Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User:Dgtdddsx123, an account that previously had only two edits made in May 2020, suddenly makes bold changes to the lead of 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. Their changes to the lead are related to a previous requested move, as the changes to the lead would logically follow the requested move being accepted. No discussion was started on the talk page and no consensus was reached, so I reverted Dgtdddsx123's edits. My revert was then reverted by Dgtdddsx123, who stated that the edit was appropriate because no sources were cited in the discussion regarding the original requested move. Shortly afterwards, the account User:BliredArm is created and immediately makes their first edit on Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, adding a comment in agreement with Dgtdddsx123's justification for their edits to the lead and proposing (I assume?) that a new move request be started. Both users make similar grammar mistakes and word choices, such as their requests for "[public] open sources", which is not a common way to generally refer to sources that are publicly accessible (i.e. open access). Looks like two single-purpose accounts to me, and I'm standing by my use of the duck test. Centre Left Right ✉ 08:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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

I would say it rather there is meatsock and off wiki cult in telegram or discord. There is recruitment thread in lihkg forum (in title e.g. 維基百科戰線) such as this one, although https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1 the mentioned bot and wiki channel seems renamed.

There is separate issue that seems new ip emerged in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings which vote stacking (and before that, right after the start of RFC, start to gaming the system to farm a few edits first to not look like a SPA). It is unsure why they really like to create disposable account or keep using public wifi hotspot or mobile phone internet that can keep on ip hopping as the same person, or just meatsock (i am not sure CU can view the ip's edit other info such as browser version) Lastly, there is some people in the same lihkg forum that warn people if they really want to help, stick with one account and don't repeat the drama that zh-wiki kicked out a lot of Mainland Chinese admins due to adminship manipulation and cult of misinfomation (on spreading Mainland Chinese gov POV) But it seem both en-wiki and zh-wiki still a lot of HK based editors edit without account or make edit that does not make sense anyway (e.g. HK19971118)

Personally as Hongkonger myself have some COI that affect my POV, but I really disagree on these extreme nationalism Hong Kong cult that describe everything in Hong Kong is de jure and de facto independent (which is not ever existed), instead of citing fact that it was high degree of autonomy that gradually not exist since 1997, and deteriorate really fast post 2019. Which can readily citing The Economist, WSJ, FT, etc. They have the same intend to falsely claim the rebellion /movement/ protest still exist to fit their cult agenda. But in fact, news articles are readily available to cite that protest does not exist, mass arrest and close down of political parties (as effects of Hong Kong national security law introduced as post-2019protest measures by the Central Gov), and the gov keep on clamp down those restaurant that is part of so called "Yellow Economy" with excuse of customers (which does not trust gov in various political spectrum of "Yellow ") defying gov required COVID check-in measure. But the cult will ignore these readily available fact that appears in newspaper, and run the agenda the movement/protest live on anyway (which some of the pro-protest/pro-democracy media that (themselves going to be clampped down) reporting that most people are planning emigration or just losing any measure to do ).

This issue has also been raised in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058, despite that ANI was mainly on spreading their own cult version of geo history without citing any book and reliable source. (this is another cult stuff that is happened after the ANI: Articles for deletion/Public housing estates in Ping Shan)

If you guys really assume good faith, feel free to adopt some disciples for some quick coaching. While i am semi-retired in en-wiki and a bit busying coaching in POE game wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.'''
 * They seem to have different level of English skills, so my guess is that this is more likely canvassing than sockpuppetry. That said, the "open sources"/"open public source" thing leaves me with just enough suspicion of outright socpuppetry that I think a check could be of some use. . --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 00:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Dgtdddsx123 is (very) to BliredArm.  I'll leave it up to you to decide how to proceed from there. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of " I'll leave it up to you..." did I not understand? Reopening. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a note, there is enough here to say that they are exactly the same person. Feel free to act on that basis. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 17:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, this is a standard case of socking. Because Dgtdddsx123 only has 15 edits ever (and thus is likely unaware of WP:SOCK) and didn't double-!vote, I don't see cause for a first-offense block here. I will give them a uw-sock and will remove the section their sock created on the talkpage. : Please block BliredArm indefinitely as a confirmed sock. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * clpo13(talk) 22:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talk. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 19:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is not an acceptable edit without login. They probably meatsock or "edit without login" as same person. Accuse me canvassing that it is me often accuse LIHKG have a group of cult that keep on offsite canvassing and have their agenda on pro-independence and alt universe "fact" or "history" of HK, an never able to bring up WP:RS (like here or here or here). Or should i raise this issue in WP:ANI for this low quality black mudding ?

