought she said. Basically, it seems like the whole exercise, at least for her, has been to effectively vandalise, for want of a better term, the article in such a way by misrepresenting sources and synthesising her POV so that any reader is forced to dig through the sources that would be the reference for those statements made in the article. Very, very poor scholarship. Blackmane (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Cassandra/Scots language articles

I'm most grateful for your advice about Cassandra's edits on Scots language articles and have requested semi-protection for the two articles as advised. Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at IP edits on Scots language and History of the Scots language which fit Cassandra's line of edits and tagged the IPs as being socks of each other (see this cat (the choice of which IP is puppetmaster is by necessity fairly arbitrary)), largely to have one place where these edits can be viewed together more easily. I did start investigating IP edits to other articles this initial group of IPs has also edited but this could be a major task and there is already somewhat of a pattern establishing itself so I thought I'd give you a shout.
I think the earliest edit so far is this one, which informally identifies as "Steve A." rather than Cassandra. There are some other edits identifying as "Steve A." and also as "Yorkshire Tyke". Almost all of the IPs are in the range 92.5.-. Of the ones outside of this range, the one starting 90.- has made more clearly vandalous entries to an article page than fits the pattern with the 92.5.-s but does make a reference to "Tyke" (emboldened to misbehave more when the IP points less clearly to them?). The current main target of the edits seems to have moved to Middle Scots incidentally.
The constant IP-hopping and multiple informal identity names used further points to nefarious intent. Can you advise on any measures which would be appropriate in the light of this? Can one warn an IP range, or could one make a temporary block to an IP range, if that's appropriate or practicable, or would it be so wide as to have a likelihood of blocking blameless users? Any other advice? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The range 92.5.0.0/16 is probably too large to block. You can periodically check the contributions from that range using this rangecontribs link if you wish. If in the future you find that he is trying to actively edit some Scots-related article (making several controversial edits per week) you could let me know or make a new request at WP:RFPP. If the problem is still going on in three weeks I'd suggest you file a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations just to simply the recordkeeping. I can assist with the report if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The link will be very handy to keep track of where he's popping up. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ed, just to keep you updated, Cassandra has been persisting in their socking, largely with blatant soapboxing across several Scotland related article talk pages, including a transparent attempt to ostensibly suggest one change whilst slipping in another in their suggested wording (the first easily shown to be factually inaccurate, the second fitting the pattern of their soapboxing). The articles he is targetting are increasingly distant from the more central, pertinent ones, Scottish language and History of the Scots language, to the point of even greater redundancy of their posts (lately Scottish national identity and Scotland in the Late Middle Ages?!) presumably in an attempt to evade scrutiny. There is no attempt to focus on improvement to the articles, just a personal reflection based on their own impression. I have posted four warnings for "Using (a) talk page as forum" in just over a day, two each at User talk:92.5.12.6 and User talk:92.5.6.144, with notes at the latter linking the two sets of edits.
If, following any further like activity, I were to formally report this, as the recent edits are split across two IPs would it require a Sockpuppet investigation for action to be taken? The quacking is ear-splitting though. I guess this would only result in sanctions against the IPs in question as he'd pop up elsewhere but it would be a start in building a case. Any thoughts?
Incidentally, I did some further trawling to expand the list of IP edits suspected of being the same editor, per [1]. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It's good that you are keeping on top of this. The category at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139 will serve to document the extent of the problem. I've blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. The rangecontribs is here. Let's see if that does any good. I don't think that leaving any more warnings for this editor is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Not knowing how IP addresses work and out of interest, is that a slightly different result than the similar range ending in /16 that you mentioned above? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The /19 range contains 8 times fewer addresses. You can see from the rangecontribs that most of the edits seem to fit the known behavior of Cassandra. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it seemed to be a closer fit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra sock resumption

Hi Ed, it's no great surprise to me that the Cassandra IP editor seems to be back in action after their block. There have been a couple of borderline edits on talk pages, not directly regarding Scots language but in the same general sphere, posting for general discussion rather than any apparent improvement to the article (this and this). I tagged the IP's user pages as likely socks but didn't respond to or revert the edits. Perhaps they were dipping the toe in the water as the old pattern, soapboxing their pet grievance about Scots, has re-commenced, here. (Interestingly that edit didn't show up in the rangecontribs you had set, by the way.) They do not seem to have got the message from their block apparently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now addressed by [2] and [3]. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra sock back from holiday

