Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iching4096/Archive

25 March 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User Xiangzi9 has appeared couple of times at the Traditional Chinese medicine article making edits regarding the tables (diffs ). Just recently, a new editor has popped up (Iching4096), adding the very same tables that can be found from Ziangzi9's user Page (diffs ). Actually, the clearest evidence are the very user pages: if you have a look, you'll notice they have the same material and that there is no doubt that they belong to the same user. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:45, 25 March 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

 * - being discussed with the user on User talk:Iching4096.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This user says he now only will edit as Iching4096 (see: ). This is not really sockpuppetry, more incompetence. I'm closing the case now.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

User Iching4096 was first brought to SPI on 25 March 2016. Indeed, at the time he edited under the name Xiangzi9, and he admitted to have shifted from one user name to another. Well, as the case still didn't constitute an SPI positive, the user got banned later for, frankly speaking, all the nonsense he was adding to his User Page and the articles. The block log can be found here, straight from his User Page:. Now, a new editor has popped up, making the same edits at the same or related articles. One just needs to compare the content he has created (Fei (Lung); User:5shutiger/sandbox) with the one of his User Page (deleted now, unfortunately, as the user was blocked).

Indeed, if the user user is blocked, will the article he created, Fei (Lung), be deleted as well? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 00:51, 5 June 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

 * Sock blocked and tagged. Pages he created are deleted. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This is just for the record. This is an obvious sock, I am going to block them.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:18, 15 August 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

 * Blocked and tagged. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Continuing to edit OR at Talk:Bagua, Talk:Wu Xing added and edited by previous socks. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Iching4096 adds some OR to Bagua. It is moved to the talk page as contested. Iching4096 adds multiple nonsensical comments, , and shortly after blocked. Sock Li tie guai 7 edits it, adds more nonsense:, , is blocked. Then sock does more of the same:, and is blocked. Now Yin69yang is editing it. ,. Just a selection from the talk page history, there are a lot more, every edit by these users indicating they are the same, as far as I can tell. And this is just one of the pages impacted. In addition to this behavioural evidence there is the similar names, all in Chinese + numbers.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 18:54, 2 May 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

 * - In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
 * 1) At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
 * 2) At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
 * 3) In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed and tagged. Closing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)