Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leugen9001/Archive

29 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Alright. I understand that this will be a highly messy and complex case, but here goes. I came across this mess via recent changes, and have no involvement in the content issues, which I understand are highly controversial. The article in question is Censorship in China.

First up, we have usernames: "MeetPulpet" and "SochPulpet" are, for crying out loud, suspicious.

The accounts were created at the following times:


 * MoppenStaggen -- 22:47, Jan 15
 * DeNileMop -- 23:03, Jan 15
 * Randallmarshall -- 00:14, Jan 17
 * TransversalAngle -- 22:07, Jan 24
 * Likliklik0 -- 22:42, Jan 24
 * SochPulpet -- 20:50, Jan 26
 * Fadw3d223dew -- 21:12, Jan 26
 * MeetPulpet -- 17:16, Jan 27
 * IloveCHN1984 -- 21:02, Jan 28
 * Fdsjajfoae -- 20:59, Jan 28.

There is indication of a time grouping -- note how 8 of these editors all joined at around 22:00, +/- about 2 hours.

All have made edits that attempt to play down China's media censorship and fix an alleged anti-Chinese govt. bias:


 * TransversalAngle -- 3rd edit is to article, very interesting edit


 * MoppenStaggen -- 2nd edit is to article,


 * Randallmarshall -- first edit is to the article, welcomed DeNileMop,


 * DeNileMop -- first edit was to article, gives another suspect a barnstar


 * Likliklik0 -- first edit was to the article,


 * Fadw3d223dew -- first + only edit was to article,


 * MeetPulpet -- first edit was to talk page of article, weirdnessmore weirdnesslotsa weirdnessbizarre speech


 * IloveCHN1984 -- first edit was to article, more photo vandalism


 * SochPulpet -- barnstar to another suspected sock.


 * StrawPulpet -- seems legit


 * Fdsjajfoae -- first edit is to Hammersbach's talk page, second edit is to article's talk page.

Other editors' suspicions:
 * Ohconfucius
 * Hammersbach
 * Cyclonebiskit, who rolled back the edits and protected the article, advising me to go to SPI

(Compliments of .)

Thanks to the CheckUser who reads this, and sorry for any confusion that may result... as it certainly confused me! GABHello! 03:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Added (who was indef blocked for sockpuppetry by  but with no stated master account) due to identical edits between this account and another suspected sock on January 2016 United States blizzard. Name similarity is a red flag as well. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Transgirl133 was a sock of, see the page they created, which refers explicitly to that long-term abuser. Was Bambifan101 was known to frequent Censorship in China or similar topic areas? I think these guys are showing their hand (yes, singular "hand") at times with self-referential comments like the one cited above. I think you may be right. GABHello! 03:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would note that this sock puppetry was not done without a little humour. While the content changes included mass removals on a pretext which was occasionally not without merit, and appeared to have been coordinated and seriously pro-regime and thus highly suspicious, the editors' names – "pulpit" suffices, etc – gave me occasion to chortle a bit. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 09:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This quixotic event first caught my attention on January 17th when I noticed that three newly registered users had made edits to the CIC page. What really raised my suspicions though was when on January 25th five newly registered editors made a total of ten pro-PRC censorship edits in a period of less than 50 minutes. I was pretty sure that this was the work of a sock cartel and made and not so subtle remark on the talk page to that effect.  My comment was shortly thereafter hidden by the sock TraversalAngle and then deleted by SochPulpet. This was followed by several other attempts to alter the comments on the talk page  usually with false edit summaries like "Archived talk page".  At this same time one of the socks, Likliklik0, attempted to engage me on my talk page saying that he had deleted my CIC talk page comment as it "seemed less than neutral". (Note the brain fart, it was actually deleted by SochPulpet)  He stated that if I felt he made a mistake to comment on his talk page.  This is a common tactic of the 50 Cent Party.  They will attempt to distract you and steer you away from the page and the true subject-at-hand.   I didn't bite and instead bluntly accused him of puppetry.  After that Moe, Larry and Curly started in on my talk page.  (Some really funny and clumsy stuff there)
 * Of note: I think puppet master may have slipped once.  This IP's single edit fell right in line with others' Wiki and English skills and timing, tone and tenor.  And the location is a mere 30 minutes from the Chinese embassy in Washington.  Just saying... Hammersbach (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked  who posted here. No opinion on whose socks are whose, though, apart from that obvious one.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . I should be able to post my findings tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * I've indefinitely blocked the unblocked accounts. I've blocked the master for two weeks, partly because at first glance, even though the technical evidence is compelling, their behavior is not as disruptive, although at the same time there are certain behavioral characteristics that connect them to the newer group.
 * The following accounts are ✅ and ❌ to the above group:
 * I've blocked the unblocked account. No tags for either. The two accounts certainly have some of the characteristics of, but there are no non-stale socks of that master to compare against, and I'm not familiar with the case other than looking at it in connection with this case.
 * I'll tag in a moment and then close.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked the unblocked accounts. I've blocked the master for two weeks, partly because at first glance, even though the technical evidence is compelling, their behavior is not as disruptive, although at the same time there are certain behavioral characteristics that connect them to the newer group.
 * The following accounts are ✅ and ❌ to the above group:
 * I've blocked the unblocked account. No tags for either. The two accounts certainly have some of the characteristics of, but there are no non-stale socks of that master to compare against, and I'm not familiar with the case other than looking at it in connection with this case.
 * I'll tag in a moment and then close.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked the unblocked accounts. I've blocked the master for two weeks, partly because at first glance, even though the technical evidence is compelling, their behavior is not as disruptive, although at the same time there are certain behavioral characteristics that connect them to the newer group.
 * The following accounts are ✅ and ❌ to the above group:
 * I've blocked the unblocked account. No tags for either. The two accounts certainly have some of the characteristics of, but there are no non-stale socks of that master to compare against, and I'm not familiar with the case other than looking at it in connection with this case.
 * I'll tag in a moment and then close.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the unblocked account. No tags for either. The two accounts certainly have some of the characteristics of, but there are no non-stale socks of that master to compare against, and I'm not familiar with the case other than looking at it in connection with this case.
 * I'll tag in a moment and then close.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll tag in a moment and then close.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Tagged and closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

