Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/China's Tiger/Archive

21 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

This is related to Articles for deletion/Rewilding (Carnivores). China's Tiger has done a number of different sketchy things in various articles, documented there, including violating WP:COI (openly admits to being a volunteer for the Save China's Tigers project, which is okay by itself, but beyond that whoever it is is also violating the WP:COI policy), and the reason that I'm creating this SPI entry is because the LeoGard account has been tangentially involved in many of them, coming in to support the edits of China's Tiger. (Including making a keep-ish recommendation in the AfD.)

In the China's Tiger user page the user claims to be the creator of several subsections of specific Wikipedia articles. I haven't checked all of those to see if the sections were actually created by that user account (or if a different one, another possible sockpuppet, created those) but I note that the LeoGard account has also edited one of the mentioned pages, How to Train Your Dragon (film), easily seen in that user's contrib history. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding CheckUser request, because I think that's appropriate? Not sure. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, so China's Tiger added the two sections Dragon Species and then Trivia to How to Train Your Dragon (film) and then when another user deleted them LeoGard added them back twice. That appears to seal the deal if all of the other tiger-related edits did not.  So perhaps a CheckUser isn't even necessary. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, look at the output of that User Compare Report. If I'm interpreting that correctly, 41% of the edits made by the China's Tiger account have been in articles that both accounts have edited and for LeoGard it's a whopping 78% of all the edits that account has made that have been in articles also edited by China's Tiger.  Seems like either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry is certain.


 * For another example, here's a case in the article Dave Salmoni where it was the LeoGard account that added a "Controversies" section and when another user removed it the China's Tiger account reverted and restored the section. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - It's certainly possible; CU to confirm. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've checked a bit, and this is going to be a difficult one, because of the Chinese connection. This needs a CU experienced with the Great Firewall. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please note that I am of the opinion that should administrative action be taken against these accounts, it should be based far more on behavioral evidence than CheckUser evidence. That said, The Cavalry is correct when he says the results are difficult. When looking at a /26 range, there are well over 75 results. That said, 's useragent matches that of and they are the only two that share that useragent. As such, I would say it is .  Tiptoety  talk 00:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm calling it based on behavioral evidence as well as matching UAs. Blocked and tagged LeoGard. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)