Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmhuang/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Their user pages is exactly identical, and I don't think this is pure coincidence. Also, the first edits of this account are with the range of Mmhuang's contributions (Philippine showbiz and sport-related) Baby miss fortune 08:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I deleted User:Mmhuang per WP:U1 request before I noticed this SPI. Admins can still see it, but for those who can't I can confirm the two user pages were essentially identical at the time of deletion - slightly different layouts in parts, but almost the same content components. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * Blocked and tagged the puppets. Blocked the master for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the puppets. Blocked the master for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the puppets. Blocked the master for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged the puppets. Blocked the master for two weeks. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( Original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Articles contributed to by Ml were also recently or historically been contributed to by Mm (San Miguel Beermen all-time roster, 2021 San Miguel Beermen season, 2021 Alaska Aces season). Usernames are very similar as well (the M, the Huang, the 25). There is no obvious evidence that the Mm account is compromised to justify the creation of the Ml account. Although the Mm account has been dormant for more than 5 years, it is not compromised given by user using that account recently. There is also another similar account,, probably also the same person, which were at one point used at the same time with the Mm25 account, but is now somewhat dormant. '''Engr. Smitty  Werben''' 01:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mmhuang has been previously investigated for sockpuppetry (and surprise, it was actually me who made the report), although only the socks were blocked indef (sockpuppeteer was blocked for 2 weeks). Engr. Smitty   Werben 03:12, 9 January 2022 (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

 * - Given how long these accounts have escaped scrutiny, I've requested a CU. Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to username similarity, article overlap, and similarity with a known sockmaster (Mmhuang), and to the likelihood of there being other accounts we've missed, with respect to Mmhuang0825 and Mlhuang25, as well as to any log data relating to Mmhuang and his sox, if there is any. Assuming these are all sox (and I can't see how they couldn't be), given how blatant the username similarities are I'm not sure this can be called evading scrutiny per se, so much as someone who fails to understand our policies on multiple accounts (possibly to the extent of CIR). But I'll reserve judgment on that till we hear back from a CU.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * isn't actually stale, for reasons I won't expand on. They are ✅ to, which is ✅ to . The master (Mmhuang) has been blocked for sockpuppetry in the past, so ought to know better than to run undeclared alt accounts that edit in the same subject areas, but I'll leave and  to determine how best to deal with this.   Girth Summit  (blether)  15:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Girth. Like I said, I hesitate to call this outright intentional evasion of scrutiny, so I'd like to hear from Mmhuang. Could you please explain why you are using multiple accounts? Have you read our policy on using multiple accounts?  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We can wait a little in case we hear from the user (doubtful), but I think they should be all blocked for abusive socking. I'm not interested in guessing at their mindset.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but what's the abuse? I'll be honest, I don't really understand the two-week block at the last SPI either. It doesn't seem clear that they actually understand that WP:SOCK exists. Don't get me wrong, if they can't be made to understand that that's a policy here and that they need to follow it, I'd support a block as much for CIR as for SOCK, but for now this seems plausibly like one of those cases where someone drifts between what usernames suit them and isn't aware of local policies on the matter, which to me is understandable; we're the only major website with a strict policy on undisclsoed alternate accounts, to my knowledge. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've merged the former case into this one, FYI. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't see how you can have any doubt that these accounts should all be blocked after looking at the archive (which I hadn't before). I have blocked and tagged all. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've explained my doubts at length. Could you please explain why you think a block is necessary? I don't see any evidence that they've been socking with the intent to disrupt, nor that they've been clearly made aware of the existence of WP:SOCK as a policy. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an at-length explainer. Nonetheless, two things: first, I blocked the master on December 1, 2017, for two weeks and posted a block notice on their Talk page here. So, from that point on, they were aware of the policy and yet continued to violate it. Second, and to some extent this dovetails with my opinion of the user, they lie. Indeed, part of the original report noted that the master's and the named sock's userpages were similar. But one thing that I don't think was mentioned was that their userpages were replete with lies, including saying they were administrators. The evidence for that is in the deleted history of the userpages, which you can't see.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They hadn't edited for 5 days when you blocked them last time, and often go weeks to months between edits. It's plausible that they never noticed they were blocked. You left a block message but we all know some users miss those, or don't understand what they mean. Again, if you want to call this CIR, call it CIR (false claims of adminship are another hallmark of that), but it's not clearly abusive socking. In four years no one has made an effort to actually talk to them and explain our policies. I made an effort to do so, and you blocked them before they could answer. What abuse does that prevent? Anytime I request a user's participation here, if they continue editing without responding, I request indefs, and would have done so here. Unless there is some abuse-prevention purpose served by blocking them with the query outstanding, which would not be equally served by waiting for an answer and indeffing if they fail to provide one, I would politely request that you reverse the blocks (or at least the block of the account that's edited most recently) for the time being.I'm aware that, most likely, this will end up in the same place regardless, but I have always assumed good faith of subjects of cases I clerk until given a reason to assume otherwise, and if there's still a chance that someone's misuse of multiple accounts was not in bad faith, I feel that part of my role here is to say something. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not going to unblock anyone. As far as I'm concerned, this report can be archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, I had a question for the user which still is relevant to whether they should be blocked for sockpuppetry, and they haven't yet answered it. As certain answers to that question would make me consider requesting review at XRV, I don't think this case's business can be said to have concluded. Marking as on hold. I'll keep an eye on their talk page(s) for if they answer, and if there's no answer in a week or so, I'll close. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay: having looked this over and seen the responses, my suggestion would be to inform the user of how to file an unblock request and let an uninvolved administrator review it. At some point the serial account thing becomes an issue in itself (WP:ILLEGIT is not an exclusive list per the policy, and imo, creating a ton of accounts and using them over time is disruptive), and it looks like we're up to 6 accounts here. They're claiming a lost password or something similar on their user talks. A potential solution would be a conditional unblock with a one account restriction, but that's also a better discussion for a talk page unblock request than at SPI.Personally, I'd prefer this SPI be closed and this handled on the user talk level, which is what we've traditionally done in the past when a block that someone disagrees with has occurred. The SPI page really isn't the best place to have a back and forth about a block that has already been made, and since the blocked accounts are engaging on their talk pages, it looks like there's an existing policy way for the blocks to be reviewed at the request of the users who have been blocked (i.e. WP:UNBLOCK.) if the two of you could weigh in on your thoughts about shifting this to the UNBLOCK process from SPI, I'd appreciate it. Want to make sure I'm not misremembering how we've handled disagreements on blocks in the past. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, they've answered my question, and that's all I'd left this on hold for. My intention, had they given an answer along these lines, was to instruct them to pick one account and stick with it, and have all others indeffed. That's still my feeling, just in the opposite direction: Pick one account and stick with it, and have that be the one that's unblocked. I have no strong feeling as to whether the rest of this is best resolved at SPI or as part of an unblock request; all I cared is that the SPI not close on a stronger conclusion of misconduct than I felt reasonable. I'll leave it to another clerk or CU to decide whether this is ready to close and archive. Thanks, Tony. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and closed it. They've been blocked by an admin and replied to you with an explanation that can evaluated as part of a talk page unblock request, and Bbb23 can be a part of that discussion/it will involve an admin who doesn't do SPI as much, so it can get input out of this bubble. If GS/Ivanvector think there's more to talk about after closing it, they can add their 2¢ as well, but I think where we're at now is outside the scope of this SPI page and is better handled on user talks. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)