Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123.150.182.180/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.


 * Referred from Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and more as a proper filing


 * The arbitrary sock master,, part of blocked range (by WHOIS, Tianjin ip), had all linked to the first 5 ips in the Suspected sockpuppets section as the same revert in Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946). Despite all stale since January 2019. Those 5 ip are from China Unicom Beijing branch as well as China Mobile, showing the sockmaster may had access of two isp, or meat sock.


 * , the arbitrary sock master, had made a controversial move of trimming the list of emperors in Qing dynasty. After the ip range was block, new ips ( and ) made exactly the same move (Compare Special:Diff/876949969 (old), Special:Diff/877205403 (new), Special:Diff/877264276 (new).


 * , the arbitrary sock master, had involved in the RM of CCTV New Year's Gala, despite not the nominator. and  from the same blocked range also edited the RM


 * , linked to the arbitrary sock master by the edit of the Qing dynasty, had lobbied the closer of the RM of CCTV New Year's Gala.


 * A Move review was started by, had the initial comment and signature edited by the ips from the same ISP ( and ), and some of them in close range of the disruptive ip editor of Qing dynasty, which in turn linked back to the arbitrary sock master.
 * Moreover, the signature was the same as the nominator of the RM of CCTV New Year's Gala,, which go back to a circle that despite the ip involved in the RM apparently from Beijing and Tianjin, they may be meat sock or even the same sock master.
 * compare Special:Diff/875897880 (by from China Unicom isp), Special:Diff/877235701, Special:Diff/877236617 (by ips from isp China Mobile)
 * Compare signature above to Special:Diff/876175111 and Special:Diff/876173191 (signature of the sock master)
 * Not exactly, but similar signature also appeared in another voter of the RM and Move review,
 * Compare Special:Diff/877389050
 * Lastly,, the vandal of Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), is in the range as the nominator of the RM,.

—— Matthew hk (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * While Beiyang government was not edited by the arbitrary sock master, it suffered the same unexplained trimming that also observed in Republic of China (1912–1949) (had edited by the arbitrary sock master) and Nationalist government, which &  &  (linked to the arbitrary sock master by the edit in Qing) are on the one side of the trim, uninvolved editor (in respect to socking)  are on the another side.


 * Compare: Special:Diff/877115054, Special:Diff/877209478 and Special:Diff/877370781 : mage_map_caption.


 * For Republic of China (1912–1949) some of the revert can be compared to the sock master range as well as sock suspect already stated, as well as new ip, as well as apparently uninvolved editor
 * Compare Special:Diff/876755532, Special:Diff/876915845 , Special:Diff/877207239 , Special:Diff/877264805 , Special:Diff/877361022.

—— Matthew hk (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Further look back into edits by, which seem one of the outlier (non-ISP but corp ip), which involved in map vandalism in the infobox in April 2018 , which other user had complained the situation in Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) (where the first 5 ip sock suspect trying to remove), had the same edits with , , . Those ip are stale and/or still blocking.
 * since is active, had the same signature with the sockmaster as stated above;
 * since sockmaster had involved in disruptive edits in infoboxes from December to January 2019, while had the same disruptive edits in infoboxes from March to September;
 * Seem is the sockmaster's one of the static ip (or shared ip that only him to access wikipedia) and is ducking

—— Matthew hk (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It seem related to this SPI case Sockpuppet investigations/123.124.233.241. Similar signature by the ip
 * Compare Special:Diff/856819313 (apparently sock from another range comment in the previous SPI) and Special:Diff/866614055 (sign by the sockmaster of that SPI) to above diff.


 * Compare the infobox vandal by at stated above
 * Compare the vote move behaviour in the previous SPI (Emperor Xuanzong of Tang, Heshen, Jiaqing Emperor, etc) and this SPI in the RM and Move review of CCTV New Year's Gala

—— Matthew hk (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Endorse some sort of action. If a reliable range can be calculated that’d be great but the quacking should be enough IMO.   SITH   (talk)   18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall making the revert I made even though it was only a couple of days ago. That, and the fact that I didn't leave a warning for an apparent vandalism revert suggest that it was a misclick while reviewing. Whether I did or didn't do it intentionally, I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am one  of the socks. User:Matthew hk, if you think I am an "apparently uninvolved editor", why are you suggesting that my edit be compared to the socks' edits? If you think I'm a sock then add me to the list of socks based on my one edit, and take your lumps when you get shot down,  If you don't think I'm a sock then my edit is irrelevant to this case and you should not have mentioned me or my edit at all.. Meters (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If you really listed as sock suspect, then you should have checkuser template and have actual diff comparison. I would say the articles are in the middle of edit war from two side of sock or meat sock, and reverting any side of the ip edit without providing edit summary, would get the situation worse. Some article had been protected and started a thread in talk page, hope to solve the edit war, but 10 to 20 revert in a month, still not a good thing to wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I am not involved. I have made, as far as I know, one edit to this article. By listing me you seem to be implying that I might be associated with these socks, but you have not listed me as a party to this SPI..Again, If you do not think I am associated with these socks then my edit is irrelevant to this case and you should not have mentioned me. Meters (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please don't went off topic. No one censored the finding when your diff is exactly the same as the suspect, but i did not add you to the list of suspect by adding your edit as diff and wrapping with checkuser. It is the right wording "apparently uninvolved". Matthew hk (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * By asking the admins to compare the socks' edits to mine you are suggesting that I am one of the socks, whether you formally listed me or not.. Please redact that pointless suggestion, which could be viewed as a personal attack. Meters (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Yet again the ip sockmaster was back on blanking Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) yet again, plus not that constructive edit on article namespace of the same article Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946). For 123.150.x range, the master was constantly received warning on his edit and the master use different ip from the same range to blank the user talk page to show himself he was ip hopping (at User talk:123.150.182.177, User talk:123.150.182.179 and User talk:123.150.182.180). Matthew hk (talk) 08:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For disruptive edits alone, the 123.150.x range had the same old disruptive behaviour in List of Japanese era names, in Chenghua Emperor in Beiyang government . And see also Sockpuppet investigations/123.124.233.241. Matthew hk (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * But 2409:8900 range was blocked by checkuser wide before and the range just preformed the same behaviour (123.150 range was also blocked before as other admin determinate it is blockable behaviour). So, as part of kicking the ball, it that ANI is more appropriate? Matthew hk (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Having a dynamic IP is not sock puppetry. Seek dispute resolution or page protection to stop the edit wars / disruptive editing. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)