Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/107.215.53.37/Archive
107.215.53.37
- 107.215.53.37 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 January 2019[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets[edit]
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
2602:306:bd73:5250:4030:fb01:886a:c775 was blocked for making unsourced, unconstructive, "insert my opinion and change a bunch of numbers around for no apparent reason" edits to animal breed articles. IP 107.215.53.37 has been making the same kinds of edits, in the same time-frame and for much longer. In both cases, the IPs have been altering animal sizes and other data, often inserting these changes in front of existing citations that provided other data, i.e. falsifying our information and the sources for it. Both IPs have a single-minded focus on this, and they appear to be the same person, though the IPv4 was also doing this at bird species articles and few other things that are not domesticated breeds. Particularly damning is that the two IPs hit many of the same articles with the same kinds of random-looking alterations of figures, both back-to-back [1][2] (with a revert between them), and quite some time apart, e.g. [3] and [4]. The match between those last two is too precise to be coincidence. I can't tell if this is just screwing around, or someone trying to impose figures from a source they won't cite. Either way, it needs to stop. [Update: It's just screwing around; the same editor was also doing nonsense like changing articles to say that Asian animals have the North American cougar (mountain lion) as a predator, and other pure b.s.] I think the IPv4 is the person's home computer and the IPv6 a mobile device used by the same user. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC); updated: 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
PS: I've looked over .37's "contributions" and they're consistently vandalism which others have been reverting programmatically since 2016. The kinds of edits performed are consistent, so it's clearly the same person over and over again. This IP should just be blocked, regardless, since doing so will not impede any legit user, and 100% of the person's edits are non-constructive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Comments by other users[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
- Both the IPv4 address and the IPv6 range belong to AT&T U-verse in the same city, so given the edits, they're almost certainly the same person on the same connection. I have given both the IPv4 address and 2602:306:bd73:5250::/64 extended blocks for long-term disruptive editing. FYI Edgar181: on most non-wireless IPv6 ranges, it's better to block the full /64 rather than a single address. —DoRD (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)