Wikipedia

User:Elvey/169.230.155.123

< User:Elvey

169.230.155.123

169.230.155.123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed


STATUS: It has been found that Formerly 98 has been using one or more accounts or IPs abusively. But only 2 of the >100 socking IPs were blocked.

  Relisted

05 Janury 2016

edit

  – A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Would really like to see this get reviewed and endorsed for CheckUser runs. [Note:This is a fork from the SPI that can be found at SPI/169.230.155.123&diff=694824394 that I now cannot safely edit.]

Suspected sockpuppets

Checking ranges turns up:

  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

example of mentioned results - needs attention! seek help/more eyes on this. (Policy states, :"If you believe someone is using sock puppets or meat puppets, you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.")
Someone is using sock puppets in the form of at least the first four listed IPs. They are being used by user(s) to do abusive things socks typically are used to attempt/do - including avoid scrutiny, give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists, edit project space, avoid sanctions, contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people, editing logged out to mislead.

Their handful of edits (<10, <10, <100) (some diffs below) show this. Edits indicate that one longtime editor is using multiple IPs. I'd like a clerks and/or checkusers to indicate whether they see evidence that the IPs are connected to each other, and whether or not any are connected to users with accounts. I encourage the IPs to come clean - to at least indicate (yes/no) whether they have any wikipedia accounts - or not. I don't think checkuser evidence is needed for an initial evaluation, which can be done by any admin, of whether there's a connection - I think there's enough behavioral evidence for a yes on that, but a checkuser should therefore follow to find the additional connected account(s).
Random add'l info/clues: Someone keeps hiding/covering up this information, even deleting it from archive pages. It's valuable for the SPI process.

  • 3 of the four edits by 2600:1010:b043:ec75:efad:9d0c:d710:2720 (For short: 2600...2720) included edits to MY signature.
  • 169.230.155.123 is AKA udp071243uds.ucsf.edu . 102 edits.
  • 169.230.155.132 is AKA DIR-601-169230155132.ucsf.edu. 9 edits.
  • 169.230.155.104 is AKA null-c42c03300974.ucsf.edu. 1 edit.
  • 169.230.155.30 is AKA rainbowscr.ucsf.edu
  • 169.230.155.31 is AKA srcxrx3220.ucsf.edu
  • 169.230.155.35 is AKA xenopus.ucsf.edu (Ron Vale / Cellular Molecular Pharmacology Department / UCSF School of Medicine)
  • 169.230.155.36 is AKA hille.ucsf.edu (Bertil Hille)
  • 169.230.155.37 is AKA degrado.ucsf.edu (William DeGrado)
  • 2600:1010 is Verizon. many IPs (25/100), edits.
  • 73.162.132.47 is c-73-162-132-47.hsd1.ca.comcast is Comcast.
  • 2601::/20 is Comcast, but a different type of IP.many IPs (25/100), edits.

That's at *LEAST* three different ISPs this one user is using.

This person claims to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet is still working (per User_talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts - and has claimed to have never been paid for editing and have no COI with respect to pharmaceuticals. I just discovered Formerly 98 has admitted to using multiple named accounts in the past. source Anyone know what it was? I've identified a couple of them that are not blocked.  :-( Wonder if the folks involved in the SPI knew that. One's been identified at the 'real' SPI and is now Renamed_user_51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6. The statement, "I am curious as to the conditions that would pertain if I were to register." is particularly blatant evidence of the worst of sockpuppetry, since establishing that the user has quite certainly registered at least 3 accounts.

He got into it with User:Doors22 at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#COI_and_edits_by_Formerly_98 and User:SlimVirgin over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharmaceutical_industry&diff=prev&oldid=541804937 this.

I'm not sure why this category didn't exist 'till I created it and remains empty:

I've added totals above, in parentheses. (That was reverted too. Summary: about 130 IPs are listed as socks of this user.) --Elvey(t•c) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)----

Diffs:


Notes

edit
  1. Add'l IPs discovered and added.
  2. Even if only to identify other IPs associated with these IPs, CheckUser can be used to help here to confirm the behavioral and range evidence. Can you confirm that, Thryduulf? IMO, it should be.
The instructions say,
"Any user can add this request to a case at any time, if appropriate. The most common reasons are:
    1. ...you cannot figure out all the socks
    2. There may be other hidden socks, or an unknown previous history of socking, and help is needed to find the sock-master or "sleepers"
    3. ...


The claim that CheckUser is used only to compare named accounts is patently false:

  1. IRC, CheckUser is used to compare named accounts and IPs FREQUENTLY.
  2. When a connection is found, outing is avoided, but appropriate action is taken. IIRC.
  3. Valid Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/CheckUser_criteria include "Likely undetected or "sleeper" socks, getting an IP block (of a repeat sock-user)" - clearly in the latter case, CheckUser is necessarily used to compare named accounts and IPs. I ask for comments from others on this claim's validity.

RFC

edit

I feel drawn to open an RFC as we may need community to speak to the necessity of action on this socking. CORE POLICY (Which "apply to Wikipedia discussion pages" states, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (except in a list of exceptional cases, none of which apply). Please acknowledge.

RFC: I'll put it on the talk page of this page when I feel it's ready.


Comments by other users

edit

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Looked at these two, both COI
This IP edits look very COI, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valsartan/sacubitril&diff=693825972&oldid=693808751 <-- Who is this IP user, see content edits, sock or second account.
This looks very COI http://web.archive.org/web/20140226022943/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Formerly_98

Though, while this certainly should be investigated, unclear how there is evidence to connect these. There are at least overlapping interests prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you're taking a self-imposed break, prokaryotes. When you get back - let me know if you can't find the info to connect specific dots, and what dots you have connected. The evidence is there; it's been laid out in various places, some linked from here, like SPI talk and archive pages. --Elvey(t•c) 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elvey/169.230.155.123&oldid=725466621"