Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoreanSentry/Archive

09 June 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 " ~ "''


 * 1) Both editors edit the same selection of pages and within a similar selection of topics.
 * 2) Both editors share the same POV and similar, if not identical, sentiments.
 * 3) Both editors have notable histories of edit warring and blankings of sourced content.
 * 4) When one user is active, the other is not, in a timing interval that is somewhat suspicious.
 * 5) Both editors display signs that English is not their first language, via things such as grammatical and vocabulary errors. Most surprisingly however, is that both editors share the exact same grammatical tics.
 * 6) All views that oppose the beliefs of either editor are dismissed as "POV" or "nationalistic views" in their edit summary, even if they show no signs of "nationalism" at all. KS, KS, A

Similar tics used within their English (from hereforth I will refer to the users as A and KS):
 * diff - refer to this edit summary with odd use of grammar by A;
 * User_talk:Aocduio - quote "Therefore, You should not be necessarily push these words into introduction."
 * diff - refer to this edit summary by A, quote "Anti-Korean sentiment in Soviet Union was unreal." (bold added for emphasis)
 * diff - refer to talk page comment by A, quote "Koreans were just defend themselves rather than Chinese emperors' expected."
 * diff by KS - edit summary reading "China wasn't existed back then."; diff by KS - "Joseon & Qing wasn't Chinese dynaties"; diff by KS - "Not if China is nothing do with Joseon/Qing".
 * As per KS's userpage, he claims to be a Korean living in Australia. Assuming this is the case, both users write Australian spoken motifs every now and then, such as "coz" for "because" KS and "nah" for "no" A. It is unlikely for these motifs to be used elsewhere.
 * diff by KS - inability to use "a" before nouns
 * talkpage comments by KS, with strange verb usage similar to that of A
 * diff by KS - not only is this summary another WP:ADHOM, but it has a strange usage of "therefore".
 * talk by KS with adjective usage similar to that of A
 * diff by A - "don't infuse your own idea", note "infuse"; KS also likes to use words that don't match with the context
 * diff by A, possessive noun error similar to that of KS

Finally, both users firmly imply that the page Anti-Korean sentiment was written, quote, "by Chinese Australian" (sic). diff by A, see edit summary diff by KS, see page content Keep in mind that:
 * 1) In both cases, there is an identical grammatical error relating to the use of demonyms ("a Chinese person", "an Australian", but not "Chinese" or "Australian", as in this case they should be nouns (as the users have intended), not adjectives (as their written grammar would normally reflect in usual circumstances))
 * 2) Assuming that they are referring to me, the correct term would be "Australian-born Chinese" as per my userpage; other editors have rarely, if not never, referred to me using "Chinese Australian". The more detailed specifics have to do with nationality-citizenship-ethnicity distinction (e.g. one can be a Malaysian national but a Singaporean citizen) and word-ordering reflects this. Though given that the only way of finding out who I am is via by userpage, that wording is the one generally used by other Wikipedians to refer to me.
 * 3) Assuming that they are referring to me, an article starter isn't necessarily the creator of most of the article content, as is true for this particular article. A Wikipedia article also cannot be "by" someone as they are all collaborative efforts. I find it suspicious that two different users would make the same kind of mistake.
 * 4) Why is it that both editors are so intent on pointing out that there is a "Chinese Australian", when no other editors have shown that they care? Most seasoned editors would argue the content and not the person, yet these two are very keen on pointing out who an editor is.

Of particular note, on KS's userpage, he claims that he owns and operates a "Korean history forum". This site can be found either here or here. A quick browse through the various forum threads show quite partisan content against China and Japan (and favouring Korea of course), and demonstrates that there are more people out there that share KS's views. It is plausable that KS is capable of using this internet forum as a means of WP:SHOPPING/WP:CANVASSing for assistance, which is against Wikipedia policy.

There is the possibility that one user is a sockpuppet of the other; however there is also the possibility that one user is a meatpuppet that the other user has off-wiki contact with, either on- or offline (instant messaging, etc), and congrugated via KoreanSentry's internet forum. Given that meatpuppetry is also a form of sockpuppetry, despite that two editors may have separate IPs and UAs, they would also theoretically constitute sockpuppetry. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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

In what grounds did Benlisquare think I'm sock puppet, all I see is bunch of Chinese sockpuppets at Korean related articles. Sorry this Benlisquare is one who accusing me for sockpuppet, I don't have any other active accounts at wikipedia other than my current one. I advise admins to look at Benlisquare's activity.--KSentry(talk) 03:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not answered or disproved a single one of the claims/evidence filed in the report, all you are doing is trying to deflect attention from yourself with unproven accusations of "Chinese sockpuppets".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * also KoreanSentry's statement can be considered a Wikipedia:Personal Attack per points 2 and 4


 * "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" (ie. being chinese)


 * "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence" (ie. claiming chinese sockpuppets are editing korean articles without any evidence)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A recent example of the canvassing that KoreanSentry uses his internet forum for can be seen on this thread on his forum (Google cache). In it, he urges editors to support the renaming of pure blood theory in Korea: an article that particularly ires Korean nationalists, and that has been notably attacked by meatpuppets in its failed AfD. After KoreanSentry canvassed his forum for support for his preferred title, "Dan-il-minjok", one of his loyal foot-soldiers starts a and concurrent edit war  to rename the article in line with KoreanSentry's diktat. More disturbing than the racist language in that thread alone against white people, Muslims, and Chinese people, many of the forum users appear to have an intimate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia, judging by comments like ("The article's written by a chinese just an fyi.") Indeed, two allied Wikipedians are called upon in that forum thread ("Is Cydevil or melonbar back yet?") who have both predictably shown up to  (and  with ),, , , and play  games to disrupt Wikipedia in service of a Korean nationalist POV. Because of his webforum, KoreanSentry is doubly disruptive: not only for his own sockpuppetry, but also for the disruptive meatpuppets he is able to recruit. Quigley (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that a few threads from that forum have been deleted in past days, are there any ways to search for caches, be it google or some other caching service? Also, there is a "private section" (members only) section of the forum that I find quite suspicious. Also Quigley, I suggest you do a screencap of that google cache - they don't last forever. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After looking over the behavioural evidence, it seems fairly clear that the two editors are very, very similar in editing style. I think that a duck block would be appropriate, since this is most likely sock/meat puppetry. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet? Huh, Benlisquare, your acts seems like offensive behavior toward the opposition against you. Isn't it? And, MacMed, your guess was not right. Please, think definitely.--Aocduio (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
User accounts appear unrelated to each other and also unrelated to Philip126, at least on technical grounds. Frank &#124;  talk  17:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have a different master here, endorsing for check against Philip126 as these users seem pro Korean as he is. Can I also get a sleeper/look for ones that we missed check? (I have the gut instinct there are more around) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So... I guess we're done? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)