Wikipedia

Category talk:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WJH1992

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Rodhullandemu in topic new User:H1392 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tagging

edit

Please tag suspected sockpuppets (exhibiting behaviour similar to that listed below) with the following:

For IP addresses and currently unblocked normal accounts:

{{sockpuppet|WJH1992}}

For normal accounts that have been indef blocked:

{{provensockpuppet|WJH1992}}

Evidence for sockpuppets of WJH1992

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Please keep this list up to date with stereotypical edits that can be used to identify WJH1992 socks.

ISPs

edit
  • Rangeblocks calculated from Paul O'Grady - subject to update
  • 88.109.128.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked)
  • 88.110.0.0/17 (up to 32768 users would be blocked)
  • 88.111.128.0/17 (up to 32768 users would be blocked)
  • The whole of this range would be 88.108.0.0/14 (up to 262144 users would be blocked) - way too big.
  • 212.139.112.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked)
  • 82.37.33.228 on 2nd July 2008, although this may belong to a friend.
  • 77.98.95.71 - ASSIGNED PA, blocked for six months.

* Sky Broadband - 90.194.x.x, 90.198.x.x false positive?

Discussion

edit

I'll update these as time permits but the major ranges in 88.xx.xx.xx are too large to be blocked for any appreciable time. --Rodhullandemu 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I appreciate that the collateral damage from those rangeblocks far outweighs the problems caused by WJH1992. I was merely listing the so far known about ranges for reference purposes. ~~ [Jam][talk] 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think the IPs 90.194.x.x and 90.198.x.x, and Patkirkwoood (talk · contribs) are another user, not WJH1992: the editing style is similar, but most of the disruptive editing has been on Mickey Rooney, an article which has not been edited by any 88.1xx.x.x IPs, and the user is in a different location. The IP 82.5.57.211 (talk · contribs) was editing at the same time as WJH1992, and is in a different location, so is almost certainly another user. One recent IP address WJH1992 has used is 77.102.144.25 (talk · contribs), outside the usual 88.1xx.x.x and 212.139.1xx.x ranges (not sure what the range is likely to be there). --Snigbrook (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
My impression is that the 88.109, 110 & 111 ranges are the ones he uses from home; the 212. range is his school IP, and occasional others may be fron his friends' houses. I've looked at Patkirkwoood (talk · contribs) and although there is some overlap in topics, am not convinced this is WJH1992; however, I think s/he has been properly blocked, if not for sockpuppetry then for fair-use policy breaches. I note also this user hasn't asked to be unblocked. Accordingly, I've struck that range in relation to this user. --Rodhullandemu 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree, it is still a valid block for breaches of fair-use policy and edit warring. Patkirkwoood (talk · contribs) has not asked for unblock but has apparently continued to edit, only occasionally, as an IP. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Typical behaviour

edit
  • Changing types of infoboxes for UK entertainers
  • Tinkering with dates of birth in infoboxes - obsession with "birth date and age" templates [1][2]
  • "Amending" personal details of UK soap opera characters and actors
  • Use of edit summaries such as "changed this, PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE" or no edit summaries at all
  • Making many very small consecutive edits to one article, often with only minute changes
  • Rarely goes beyond the infobox and the intro
  • Changes most words in infoboxes so that they start with a capital (e.g. Vocals, guitar => Vocals, Guitar)
  • Creates/copies infoboxes into user/talk page ([3][4])
  • Creates accounts/infoboxes for members of his family [5]
  • Changes &endash; and &emdash; to just – and — [6]
  • Adds <br> between duration dates in infoboxes [7]
  • Changes [[Widow]]ed to [[Widowed]] and [[Divorce]]d to [[Divorced]] etc. [8]
  • Use of the name "Howes" - William James Howes is what I suspect his name is
  • Usernames with references to places in Worcestershire

