SlitherioFan2016

SlitherioFan2016 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

06 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

SlitherioFan2016, 126.155.0.231, 153.217.207.181 and 220.141.164.205 have repeatedly introduced the same new color scheme at the following articles which poses WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems for color blind readers: Motion picture rating system, Video game rating system, Television content rating systems and Mobile software content rating system. I will provide just one example in each case but their contribution history nearly fully comprises this change:

  1. Motion picture rating system by 126.155.0.231
  2. Motion picture rating system by 153.217.207.181
  3. Mobile software content rating system by 220.141.164.205
  4. Television content rating systems by SlitherioFan2016

Comments by other users

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

I understand how you find 5 independent editors installing the same problematic color scheme hard to believe, but apparently it has happened. The above IP addresses do not belong to me, and I guess I just didn't know that change was unacceptable and unconstructive. From now on, I shall make good and constructive edits to Wikipedia. Maybe I was just... experimenting? But I should have done it in the sandbox! When I questioned DAJF about the edit-war thing I probably didn't get to understand it that well. I was not aware that four other editors had already done it. SlitherioFan2016 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I've declined the CU request. We don't publicly connect IP(s) to named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SlitherioFan2016 has agreed to a 4-week editing restriction on the main article at WP:ANI. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Pretty obvious from the short contribution history, given this user's peculiar fascination with the Motion picture content rating system and 209 series articles. DAJF (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I have now retired my old SlitherioFan2016 account for a clean and fresh start. This account will not vandalise anything, I promise. ThisUserLikesCats2017 (meow • purr) 10:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you can't just get a new account a couple of weeks after being indefinitely blocked. This account will have to be blocked and you will have to pursue an unblock through your SlitherioFan2016 account. I recommend pursuing the WP:Standard offer. Betty Logan (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment There is strong behavioral evidence supporting the allegation. ThisUserLikesCats2017 has made edits to both 209 series and Motion picture content rating system in his short time here i.e. first couple of hours. SlitherioFan2016 commented at Talk:209 series and his edits at Motion picture content rating system earned him an indefinite block. The odds of a brand new editor starting out on these two completely unrelated articles is 1 in 28 trillion by the way. If ThisUserLikesCats2017 isn't SlitherioFan2016 he should use his upcoming free time to buy a lottery ticket. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I've blocked the account as self-admitted above. I've also blocked two IPs that he's used to evade the block (same ISP/location as IPs he's used before, same odd edits on the same obscure articles). Kuru (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Blanking Motion picture content rating system here similar to other IP editors previously reported under this sock master. Already blocked, logging. JustBerry (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

This case connects with an earlier AN/I, see [6].

There are several hundred involved IPs listed at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism_trolling. Those were directly involved in the AN/I case and were part of a range block by NinjaRobotPirate on 1/18/2017. On that date, after the block, the named account began requesting unblocks again.

Upon return from the range block, the IP made this suggestion: Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#New_color_code which is substantially similar to earlier suggestions by the named editor at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Color_scheme_proposal, Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC:_Should_we_propose_a_new_8-color_scheme_in_the_comparison_table.3F, Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC:_Should_we_install_a_color_scheme_with_8_colors_in_the_comparison_table.3F and Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Colors (also discussed by them at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Table_changes, Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC:_Should_the_comparison_table_in_the_article_use_a_color_scheme_accessible_to_color-blind_users.3F and Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#Request_for_comments_on_colours).

The named editor's edit summaries when challenged "NO DISRUPTION OR VANDALISM IS INTENDED."), "NO VANDALISM IS INTENDED" are similar to those of the IPs when challenged: "...no vandalism was intended.", "No vandalism intended.", "No block evasion/vandalism/whatever intended.", [7], [8], "This is not vandalism.", "This edit was constructive.", [9], etc.

Digging through the IPs' edits, I was not able to find any conflicts between the IP and the named editor. The IPs specifically listed here nest very neatly with the named editor's edits; one stops editing several minutes before the other picks up.