Diff

Special:Diff/1050888402 Special:Diff/1051012890 Matthew hk (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Related Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings, which rfc is not a canvassing i dont know the other (familiar face here such as OceanLok Citobun are not even there).


 * The 210.6.10.66 (same range as above suspect that i named) has commented the RFC and the other SPA are quite likely offsite canvassed. (None of the pervious ip except the new really agree me (210.6.10.66 which seem pretended to be canvassed by me), so that how i possibly canvassing just file SPI at ?!)


 * Matthew hk (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Ok, i have to retype the reply again. Probably i should thoroughly search the ip range first. So that now it looks like 210.6.10.X clearly the same person that accuse me of off-site canvassing as black mudding which is not a simple dynamic ip thing.

Which probably i stumbled the "red/blue" political spectrum globally locked user:蟲蟲飛 (or their sidekick), in Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin and Sockpuppet investigations/124.217.188.195

And probably i also stumbled the "yellow" political spectrum (or even the separatist instead of localism) LIHKG wiki cult in 's Comments by other users, as well as in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings

So that the ip are clearly in the same ip range. And i accuse Dgtdddsx123 using WP:LOGOUT by playing WP:GHBH to enforce the controversy that i really canvassing people offsite. Since CU cannot publicly link up to user. Up to you to deal with the issue or no action. While the LIHKG / yellow Hongkonger editing cult, well, as you said, should be in WP:ANI. 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually i stumbled with the 210.6.10.X ip range before in Talk:List of lighthouses in China, Talk:Military of Hong Kong, which was mentioned in the ANI. yeah, it "can" be different person now using that ip range which is suddenly a mainland Chinese forum user that lives in HK. Or it just low quality black mudding. Someone act as "blue", someone act as "yellow" but all just aim to accuse me canvassing.

From what I can figure out, it appears that the IPs / Dgtd are attempting to push a POV that Hong Kong is an entirely separate entity from Mainland China, hence the canvassing in articles attempting to remove places in the SAR in articles regarding places in China. The… mediocre command of English displayed by all parties in this situation has made figuring this out a lot harder than it needed to be. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 01:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of her training as a clerk. Please allow her to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on her talk page or on this page.'''
 * I'm confused. Are you saying these are sox of Dgtdddsx123, or that it's a separate case? --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 07:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please show me at least one diff from Dgtdddsx123 and at least one diff from the IP-hopper that show that they are the same person, or are working together? It's not enough that they have the same POV (if they do, which I'm not entirely clear on, although that might just be me not understanding the politics here). --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 16:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that Matthew does not intend to present evidence of socking beyond what they've said at ANI. I've made clear (in a non-clerk capacity) at ANI that I think 210.6.10.0/24 has engaged in blockable conduct. However, in a clerk capacity, my mandate is to find violations of WP:SOCK, not violations of WP:NPOV, WP:HARASS, etc. There's clearly canvassing going on here, and Matthew's evidence suggests Dgtdddsx123 may well be involved, but no evidence has been given that this is LOUTSOCKing or clear-cut meatpuppetry, rather than regular canvassing. For cases like this more on the border between canvassing and meatpuppetry, ANI is better-suited to make findings of wrongdoing. I am closing without prejudice against a future filing that cites evidence of clear SOCK violations. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)