Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Samuel Luo

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

Samuel Luo

 * Confirmed:


 * To be confirmed


 * Codeletter: B


 * Evidence:

Editing patterns similar to Samuel Luo and all of his sockpuppets. See also: In addition, consider User:Tomananda, who lives in the same physical address and has also been proven guilty of sockpuppetry.

The first 'real' edit of Majontomorrow was adding a few links to the "external links" section of the Falun Gong article; one of them was a radio interview with Samuel Luo. Luo himself tried to push the interview with his own name back in the days (for instance: ). When the link was (repeatedly) removed, Majontomorrow kept adding it (e.g., ). Past experience has shown that Tomananda and Samuel Luo are the only persons whose sockpuppets have immediately gotten involved with the Falun Gong article, adding links from similar sources, writing short and hasty comments on the talk page without actual discussion, and focusing solely on Falun Gong related articles. Therefore, we have a reason to believe that Majontomorrow may be either one of them. A checkuser request has been filed, and if there is no evidence to back up my suspicion, I stand corrected. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo

 * Confirmed:


 * To be confirmed


 * Codeletter: B

Samuel Luo has been blocked by Dmcdevit for the use of SPAs to mess around with Falun Gong related articles. The above users have all been blocked as a result of the blatant similarities between their edit patterns and those of Luo. So, I'm requesting this checkuser to confirm that the above listed users are in fact socks, and in order to uncover any further socks and gain a block of the underlying IP(s)/proxy. Thanks, Martinp23 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong is the ArbComm case page. Martinp23 22:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added another probable sockpuppet on the list. It was just registered. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that User:Shimanan and User:Chinatravel had been confirmed earlier. &#10004; Olaf Stephanos &#9997;  11:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

. All of them.  Voice -of- All  01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Luo




Based on these edits, I believe there is enough evidence to suggest either the presence of sockpuppets or somebody trying to create the appearance of one. CovenantD 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there an accusation of policy violation here, or is it possible the user forgot to log in? Thatcher131 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely at the diffs or at the IP address contribution history, you'll see that this IP editor changed the anon IP sig to two different user names. Both of the registered users, Tomananda and Samuel Luo, are very active on the Falun Gong-related articles and have participated in many different surveys and straw polls. If they are the same user, then as I understand it they are violating the policies against sockpuppets by participating twice and creating the illusion of being two separate people. I've just been drafted as "official" mediator for the Falun Gong article and the outcome of this will greatly impact my ability to weigh the facts presented by these two users. It's also not the first time that Samuel has been accused of running sockpuppets. CovenantD 04:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Here and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Samuel Luo; and here, the IP editor changes his sig to Tomananda. Both editors are heavily involved in and related articles. Thatcher131 04:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's my first checkuser report; thanks for the cleanup. CovenantD 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, how long should I expect to wait? Progress on the entire set of articles is on hold pending the outcome of this checkuser. CovenantD 04:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I'm here trying to create a better encyclopedia and this is the support I get? Hell of a turn off. CovenantD 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While there are about 1000 administrators on wikipedia, only 14 of them have checkuser permission and 99% of the cases here are answered by just two of them, so you may have to be patient. No article is so important that the sky will fall if it is stuck in the "wrong version" for a few more days.  You can try a request for comment on the article to get some outside opinions if the usual editors can't agree. Thatcher131 11:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this system is broken. Only 2 of the 14 people actually do the work? Time to replace some people. Or put some kind of disclaimer that this isn't very timely. Something to let people know not to expect results. CovenantD 11:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with that kind of abuse. Mackensen (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about judging it on it's merits rather than your personal feelings? CovenantD 19:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

, seconded in the strongest possible terms. And CovenantD blocked for 24 hours for disruption. Essjay  ( Talk )  19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just coming into this, but that seems more than a little harsh. Can't wikipedia have operational disagreements without assuming it's personal attacks, resulting in blocks? Or is there something outside this discussion I'm not seeing? -- Kickstart70 - T - C 04:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the cascade of abusive comments directed at the checkusers were more than enough justification for blocking for disruption; common sense says you don't come ask for help and then start taking swings at the people you're asking for help. By the way, just for future note by anyone watching, the reason that it takes a while to get a response is because we have to deal with things like this; if people were, you know, patient/pleasant/appreciative, then we might be a bit more inclined to run checks. As it stands, we gain very little but constant abuse from all sides for volunteering our time to do this. Essjay   ( Talk )  05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else going to accept; it would be nice to see requests being upheld on the merit of the case rather than the behaviour of the applicant. Hiding Talk 19:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Tomananda(Thomas Brown) and Samuel Luo (my user name & real name) share a house and the same Comcast account, therefore our IP is the same.  I have respect for all wiki editors, especially the admins, for them volunteer to educate the public on issues like the Falun Gong.  It is because of that respect that I find CovenantD’s harsh comments here inappropriate.  A polite person would not yell at the cashier for the long line in grocery store nor would he verbally abuse the airline agent for the delay of a fly.  I think CovenantD owe admins here an apology.  However I am also concern about CovenantD’s block.  It is unnecessary and could not be justified by any wiki policy.  Admins are the people who help to keep an order on wikipedia by enforcing wiki policies; in order words they are the law enforcement and civil servant here.  The last thing editors like me want to see is an abuse of power.  --Samuel Luo 18:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look at both Tomananda and Samuel's talk page and also Talk:Falun Gong, and nowhere do I see a request from anyone to these two users to clarify their situation. The fact that they admit to editing from the same computer takes the situation out of the realm of checkuser entirely. (How to deal with this admission, and these two accounts, is a problem for another forum.) And apparently all someone would have had to do is ask nicely. Good grief. Thatcher131 19:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Guys: Confession: in the absolute sense of spiritual unity,  Samuel and I are, in fact, the same person.  However we do have a few superificial differences, including legal name, age, race, native language and sexual orientation.  In my world view of human existence, which comes from the tradition of yoga, all human differences of name and form are just superficial differences created to sustain interest and fun in human existence.  (If we all looked and talked and thought the same way, wouldn't that be deadly boring?)  But for the purposes of this discussion, I think that we tecnically qualify as two different entities, therefore in the narrow sense of Wikipedia rules we are each entitled to do Wikipedia editing.  I'm sorry that sometimes I do an edit while not being in registered status.  When I discover this,  I always log on to add my registered signature because, ironically, I don't want to fool anyone.  --Tomananda 19:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it. Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.''