Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haohaomyy/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both have edited on Vietnam War articles in a similar writing style, relying exclusively on Vietnamese Government sources to claim Vietnamese victories in non-existent (see: Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương and Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy) or disputed battles (see: Battle of Thượng Đức and Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966). Diffs are as follows:
 * 
 * 
 * Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2016 (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
See my comments at Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN. However, I'm going to recuse myself on this SPI and give someone else a chance to decide whether to endorse this CU request or not. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for you to recuse yourself. Quite the opposite. You've already done a behavioral analysis and are in a position to act on this case. There's no need for another clerk to give a second opinion or in advance of that to have to repeat your work.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I didn't want to seem to be owning/dominating this discussion and trying to dissuade others from participating. But given your response, I'll un-recuse myself. , could you explain in more detail why you believe these two accounts are the same user?  I've looked at your diffs, and I don't really see a strong connection over and above what might be expected from two random Wikipedia users living in Vietnam and sharing commonly held views in a subject area that is a core part of their national identity and upbringing.  Please elaborate.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Richwales as you know from my talk page a user in Vietnam tipped me off that these were both socks of MiG29VN, but you advised that you could not check that since MiG29VN has not editted since being indefinitely blocked. I see clear similarities between the two in terms of choice of topics, sources, writing style and POV. Both were only active since August 2016 and edited similar topics: Victory Day, Liberation Day for Tonnytaffoc and Reunification Day for Haohaomyy. All of Tonnytaffoc's contributions took place in just a 2 day period and he/she made changes that show a reasonable working knowledge of Wikipedia writing indicating that this is a current or previous user returning under a different guise, for example his/her first edit was: [] and by his/her 2nd day they were complaining about me on the Admin noticeboard. This diff: [] was created to refer to People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam a page created by User:Hanam190552 a sock of MiG29VN, I question how Tonnytaffoc would even know about this page on only his/her second day on Wikipedia? Haohaomyy similarly showed a good working knowledge of Wikipedia from the beginning, his/her 2nd edit was to create the Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut airbase (1966) page with a conflict infobox which isn't something I'd expect from a new writer unless they had been on Wikipedia before. Haohaomyy has also made edits on People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam, see: []. Regards Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. While I'm still not convinced by the diffs alone, I'm willing to agree to a CU check here on the basis of the precocious behaviour of a supposedly brand-new user.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The two accounts are ❌.
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and to the socks of :
 * Blocked the confirmed accounts and will leave tagging up to the clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as proven, closing. GABgab 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Richwales and User:Bbb23 thank you for looking into this. best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the confirmed accounts and will leave tagging up to the clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged as proven, closing. GABgab 00:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Richwales and User:Bbb23 thank you for looking into this. best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

All are fairly new accounts with few contributions but relatively sophisticated edits which suggests prior editing experience. These accounts have recently edited articles on the Battle of Đồng Hới and People's Army of Vietnam in the same / similar manner to support each other to make contentious edits. For instance: These edits have all occurred in areas that have faced ongoing and consistent disruption by sockpuppets (pls see Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN) which leads me to believe that these accounts are likely connected to User:MiG29VN.
 * Xapxaxapxinh made the fol edits to Battle of Đồng Hới on 13 Oct, they were reverted, but then a new user Ngannga2626 makes the same ones the fol day, pls see dif ;
 * Hanahorien made the fol edits to People's Army of Vietnam on 11 Oct, was reverted, and then Ngannga2626 (per above) makes a very similar series of edits  on 14 Oct (including the same reference); and
 * Some of Xapxaxapxinh recent edits are near identical to previous edits  to same page by Haohaomyy who has had a number of accounts blocked as sock puppets (pls see Sockpuppet investigations/Haohaomyy).

Other possible sockpuppets that seem likely given recent similar activity on these articles include: Although I would imagine a CU would yield others. Thanks in advance for having a look at this. Anotherclown (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Hungminhsaigon (contribs); and
 * User:Minhthai1 (contribs)

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

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and to Haohaomyy:
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and to the socks of :
 * Blocked all accounts and will leave tagging up to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks tagged, closing. GABgab 16:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts and will leave tagging up to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks tagged, closing. GABgab 16:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked all accounts and will leave tagging up to a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks tagged, closing. GABgab 16:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks tagged, closing. GABgab 16:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'll be honest, I couldn't decide whether to file this under here or under. Sorry for filing the whole thing together instead of splitting it. But here we go:

025665hohn166.jisjifj:
 * MiG29VN sock Tonnytaffoc claims that the Battle of Thượng Đức is a PAVN victory: . "Hohn" agrees: . Similarly poor English.
 * Redirects Reunification Day to their creation, Victory Day of Vietnam, which has a tag indicating it existed in December 2013. MiG29VN was active around that time. How could a "new" account find and recreate this?

Fififafalala:
 * This is a good candidate for a Haohaomyy sock. Master: . Sock:.

14678646846186984acascasca:
 * Same deal on the same page:.

The bizarre names are also a piece of evidence in themselves. GABgab 00:58, 28 February 2017 (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

 * - Not sure if CU logs are still a viable option here, or if all we can do is compare the accounts to each other... but thanks very much for your help. GABgab 01:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and blocked:


 * Geolocation and ISP match the most recent blocked socks in the archive.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All tagged. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)