Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lswassa/Archive

23 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I believe there is some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry related to creating articles about construction projects awarded to Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd. The listed accounts have created the articles: All of these projects were awarded to Daelim and they all have the same unusual structure for the article: no outgoing or incoming wikilinks, a wiki table with Infobox-like content, a section on Construction and Design, a Gallery, a References section, and no external links or categories. Almost all are referenced to what is listed as one of Daelim's annual reports, but is really a link to the company's top-level webpage.
 * Geobukseon bridge
 * Seonam Water Recycling Center
 * Sepung bridge
 * Seoul Subway Line 7, Section 701
 * Gyeongbu Rapid-Transit Railroad Phase 2, Section 11-2
 * Jeju outer port
 * Pohang Yeongil New Port Development (1-1)
 * Pyeongtaek(Asan) Port Outer Revetment (Section 2)
 * The dredging works for outer wall quay of Pyeongtaek (Asan) Port (3rd and 4th berth)
 * Cheong poong bridge

I find it rather curious that these brand new accounts can create full formed articles with very few markup errors using similar structures and a very specific interest in one company's projects as their first edits. For example, all of the Galleries were set using the tag. I find it unusual to have the widths parameter set and that exact format not being used as an example in Help:Gallery tag.

While the accounts are not editing the same articles, the common focus is curious. The only direct connection is that the Shinyny1 account used photos uploaded to Commons by Lswassa in the Sepung bridge article just five minutes after they were uploaded. (The "Own work" on several of the images are also suspect, but that is a Commons issue.)

I believe that these accounts were setup to promote the work of Daelim. These accounts all pass the duck test to me. I'm asking for confirmation of the connection and any appropriate administrative action. I proposed for deletion all of the articles so per WP:INVOLVED I would prefer than an objective look the accounts and another admin to click the appropriate buttons. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to withdraw this request. The questionable articles are being deleted through the proposed deletion process and no further socks have appeared that I'm aware of.  Maybe the spam campaign is over?  Hard to tell.  The accounts have done no further edits since the SPI was filed, so I don't think any further action is required. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I deprodded Cheong poong bridge because it looks as if it may be notable, but I'd say its quite possible an employee of the builder wrote it. (PS it needs improvement as well).--Milowent • hasspoken  00:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even with a 5 second glance, all of the bridge articles clearly are notable enough for inclusion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Notability is not the issue of the SPI. It is the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. While I agree now that bridge articles may be notable (though the sourcing for Sepung bridge relies upon a single independent source), the notability question is for a different venue. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Some are notable and some are not. I'd like to see more evidence of a sock/meat puppet. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)