Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metafun/Archive

23 June 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I believe these accounts are used for the purpose of unwarranted promotion of the work of Xin-She Yang. Accounts show the same pattern as those in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun: a single article is edited by a number of single-purpose accounts in a timespan of several days. Some of the accounts use non-Latin scripts (the Japanese username seems to be a misspelling of "algorithm" and the Arabic a misspelling of "flower", as far as I'm able to tell). —Ruud 16:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Except for the four accounts listed here, all the other accounts are too old to be checked. If these accounts here turn out to be sockpuppets, we can be more certain that all the other accounts were also sockpuppets as they show the exact same pattern of editing behaviour. —Ruud 10:13, 25 June 2015 (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

 * - - All editing just one and the same article .  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I need more information as to what you want. The listed master here is stale. Then, there's the issue of all the alleged puppets in the category. I don't know if any are non-stale, but some are older than Metafun. Why Metafun, and are any non-stale?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not precise enough. I wanted you to compere those four alleged socks to each other, Metafun and others are stale. tagged dozens of users as suspected socks (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun), but all excpet those four are stale.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * The two pairs of accounts are between and.
 * All four accounts should of course be blocked, which I can do. However, how do you think they should be tagged?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't wanna step on Vanja's feet here, but I would either not tag them at all (one master + sock isn't all that much to keep track of!), or tag アルゴゴリズムゴ as a CU-confirmed sock of Algoexpert and كمبيوترزهرةزهرة as a CU-confirmed sock of Tagineal; for both of these, I don't think spinning out a full case for either pair is necessary. What do you think, ? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they are all one and the same, but I can't prove it. So, I think it is better not to tag them at all than to tag as two different masters.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The two pairs of accounts are between and.
 * All four accounts should of course be blocked, which I can do. However, how do you think they should be tagged?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't wanna step on Vanja's feet here, but I would either not tag them at all (one master + sock isn't all that much to keep track of!), or tag アルゴゴリズムゴ as a CU-confirmed sock of Algoexpert and كمبيوترزهرةزهرة as a CU-confirmed sock of Tagineal; for both of these, I don't think spinning out a full case for either pair is necessary. What do you think, ? ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they are all one and the same, but I can't prove it. So, I think it is better not to tag them at all than to tag as two different masters.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked but not tagged as per the above. Marking closed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you tag those four as socks of Metafun? We just agreed not to tag them. Is there any reason?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  09:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged them as suspected sockpuppets of Metafun weeks ago, before filing the SPI. As the outcome of this SPI has only strengthened my belief that all the 100+ accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Metafun have been used by a single individual, I think these four accounts should remain tagged as suspected sockpuppets to document any possible ongoing abuse. —Ruud 12:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)