Also tagging Betty Logan who has been dealing with the named editor on the mutual page. SummerPhDv2.0 22:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment I have logged plenty of addresses used by SlitherioFan2016 at User:Betty_Logan/socks#SlitherioFan2016_socks and all except one geolocate to Australia (79.153.65.156 geolocates to Barcelona). That said, the new IP's preoccupation with the color coding at Motion picture content rating system is classic SlitherioFan2016. It is entirely possible that another editor could have a similar obsession, but what convinces me that this is SlitherioFan2016 avoiding his block again are those edit summaries: SlitherioFan2016 is the only editor I have ever comes across who writes in his edit summaries that "vandalism is/was not intended". Unfortunately if it is Slitherio then blocking him takes us into "whack a mole" territory. The only way to properly neutralize him is to semi the articles he is targeting. Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The problem is that Slitherio seems to geolocate to Australia (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SlitherioFan2016), and this IP geolocates to the US. I'm curious what Betty will say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The geolocation is wrong, but the evidence itself is good. And even if it's not SlitherioFan2016, there's still enough ongoing disruption to reblock the ranges. By the looks of the "political correctness" comments and the post-block evidence at EvergreenFir's LTA report, it seems the previous range block didn't discourage the trolling. I'll block for a month this time. It looks like the 99.101.112.0/20 range came back alive again, so I'll include that with the older 108.65.80.0/22, 108.66.232.0/22, and 108.71.120.0/22 ranges. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slitherio's "NO VADALISM INTENDED" IPs (above) locate to Tokyo and Taipei... - SummerPhDv2.0 04:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other Slitherio IP's from the prior sock cases geolocate to Japan and Taiwan. (Special:Contributions/126.155.0.231, Special:Contributions/153.217.207.181 = Japan; Special:Contributions/220.141.164.205, Special:Contributions/118.163.130.216 = Taiwan; Special:Contributions/101.174.152.98 = Australia). - SummerPhDv2.0 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Pretty obvious from this short contribution history, given this user's peculiar fascination with decorating his own user space, and he even linked the "userbox archive" to JordanBaumann1211's one. Examining contributions I can see that the odd edits to Video game content rating system and Mobile software content rating system: [10] at Video game content rating system. [11] at Mobile software content rating system.

Both edits were reverted ([12] and [13]) by me.

Looking at JordanBaumann1211's contribution history I can see that the two odd edits on the two articles is classic JordanBaumann1211. It is entirely possible that another editor could have a similar obsession, but what convinces me that this is JordanBaumann1211 avoiding his block again are those edits to user space: [14]. Unfortunately if it is Jordan then blocking him takes us into "whack a mole" territory. The only way to properly neutralize him is to semi-protect the articles he is targeting.

Also tagging Iridescent who has been dealing with the editor on his talk page. --Mali1702 Talk Contribs 07:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@Iridescent: I'm not so sure. The main thing is that JB is avoiding his block, again. I don't know what we can do to stop this, because you never know what he's going to do when he's unblocked. --Mali1702 Talk Contribs 09:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He has made three substantive edits, all of them disruptive to one degree or another. If all he were doing was messing around with his user page then - maybe let him have his sandbox, but he won't stay in it. JohnInDC (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Editor literally admits sockpuppetry in this diff. I don't feel CheckUser or notification is necessary. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hopefully @GeneralizationsAreBad: or @Bbb23: can just look at this and get it closed immediately, so it doesn't take longer than it has to. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP address, but we really need to look for sleeper accounts. --Yamla (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: - There's a discussion at AN/I, if you want to look. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already registered my support. :) --Yamla (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: - Found another one. This time I'm requesting CU as it's more obscure but still obvious. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Now blocked, closing. GABgab 13:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits are exclusively on the Wikiholism test talk page. Using geolocate in comparison to a confirmed sock both had roughly the same coordinates and were both within a few miles of each other. Could be a sleeper as the sockpuppeteer has used dozens of different IPs. Not notifying as this could cause a problem in the case. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

IP is stale, and we cannot use CU on IPs, as per policy. Closing. GABgab 13:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

02 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Created userpage which copies elements from other socks ([16] [17] [18] [19]) and with this edit they reverted their own IP sock edit. It's another good-hand account ([20]). Sro23 (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

It's a common misconception for all new accounts at this stage to be a sock of Slitherio's, but looking back at my contributions I am seeing that I don't see a shared MO between myself or SlitherioFan. My user page elements are true, and I do find Special:Random a useful link. And, I wanted to import "Doge2048" (who even is that?) 's script so I could have my own Orange Bar function. My last point is that SlitherioFan2016 is banned, more than just blocked. So, he can't edit for six months. Therefore, I am NOT, and mean AM NOT, a sockpuppet of SlitherioFan2016's. -- 🐶 PuppyzKittenz 🐱 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the case that SlitherioFan2016 is only prohibited from editing for six months. --Yamla (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SlitherioFan2016 admitted the above was a lie, that PuppyzKittenz was indeed a sockpuppet account. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked and tagged. --Yamla (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16 April 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Stratford1616 is a very suspicious looking editor in my opinion. He has created his user page with the Template:Humor template, similar to previous sock Doge2048. He also created "his own" JavaScript orangeBar script which, if you look carefully, is THE EXACT SAME as previous sock Doge2048. Also, he has taken to WP:RCP which previous sock and good hand PuppyzKittenz had done before. I think the way he is doing it is he is combining the efforts from previous socks and then importing them into his new account, Stratford1616. I think this is fairly conclusive it is the same editor abusing the privilege of being permitted to edit with multiple accounts. PopCapGamesFan (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More