Hi Ed, just letting you know that the self-styled "Cassandra" sock has made a reappearance today after a couple of months of inactivity. Not sure if it's worth any action yet with just one edit in the style of the old vexatious pattern but I'll keep you posted if the behaviour continues. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you find the links to where this was discussed before? If it's going to continue, we should open an SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Here are my past blocks with the name 'Cassandra' in them:
  • 20:13, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.12.99.105 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Abusing multiple accounts: Cassandra, the Scots language POV warrior. There was a past ANI discussion (search for 'Cassandra'))
  • 20:01, 29 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Continued unhelpful edits. Scots language POV warrior. See log entry for my previous block of this range)
In terms of further action, a reblock of 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two months might be considered. Here are the rangecontribs from the /19. Might be too large to block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
As well as the ANI discussion you've linked above it was discussed on your talk page here and here. Was that what you wanted? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that helps. If an SPI gets opened, the master could be shown as 92.5.15.139 (talk · contribs). We already have Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 92.5.15.139. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll keep an eye on any developments. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
So far there is only one edit in 2013 from this range. Not enough yet to bother with an SPI, I think. But keep an eye out for more edits. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I quite agree. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra IP sock

Hi Ed, I spotted a couple of (now thankfully rare) edits by the Cassandra IP-hopping sock just now. You'd given me a very handy range contributions link which I've been checking occasionally for activity, spotting the odd characteristic forum/POV-pushing edit over the last few months. Interestingly though, today's IP didn't show up, falling (slightly by the look of it) out of range. Not sure if this is at all significant and, not being fully au fait with the workings of range contributions, wondered either if it provided info for a further tweak, or just indicates they were editing from somewhere different to their usual base. Not to worry if it's just an anomaly and once again thanks for all the help. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. You can modify that rangecontribs link to 92.12.0.0/16 if you want to look for more edits from the new range. The old block was on 92.5.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) but it's no longer active. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, I'll keep an eye on the new range. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Shifting Cassandra

Thanks to your recent tweak to range contributions for the Cassandra sock I've picked up occasional recent edits. I spotted one today that fell out of range though (in the usual topic area but apparently benign as it happens) and wondered if this provided an indication for a further tweak on the range contribs. I'd be most grateful if this provides info for an adjustment, otherwise no worries. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I see this diff about James IV of Scotland and this one on Talk:Wars of Scottish Independence Also the new one at Talk:Modern Scots that you mentioned. These are good enough reasons to put a sock tag on the IP's user page as I see you've done. For more from 92.5.8.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) see this range. It's unnecessary to renew any blocks unless this gets worse. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. Yes the recent edits have largely not been destructive, though I'm still keeping an eye out as some hover around the same topic area. Not sure if they've mended their ways, are cooking up some new killer theory and readying to pounce or, I have pondered, maybe even having a rethink of their views. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra sock; sporadic but still persisting

Hi Ed, since I last contacted you about the so-called "Cassandra" sock at the end of April (here), the activity has been fairly slow but persistent and moving clearly back to their pattern of forum posts of their own OR theses. They don't seem to have mended their ways. Some examples are:

This, which I initially responded to but then removed it as the section was just a forum post on Cassandra's personal OR observations.

This exchange superficially might seem more reasonable but is really an attempt to concoct evidence for a similar theory.

There's also: this and this. This may well be correct but is unsupported speculation. This is OR stated as fact.

There are also a few others possibly less inappropriate but that do not really seem to be focused on improving the article such as this and several others.

The IP range contribs you gave me were [4] and [5] (no recent significant activity in the latter) but I think I came across the odd one that is out of these ranges too.

Do you think another time-limited block of the IP range would be appropriate? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This problem has gone on long enough that it's best if you file this at WP:SPI. Let me know if you need assistance with filing it. Since the user doesn't appear to have a registered account, you could open the SPI under the name 'Cassandra.' If you do so I can add my own comment to the sockpuppet report. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Ed, I'll get on the case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mutt_Lunker/sandbox/Archive_2&oldid=1210388049"