User:Mutt Lunker/sandbox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

• 23:20, 12 November 2012 EdJohnston (talk | contribs | block) blocked 92.5.0.0/19 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Abusing multiple accounts: Scots language POV warrior. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774#Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?)

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)

---

(older version before cutting it down:

|sock1=92.5.15.139 |sock2= |sock3= |ip1= |ip2= |ip3= |evidence= A suspected IP sock is currently and persistently using the Scots language talk page as a forum to advance their personal views on the subject, either as plain WP:OR, as WP:SYNTH of various quotes which they claim as support for their views or, as I suspect from their previous editing history, outrightly misrepresenting sources that they claim to support their views. This is characteristic of a sustained pattern of edits related to the Scots language and Scottish history since at least April 2012, from a large and changing number of IPs that largely appear to be within a fairly close range and that latterly have largely been informally signed as being made by "Cassandra". Range blocks have been imposed in the past to counter the activity but it has resumed sooner or later on the lifting of the blocks.

As the suspected single editor uses a different IP with almost every edit, it is not really feasible to engage with them on a user talk page to explain why their actions are inappropriate or to post a warning to them and of limited effectiveness to report any of the individual IPs to admin. I have on numerous occasions requested they register as a user to allow such conversations regarding problematic behaviour to be carried out on a user talk page rather than clutter article talk pages but to no avail. They have at times posted on my talk page, e.g. this very long post, styled by them a short "paper", similarly outlining their personal views on a topic. There is also this exchange regarding a further explanation re sock puppetry (incidentally I'm not sure if their statement that the "(assertion that they)...have been subject to multiple blocks puzzles me" indicates a denial that they were blocked or that they (still) aren't aware as to why they had periods when unable to edit).

Largely though, any engagement with the user has had to be on article talk pages, with this most recent example an illustration of attempts to dissuade them from general discussion, personal interpretation of source material etc.. I finally felt I ought to remove the thread as the user persisted in posting in the same vein, despite requests. The user has twice since attempted to continue the thread and I have removed this both times. There are also older threads of a similar nature, remaining on this same talk page.

In regard to the full pattern of edits, this is the earliest that I am aware of. I have been adding IPs of the suspected sock to this category. As with the more recent examples above most of the edits are to talk pages, using them like a discussion page and advancing either unsupported WP:OR, or 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 has competence issues in regard to 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 smaller number of related edits to the article pages themselves.

I have archived a number of past related discussions about this suspected sock here to give an even fuller account, should it be required. There are numerous examples therein. Some highlights and typical examples though are as follows:

This edit claims that a RS contradicts the text of the article when in fact it supports it (elaborated in my post on the talk page).

This third opinion request complaining about removal of their forum-type posts (not sustained). Per a comment here by User:Blackmane "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." ("Your "suggested summary" is a shameless and blatant misrepresentation and this is plain for anyone to see, both texts being visible to us all." by me, responded to with "Indeed Mutt. And therefore anyone who reads the full text will no doubt draw their own conclusions.").

This is a typical example of the users speculation, unsupported by a reliable source and in apparent plain contradiction of the quote in discussion.

The latter stages of this discussion regard continued contradiction of a plain dictionary entry.

There have been some edits made by IPs suspected to be used by this individual which are of a more simple style of common or garden vandalism such as this one in the usual IP range and from the same IP that also made this edit in more typical territory. Similarly this IP later identifies as Cassandra, as does this one and this one. This vandalism-only IP is in the usual range though there is nothing otherwise in their editing to clearly identify a link.)

Please calm down and familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works. Your shrill invocation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of the removal of your misguided and inappropriate posts is frankly risible and makes you look (even more) foolish. Simply, talk pages of Wikipedia articles are not vehicles for individuals to impart their own unsupported viewpoints. You do not have the "freedom" to hijack them to express your own view. Talk pages are there to discuss (supportable) improvements to the article. If you are intending to do so your proposed improvement is not clear. Are we to extrapolate that your contention is that the topic doesn't exist so neither should the article (in which case nominate for deletion? Is it something else? All that is clear is your own POV, unsupported by any reliable evidence. The appropriate place for this type of postulation is not here - maybe start your own blog or discuss on chat rooms. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Responses to you have been to the point but they are intended to be helpful and you should not take offence at that. Please do not let a counter attack to a supposed slight be your motivation here. Talk pages ought to "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article", so lengthy discussions about perceived slights and unfounded and inaccurate extrapolation as to what I (or others) really meant to say in earlier posts are not helpful in regard to maintaining that focus, on the article itself. What I said is what I meant so please don't attribute anything else. I simply don't have time to answer such a post in detail, particularly as every matter has been covered above already and I find no value in repeating myself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not be so thin-skinned. You have been provided with patient and detailed responses on these matters already, please refer to them. I am no longer prepared to indulge you. You continue to attribute things to me I have neither said nor believe. Please do not. Such indulgent posts do not help keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.

IP, if baseless speculation about the intent of others, pontification and obsession with your martyrdom was removed from your vast and rambling postings there would be little left. You have been indulged up until now. Every matter has been covered above already and I find no value in repeating myself. This is not a forum. 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Though BKS Iyengar has very high regard for Krishnamacharya, and occasionally turned to him for advice, he had a troubled relationship with his guru during his tutelage. In the beginning, he predicted that the stiff, sickly teenager would not be successful at Yoga. He was neglected and tasked with household chores. Only when Krishnamacharya's favorite pupil at the time, Keshavamurthy left one day, did serious training start. Krishnamacharya began teaching a series of difficult postures, sometimes telling him to not eat until he mastered a certain posture. These experiences would later inform the way he taught his students. .

List of food sources likely to be high in FODMAPS in a standard serving

For high lactose and high fructose sources see: Avoiding lactose-containing products and Foods with high fructose content.

Foods high in fructans, galactans or polyols

	Header col. Fruits	Header col. Vegetables	Header col. Cereals	Header col. Sweetener
Header row 1	cell R1-A	cell R1-B	cell R1-C	cell R1-D
Header row 2	cell R2-A	cell R2-B	cell R2-C	cell R2-D
Header row 3	cell R3-A	cell R3-B	cell R3-C	cell R3-D
Header row 4	cell R4-A	cell R4-B	cell R4-C	cell R4-D

wheat, rye,

onion, , Jerusalem artichoke and globe artichoke,

asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, garlic, mange-tout peas, mushrooms and .

chocolate and prebiotics such as FOS, oligofructose and inulin

apples, apricots, blackberries, cherries, lychees, nectarines, peaches, pears, plums, prunes, watermelon

hey are also used as artificial sweeteners and include isomalt, maltitol, mannitol, sorbitol andxylitol

Sorry, I don't understand your first sentence, and please clarify what you think the pronunciation of these spellings is; as mentioned, per Black these are purely spelling variations so just "very much doubting they are pronounced the same" would benefit from elaboration. For example, Shirley MacLaine's name is always pronounced consistently with that in the audio file, as far as I'm aware. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)