12 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Leugen9001 was blocked about 2 weeks ago for abusing multiple accounts on Censorship in China (in a humorous fashion, admittedly) to skew the article in favor of the Chinese government. , who checked, can attest to this. So on February 1, Leugen pinged to make some changes to the article -- see here:. The explanation provided by Leugen was: "the ForeignAffairs source does not actually support the claim that harmful rumours are being censored; in fact, it talks about how 'censoring rumours' is used as justification for political censorship. The word 'that' had to be added, as otherwise the article would be stating that the rules do not infringe on free speech rights."

Anyway, Leugen was blocked on 29 January and Imawikipediauser was created a day after. They have edited a number of other articles related to China, media, and censorship, such as 50 Cent Party, CCTV News, Baidu Baike, and Internal media of China. On February 7, Imawikipediauser edited the Censorship in China page. The edit summary: "Copyedit. Foreign affairs source says nothing about harmful rumours; instead, it talks about using "censoring rumors" as a guise for political censorship, as well as the censorship of actual, but likely non-harmful, rumors." Compare the edit summary with Leugen's request -- note how both address the Foreign Affairs source, too, and the language is rather similar. In the edit actually made to the page, the phrase "governmental censorship has led to the blocking of potentially harmful misinformation" is removed, just as it was removed in Leugen's request.

Leugen socks have made minor edits to random areas before jumping into another article and editing heavily: MoppenStaggen made an edit to Boeckella palustris, and TransversalAngle edited both Monjayaki and Schipfe  before going to their main target. This editor, for instance, copyedited La Niña and Akazai before going to the page that they have edited most heavily. Both accounts (Ima and Leugen) also seem to favor copyedits:

This suggests a "good-hand bad-hand" effort by Leugen in which the initial batch of socks made edits obviously in support of a particular POV. After they were all nabbed, Leugen attempted to use an admin as a proxy to make the desired edits (which are obviously not favorable to the PRC), but when their request was removed, I suspect they turned to socking to make the desired change and edit inconspicuously. I have noticed that Leugen edited in a wide variety of areas, and never even touched Censorship in China while letting the socks do the dirty work. Thus, it is somewhat murky in these instances, just as I had no idea that Leugen was ever involved in the initial socking case. And there may not necessarily be the obvious indication of a common POV between sock and master, due to the fundamental nature of GHBH. On a side note, it is possible that Leugen has at least some knowledge of Chinese:.

In the event that this is a good-faith editor and not a sock, I apologize for the misjudgment and the unfortunate coincidence. GABHello! 00:49, 12 February 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. I've made the master's block indefinite and tagged the account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

21 February 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility
 * First up, they have the same CamelCase name as some of the other Leugen9001 socks.

But, wait! There's more!


 * You may recall how a couple of other Leugen9001 socks had fun on Censorship in China, adding in the statistic that 80% of Chinese supposedly supported censorship: . You may also note that this same link has been used by other socks: . DextrousSinister used it on Internet censorship in China, with the same statistic:.


 * Note also this interesting string of edits: . Once again, they're adding in Chinese sources denying censorship (other socks have also used Xinhua: ), then do an about-face and remove the material. This is characteristic of Leugen9001, who switches POV between pro-PRC-censorship and anti-PRC-censorship (as noted in the last SPI). There is another possibility: that they realized that adding the content would give the game away, and so they reverted to hide the characteristic edits. Since Leugen9001 has done WP:GHBH, this is not unusual.


 * To top it off, they started off with a random copyedit to an article on the main page; the last SPI establishes this behavioral trait in other socks.


 * They were created at around the same time of day as Leugen9001 and the last sock: between 13:21 and 13:37.


 * Their userpage is also in the same general format as sock TransversalAngle.

I'm pinging, who has dealt with this in the past. GABHello! 14:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bizarrely, they seem to be trying to disguise some edits as vandalism, and have even vandalized other articles. This is unusual behavior, although it fits into GHBH. GABHello! 18:24, 21 February 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

 * DextrousSinister is.
 * is ✅.
 * Blocked both accounts. When combined with behavior, DextrousSinster is very likely. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)