Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chan f.c./Archive

18 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Single-purpose accounts created on February 5 and February 6, respectively, only interested in promoting and whitewashing Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. What binds them together is the pattern of edits outside that topic: They chose some random article and edited it back and forth a bit for no purpose other than to get autoconfirmed (Viviansyc: at Fedora (operating system), Emily.H.Kitty:  at Interstate 96, Musiccafeangela:  at Deca Sports). I doubt that behaviour is a coincidence. Since there's a lot of other SPAs on that page, including Ramdiesel, PolandMEC and Chan f.c., a CheckUser may be helpful to tell who's who. Huon (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * I don't know what is your meaning? I am a new user and don't know the rules of Wiki. Musiccafeangela (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The meaning is that you created multiple accounts and agreed with yourself under different names to give an appearance of consensus where it's only you. Huon (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Huon. My name is Angela, I do not created multiple accounts here. I know Emily, she is my Church family. But we are independent. I do not have interest to promote or whitewashing Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. I only have listened the story of UNEM before, and have study about it. I appreciate you to tell more about the story of UNEM to me. And I believe that the more truth is debated the clearer it becomes. I love God, I also love the truth. Musiccafeangela (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Following are ✅ to each other:


 * is to the above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffed and tagged all accounts (should have corrected the master before the blocks, but the tags are right). Closing--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same behaviour as previous socks: A couple of rather uninspired edits and a wait for a couple of days to get auto-confirmed, and then it's off to Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica to revert to a spammy version to "sum up all editors opinion" (which would largely be the other socks'). Huon (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Not so much a comment as a request for clarification, as this is open again: the previous request, now archived, from included also  and . While those two clearly differ in behaviour from Chan f.c., there is no perceptible behavioural difference between the two of them. Was that looked at by a checkuser? If not, can it be looked at here, or would a separate request needed? It's presumably too late at this point to look at, , ,  and so on, all of whom have also shown a monothematic interest in this institution and a remarkable propensity for edit-warring? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I do not make any illegitimate behavior here, what I did is just to edit some article to improve reading within Wikipedia policy. What's wrong am I? Is here any article in Wiki be prohibited for other users to edit? Could you clearly tell me, let me don't edit those article, please! Safetylun (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support Safetylun and we are not related in any way, except by the opinion the actual article is not neutralRamdiesel (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Huon, I agree in full with Safetylun and we are different user, different countries, different IP. It seems you Huon and Justlettersandnumbers seems to think are the owners of the true and the rest of us in the talk page, we are alll wrong.Ramdiesel (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion Huon and Justlettersandnumbers have no ground to edit the article. I see no expertize in the subject. Most of the users involved are from CostA Rica, or other souther countries, such as uruguay and Argentina. We are more familiarized with private small Universities, and this article helps nothing. All user we cannot be all wrongCostaRicaOnline (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that user is anxious to be compared with the others too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers said here "all of whom have also shown a monothematic interest in this institution and a remarkable propensity for edit-warring?" here on 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)..... I felt not included into this.. I help editing other articles, such as Dulce de Leche, CEibal Laptops for primary studenst in uruguay, and articles such as Tabare vazquez )President of Uruguay and Jose Mujica. I place my efford to contribute, although I am non english native speaker, and Huon and Justlettersandnumbers instead of helping improve, erase everybody else contribution. I think they are the ones punishable for making edit warring and not the rest of the users. Ramdiesel (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU is not needed here, because this is obvious. This account made an edit identical to the one previously made by this master's socks ( and ). An admin should block., feel free to block yourself.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll do so; I wanted another person to take a look lest I be claimed to be too involved to clearly judge the issue. Given the delay between creation of sock accounts and first edits at the target artilce, a sleeper check may be useful, though. Huon (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since all those accounts are interested primarily in the UNEM article, I believe sleepers check is not needed, as they would be easy to identify when they start editing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My two cents. I'd like to see a CU, although not necessarily for the same reason as others. First, Safetylun's English is quite different from the master's. Although that could just be subterfuge, in such cases, if a CU is possible, it resolves the issue. Second, to see if there are relationships between some of the accounts, including the ones mentioned by, even if they are unrelated to the master. And, of course, a sleeper check might be useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - Since we have more accounts now, CU might help.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * Also ✅:
 * is part of this second group.
 * There's no discernable technical relationship between the two groups. As regards the other accounts mentioned, there's a lot of IP hopping and logged out editing going on, so the connections above are the only definite conclusions I can draw. Yunshui 雲 水 12:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed and tagged Safetylun. I've blocked Ramdiesel, CostaRicaOnline, and PolandMEC, but not yet tagged them. Of the three accounts, PolandMEC is the oldest. We might want to create a new SPI for the master. It sort of depends on whether there are going to be more socks related to that master, which we can't know. I need to ask someone about tagging the three accounts in the interim as I having problems. Still closing, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please check Tartaruganight (listed at the top now)? The account was created in a very short space of time after I blocked the socks. I'm fairly confident it's a sock, but I don't know which line of accounts it belongs to. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * connection the Ramdiesel group. Yunshui 雲 水 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the account based on a combination of the CU and behavioral evidence. No tag yet, and I'm keeping this open until the tag issue is sorted out, although I'm thinking more and more that I should create a new SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed and tagged Safetylun. I've blocked Ramdiesel, CostaRicaOnline, and PolandMEC, but not yet tagged them. Of the three accounts, PolandMEC is the oldest. We might want to create a new SPI for the master. It sort of depends on whether there are going to be more socks related to that master, which we can't know. I need to ask someone about tagging the three accounts in the interim as I having problems. Still closing, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please check Tartaruganight (listed at the top now)? The account was created in a very short space of time after I blocked the socks. I'm fairly confident it's a sock, but I don't know which line of accounts it belongs to. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * connection the Ramdiesel group. Yunshui 雲 水 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the account based on a combination of the CU and behavioral evidence. No tag yet, and I'm keeping this open until the tag issue is sorted out, although I'm thinking more and more that I should create a new SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created Sockpuppet investigations/PolandMEC with no revision history. All accounts are now tagged. There's nothing more to do here. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)