Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PolandMEC/Archive

04 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Same behaviour as previous socks: A couple of rather uninspired edits and a wait for a couple of days to get auto-confirmed, and then it's off to Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica to revert to a spammy version to "sum up all editors opinion" (which would largely be the other socks'). Huon (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Not so much a comment as a request for clarification, as this is open again: the previous request, now archived, from included also  and . While those two clearly differ in behaviour from Chan f.c., there is no perceptible behavioural difference between the two of them. Was that looked at by a checkuser? If not, can it be looked at here, or would a separate request needed? It's presumably too late at this point to look at, , ,  and so on, all of whom have also shown a monothematic interest in this institution and a remarkable propensity for edit-warring? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir, I do not make any illegitimate behavior here, what I did is just to edit some article to improve reading within Wikipedia policy. What's wrong am I? Is here any article in Wiki be prohibited for other users to edit? Could you clearly tell me, let me don't edit those article, please! Safetylun (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly support Safetylun and we are not related in any way, except by the opinion the actual article is not neutralRamdiesel (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Huon, I agree in full with Safetylun and we are different user, different countries, different IP. It seems you Huon and Justlettersandnumbers seems to think are the owners of the true and the rest of us in the talk page, we are alll wrong.Ramdiesel (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In my humble opinion Huon and Justlettersandnumbers have no ground to edit the article. I see no expertize in the subject. Most of the users involved are from CostA Rica, or other souther countries, such as uruguay and Argentina. We are more familiarized with private small Universities, and this article helps nothing. All user we cannot be all wrongCostaRicaOnline (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that user is anxious to be compared with the others too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers said here "all of whom have also shown a monothematic interest in this institution and a remarkable propensity for edit-warring?" here on 01:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)..... I felt not included into this.. I help editing other articles, such as Dulce de Leche, CEibal Laptops for primary studenst in uruguay, and articles such as Tabare vazquez )President of Uruguay and Jose Mujica. I place my efford to contribute, although I am non english native speaker, and Huon and Justlettersandnumbers instead of helping improve, erase everybody else contribution. I think they are the ones punishable for making edit warring and not the rest of the users. Ramdiesel (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * CU is not needed here, because this is obvious. This account made an edit identical to the one previously made by this master's socks ( and ). An admin should block., feel free to block yourself.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll do so; I wanted another person to take a look lest I be claimed to be too involved to clearly judge the issue. Given the delay between creation of sock accounts and first edits at the target artilce, a sleeper check may be useful, though. Huon (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since all those accounts are interested primarily in the UNEM article, I believe sleepers check is not needed, as they would be easy to identify when they start editing.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My two cents. I'd like to see a CU, although not necessarily for the same reason as others. First, Safetylun's English is quite different from the master's. Although that could just be subterfuge, in such cases, if a CU is possible, it resolves the issue. Second, to see if there are relationships between some of the accounts, including the ones mentioned by, even if they are unrelated to the master. And, of course, a sleeper check might be useful.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - Since we have more accounts now, CU might help.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * Also ✅:
 * is part of this second group.
 * There's no discernable technical relationship between the two groups. As regards the other accounts mentioned, there's a lot of IP hopping and logged out editing going on, so the connections above are the only definite conclusions I can draw. Yunshui 雲 水 12:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed and tagged Safetylun. I've blocked Ramdiesel, CostaRicaOnline, and PolandMEC, but not yet tagged them. Of the three accounts, PolandMEC is the oldest. We might want to create a new SPI for the master. It sort of depends on whether there are going to be more socks related to that master, which we can't know. I need to ask someone about tagging the three accounts in the interim as I having problems. Still closing, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please check Tartaruganight (listed at the top now)? The account was created in a very short space of time after I blocked the socks. I'm fairly confident it's a sock, but I don't know which line of accounts it belongs to. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * connection the Ramdiesel group. Yunshui 雲 水 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the account based on a combination of the CU and behavioral evidence. No tag yet, and I'm keeping this open until the tag issue is sorted out, although I'm thinking more and more that I should create a new SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed and tagged Safetylun. I've blocked Ramdiesel, CostaRicaOnline, and PolandMEC, but not yet tagged them. Of the three accounts, PolandMEC is the oldest. We might want to create a new SPI for the master. It sort of depends on whether there are going to be more socks related to that master, which we can't know. I need to ask someone about tagging the three accounts in the interim as I having problems. Still closing, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please check Tartaruganight (listed at the top now)? The account was created in a very short space of time after I blocked the socks. I'm fairly confident it's a sock, but I don't know which line of accounts it belongs to. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * connection the Ramdiesel group. Yunshui 雲 水 20:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've indeffed the account based on a combination of the CU and behavioral evidence. No tag yet, and I'm keeping this open until the tag issue is sorted out, although I'm thinking more and more that I should create a new SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've created this case for the separate master with no revision history. Sockpuppet investigations/Chan f.c. still exists for anything under that master. I've tagged the accounts and am closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

28 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

PolandMEC is balck editing Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. This time as an IP. Just compare this with previous edits by sockpuppet :.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:40, 28 July 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

 * Admin action needed - I would like an admin to semi-protect the article. There was also some IP socking yesterday (also locates to Montevideo, like the other IP).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Article SPP'ed for 3 months, for 2 weeks. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

See tendentious editing and edit warring concerning Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica, edits in common with master and previous socks going back to 2015 (and probably 2014 – see the archives of the article's Talk page). There are also subtle behavioral clues that support a suspicion that this is the same user. CU requested to confirm.  General Ization  Talk   18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the first suspected sock mentions the second as a party in at WP:DRN alleging bad faith in the handling of their edits, even though Shivayves has been blocked since August for making legal threats regarding the same article and Taesulkim created on November 1. Consequently asking to include Shivayves (not previously identified as a sock) in the SPI. General Ization   Talk   18:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The third and fourth are speculative, and may be stale, but that the first and the third are the same person, and the fourth has also argued (as their one and only edit) for deletion of the article as "unfair" to the subject, as alleged by the third.  General Ization   Talk   19:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging the CU's findings, mostly that data on the master and older socks is stale. Still ask that an admin evaluate the behavioral characteristics and similar editing (and apparent goals) of the suspected socks, particularly the active account Taesulkim.  General Ization   Talk   16:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

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

It seems @ General_Ization is very interested in blacklisting either the institution, as any other editor, which may not agree to his opinion. So all the ones that he does not agree with his opinion is been listed here. After proving we are different users on different locations, you will undersatnd that maybe you are the wrong one here Taesulkim (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if you are all different users, WP:MEAT may apply. I have not looked into the situation, so I do not know at this time.  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just realized I'm somewhat involved in this case. People kept adding a website to Universidad San Juan de la Cruz (which I spotted using Huggle), so I asked some people in IRC to help me find out if the website they were adding was legitimate, and it appeared to be.  After I added back the website, Taesulkim asked me on my talk page to take another look at it, so I did.  The FBI IC3 team had apparently taken down the website, as it was apparently illegitimate.  In the end, I removed the illegitimate website from the infobox.  After they asked if they should forward me proof that they (the university), I told them not to, but that if anything else comes of the website, to email Wikimedia's legal team about it.  In any case, the editor definitely has a WP:COI and WP:PAID may apply.  (It's not clear to me if they're being paid to influence Wikipedia's content, but it is clear that they are paid by the university.  How else would they know about that IC3 complaint?  —  Gestrid  ( talk ) 21:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The data is stale for PolandMEC, Japanuji, and Wikiunem. Taesulkim and Shivayves are ❌ technically. Katietalk 00:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)