Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/༆/Archive

12 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Waorca admits to having "multiple accounts" here. ༆ does the same here. I write, "who can this be?" and he responds with a virtual confession. I notice a similar style of argument, see here and here. Making the same arguments on my talk page, in an RFC, and on the history template page "creates an illusion of support", albeit in this case on different pages, violating WP:ILLEGIT. Update: Here is another admission that the same person controls both accounts. What's the abuse? All three accounts are being used to make accusations against me, which is of course the only reason I know or care about them. Kauffner (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking through the guidelines some more, I would think WP:Obvious sock is obvious would apply here: "It is very unlikely that new Editor C would share the same disdain for Editor B that was expressed by Editor A." ༆ tells me I should be editing Arab or Slavic articles instead Vietnamese, while Waorca tells me to edit Chinese articles. It's a trivial variation on the same theme. This is happening on different pages. So if they were independent editors, they shouldn't even know about each other. Kauffner (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It’s been two weeks now, so apparently nothing is going happen in this case. I think it is obvious that these accounts are controlled by the same person. So it’s OK to create multiple accounts and use them to gang up on another editor? Really, I had no idea. Kauffner (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this issue, the more I am warming up to the idea. What's wrong with multiple accounts anyway? Kauffner (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it the same way. Why would anyone get uptight about this stuff? RenffuaK (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Observer - Hello this SPI concerns editing activity in WP Vietnam article/template space with which I am familiar as creator and editor of several Vietnam articles. I am familiar with User YigMgo (the Tibetan caret sign in the User Name box), he's an editor in good standing who makes consistent and quality contribution to article space. I have informed all 3 editors that an SPI investigation has been initiated upon them. I do not believe the style is similar (beyond all being native Vietnamese-speakers, otherwise very different). This is the second time User:Kauffner has initiated an SPI against YigMgo, the second time he did not inform on Talk page. The first time [the complaint against YigMgo] was shown to be completely unwarranted. I do not know how to search and link to it. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, notification of an SPI report is not required, and is in fact often discouraged. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I have read again "VI. Notify all the users you are accusing using the template subst:uw-socksuspect|Case name" and am still somewhat confused, is this for a different kind of SPI? In any case I cannot see where notification is discouraged. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * SPI/Guidance says to consider notifying all the users you are accusing. In other words, think about it, and it may be advisable in general, but use your best judgment as to whether it is appropriate in a given case.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And it's been brought to my attention that the above item on the SPI/Guidance page was [ changed] after In ictu oculi made his comment. Apologies for any confusion.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. It seems that admin User:EyeSerene who is invoked in one of the diffs has retired. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although my complaint was "completely unwarranted", the account I identified as a sockpuppet was nonetheless blocked. Kauffner (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The diff filed as ༆ supposedly admitting to multiple accounts is actually the first diff belonging to Waorca. Could you please correct that? Otherwise it's not really clear what the abuse is here. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * - Relisting to try and get this moving, and also a check on is needed. Rschen7754 10:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - Per Rschen7754. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * is clearly Kauffner, who threatened to use socks here and here (and has used them before). Hopefully this is a misguided one-time protest about the slowness of this SPI and it won't happen again.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

✅ that ༆ matches Waorca. Minh Tâm-T41-BCA is technically ❌. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked master 2 weeks, sock indef. Did not block Minh due to a lack of evidence at this time. Closing. Rschen7754 04:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine that other clerks and CUs were reluctant to act on this case because I had already responded. Generally speaking, the handful of CUs that are active at SPI will deal with dozens of cases per week, and tend not to babysit cases as they develop; I imagine that they are seldom added to their watchlist. This case would've been dealt with a lot quicker if, instead of assuming that sockpuppetry is OK and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, the case filer had actually given me some sort of notification that he had provided the requested evidence. WilliamH (talk) 12:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)