Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Homunculus/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

1) TBC first created his account in Oct 2012, while Homunculus was topic banned in July 2012 per WP:ARBFLG2.

2) Both TBC and Homuculous has an affinity for the expression "Yea", which is quite a coincidence between two people with similar POVs editing the same FLG articles:

3) Both editors shared a similar style front page, scenery + poetry,.

4) Both editors try to promote David Ownby, a scholar on Chinese religions, as some sort of authority on FLG, and use the same excuse to dismiss certain claims ie Ownby doesn't mention them in his book . Both editors also added similar Ownby refs to the main Falun Gong article.

5) This edit is rather suspicious . Homuculous quickly reverted an edit by Quigley to a previous version by TBC, before quickly reverting himself due to realizing that he violated his topic ban.

6) Both editors argued for the exclusion of certain sources critical of FLG, using the excuse "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of sources.

7) Both editors argued that Chinese state media can be used to a limited extent:

8) Both editors use the term "illuminating" as a describing term:

9) Several deletions using copyright violation argument:

10) In the article 610 Office, compare Homunculus's last edits (inserting Tong and Jamestown), with TBC's first edits in reverting to the old version inserting the same sources:

11) The way both editors conversed here indicate some form of familiarity, perhaps in real life:

12) Both editors nominated pet articles for Do You Know

13) Both editors signed up for Wikiproject Free Speech

14) Both editors requested semi-page protection at the FLG main article, citing IP vandalism. . Both editors also requested anti-vandalism functions from admins:

15) Both editors are involved with BLP dispute discussions in the Li Hongzhi article, curiously involving the subject's US citizenship status.

16) Numerous puff pieces about Shen Yun, and reversions to restore its mission statement.

17) Similar editing patterns at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, promoting doubt against official narratives. . Also several reverts, arguing that "consensus is against you".

18) Similar edits at the Falun Gong outside mainland China article, involving Iceland.

19) Similar additions of a supposed Spanish lawsuit on the Bo Xilai article, and reverting User:Ohconfucius.

LucasGeorge (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by TheBlueCanoe
I'm not really sure what to say to this claim, other than that I am not a sockpuppet, but I do appreciate the irony of being so accused by someone who is. Beyond that, I'm not sure how I can prove a negative.

Most of the evidence here is pretty tendentious. I'll reply to what is perhaps the strongest example given, that both Homunculus and I cited David Ownby on the page Falun Gong, and James Tong on the page 610 Office (for different content, mind you). That's not evidence of sockpuppetry. These are not fringe sources: they are, or were, among the most relevant and authoritative scholars writing on these subjects at the time. Similarly, if we sometimes reference language from the same content policies, it's because Wikipedia has a finite number of content policies. Any two editors who are trying to edit the encyclopedia in conformity with those policies will be familiar with them. The Blue Canoe  01:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm not completely convinced but it's possible. The other account is also stale. Ian posted a good argument at ANI that a topic ban may still be necessary (the previous account was also under one). When I initially checked a few diffs I noticed that one used double space after a fullstop and the other not, but then discovered that both usually didn't, except in some rare instances. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding: I said topic ban above but it may have been a similar restriction needing independent review (Editing restrictions/Archive/Placed by the Arbitration Committee) unless there's something else too, — Paleo Neonate  – 20:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

With the disclaimer that I view Falun Gong negatively, claiming an image of the Tennessee River Blueway is "similar scenery" to a pine tree on the slopes of Huangshan is very stupidly tenuous on its own merits. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , could you please comment on this investigation? If you do not comment, the case will proceed without your response. —  Newslinger  talk   07:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding, . —  Newslinger  talk   05:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence presented here is not nearly as conclusive as the evidence from the PatCheng case. The word "yea" is used much more widely than the phrase "set foot in China", with the search query "yea" "Falun Gong" returning 102 results from Wikipedia's discussion namespaces, compared to just 12 results for "set foot in China". Most of the points in the submission, as well as the editor interaction analyser, show that Homunculus and TheBlueCanoe share similar positions in the Falun Gong topic area, but not much more than that. As / themself noted, "Lots of editors share similar POVs, but that doesn't indicate that they are the same people." A key piece of evidence uncovered by the editor interaction analyser is a 2013 talk page discussion between Homunculus and TheBlueCanoe on Homunculus's user talk page at . If Homunculus and TheBlueCanoe were the same individual, this conversation would need to have been staged. See also Special:Diff/535477341, a comment that TheBlueCanoe had added and then deleted from the conversation. I'm not sure how TheBlueCanoe could possibly benefit from adding and then deleting a negative comment about other editors on Homunculus's user talk page. Assuming that TheBlueCanoe was behaving rationally, and that TheBlueCanoe did not set the conversation up with the intention of confounding a future sockpuppet investigation, the existence of the conversation makes it less likely that Homunculus and TheBlueCanoe are related. (As noted in the submission's point #11, Homunculus and TheBlueCanoe also had a 2012 interaction at, which also would need to have been staged.) At this point, I do not think the available evidence is sufficient to link Homunculus to TheBlueCanoe. I am closing this investigation with no action. —  Newslinger   talk   05:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)