Paul O'Grady

edit

John Cale

edit

Often edited pages

edit

TV, radio and actors

edit

And other actors from and characters in EastEnders and Coronation Street

Cars

edit

Mostly related to LDV Limited, the Rover Group, Peugeot, Ford Transit

Other

edit

Update

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have tried my utmost to engage this editor in dialogue, but he's just not getting it. I advised him to take a break and come back as a new account when things have died down a little, but although he seemed to have accepted that, he's back. Accordingly, I think we need to get heavy, and since his latest indication is that he has left school, he will now be editing from his home IP, 88.111.128.*/27, I have soft-blocked this range for 72 hours to see if that has the desired effect, not to mention to test any outfall from that block. If he then comes back, I don't rule out longer blocks on that range if there is no apparent collateral damage. I did ask on WP:AN for a checkuser to run this one through, but so far, no response. All in all, for the moment, the encyclopedia is better off without his edits until he gets the message. Let me know if this is OTT, but we cannot go on like this, as he, on the one hand is all apologetic when caught out (which is every time), but on the other hand, does not grasp the disruption he's causing, and that's without being effectively a banned user. --Rodhullandemu 00:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess a soft block on that range might persuade them to alter their behaviour, but I'm not going to hold my breath. However, I guess we have to just remain vigilant, monitor the most vandalised articles, and continue to temporarily block any IPs that come along exhibiting his behaviour. ~~ [Jam][talk] 07:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
His edits have been improving recently, although still disruptive as some bad edits and due to the number of edits and IPs/accounts used. Even the good edits are now being reverted, despite not having a "banned" tag on his user page is he banned or not? --Snigbrook (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't know any admin prepared to unblock him, so de facto, he is banned, but not community banned. The problem with his edits is that there are many minor ones and trying to sort the "good" ones from the bad is time-consuming. I revert all of them on the basis that none can be trusted. When I advised him to take a break, come back with a different account and try to edit constructively, although he said he would, he was back within 24 hours. That kind of breach of trust isn't helpful. If there's any AGF to be had, it seems a one-sided bargain, with us looking the fools. --Rodhullandemu 17:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

End of

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've had enough of this. We cannot block 81,920 clients of a major UK ISP even for a week at a time. Accordingly, I've sent a report to abuse@Tiscali.co.uk including appropriate links, and hopefully they'll take action. If not, we'll have to contact Mike Godwin with a view to taking some more stringent action, possibly involving the police. This guy is wasting so much of our time and resources, that it must stop one way or another. --Rodhullandemu 23:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I guess we now wait and see what they do. It wouldn't surprise me if they shrug off all responsibility... anyway, keep us informed of any progress you make. ~~ [Jam][talk] 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tiscali

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Not taking this seriously. Each time I block a range, I email and tell them, using their original incident number, but hear nothing back. So all I can do is issue rangeblocks. These are the current active ones:

  • 88.109.128.0/18 - until 27 November 2008
  • 88.110.0.0/17 - until 10 November 2008
  • 88.111.128.0/17 - until 8 November 2008

--Rodhullandemu 21:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

As I said before, I seriously doubted that Tiscali would do much about it. I guess that such "small things" are above them... despite the fact that the acts of WJH could be construed as breaking several laws. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Specifically Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act (which I have pointed out to them) and Condition 10 (gaining unauthorised access) of their T&Cs. Fortunately there has been little collateral damage, but I have advised them that I will suggest that any complaints to me be redirected to their complaints@ address. Meanwhile, your script is useful and I would have caught today's if I hadn't had to go out for an hour! --Rodhullandemu 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad the script is still useful. I haven't made any enhancements to it, but email notification (or maybe an RSS feed) might be useful - mainly for detecting changes in activity. If I get chance, I'll look into it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Blocked indef as a sockpuppet. Exactly the same style of editing, and the same tranche of articles. Since WJH1992 himself told me that he has now left school, this may well be coming from a different ISP since his Tiscali ones are still blocked until November. Accordingly, we should be on the lookout for anon IP edits to his usual targets. --Rodhullandemu 16:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_WJH1992&oldid=264864807"