Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samuraiantiqueworld/Archive

20 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Darkness_walks has engaged in discussion at Talk:Kabuto in a manner that implies WP:OWNERSHIP (diff) but has NEVER edited the article. Specifically, this user is defensive of the extraordinary number of images stuffed into this article, nearly all of which were added by User:Samuraiantiqueworld (a quick look at the edit history plainly shows this), who was the main contributor to the article but has been blocked since June 2012. User:Darkness_walks was created in December 2012 (several months after Samurai's indef block) and shows WP:PRECOCIOUS edit history (first edit was adding a template familiar to Samurai, also using other templates on related topics within first 10 edits). Medieval warfare and Japanese martial arts seem to be the primary interests of both accounts. Looks like a block evasion sock. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 06:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * WM, you read my mind. Or, rather, we had an edit conflict. I had started writing up the same thing, but then I realized that if SAW wanted to sockpuppet he might not have waited as long as he did, so I came here to see if this had already happened before. Anyway, here's my two cents:
 * Both users edit almost exclusively in the area of Japanese weaponry and armour. About half of the pages DW has edited were also edited by the indeffed user Samuraiantiqueworld. Both users show a preference for links to GBooks over properly-formatted references. Both users seem to believe that Wikipedia articles on historical Japanese weaponry should refer to said weaponry in the present-tense as though it is still being "traditionally made". (The blocked user seems to REALLY like this phrase -- I'm pretty sure he added it to every single similar article on English Wikipedia.)
 * Konjakupoet (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like just about every article edited by DW had also been edited by SAW. I wonder if there was another sock he was using June-December 2012, probably also blocked now. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 22:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's 11/26 by my count, but still. Also, given DW's confrontational attitude toward me, the retired Hijiri88 and 8ty3hree it does seem that if it is SAW he hasn't learned his lesson. Did SAW in his day refuse to engage on talk pages and generally stick to snide remarks in edit summaries when he got into a dispute? Konjakupoet (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 84% (SAW) and 92% (DW) edits to main namespace, both showing only about 5% edits to talk pages. In any case, I would caution DW to use talk pages more often, and perhaps point him to WP:BRD.  I'll talk to him on his own talk page as well. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 15:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm Meis, maybe you should give Konjakupoet that same advice, Konjapoet has NO history of editing ANY Japanese armor and or weapons articles, in fact Konjapoet has NO history!! and yet Konjapoet claims to be an editor on the Japanese Wiki but refuses to reveal under what name. Despite having no history of editing here Konjapoet has made major changes to Japanese armor and weapons articles without first discussing the intended changes on the articles talk pages...merging, renaming, removing referenced information and references, these are not the actions of someone who wants to work and get along with other editors, the bull in the china shop approach is a good way to make friends...not!!!Darkness walks (talk)
 * Woah! What happened to "this space is supposed to be for presenting information that has to do with the discussion taking place here"?? Anyway, please bear in mind, DW, that this is nothing personal against you. Either consensus will decide that you are a sock, or not. Please stop taking my improvements of the Japanese history articles personally. Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of information: if you found false information in a questionable source, then I am not "banned" from removing it and replacing it with more accurate information. (By the way, you can choose to believe that I, like you, am a block-evading sock of an indefinitely blocked user, but that won't matter as long as my edits under this username are constructive. The fact is that another user posted personal information about me against my will, and I was forced to go in for a WP:CLEANSTART. I have actually been editting Japanese history articles since 2005.) Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I forgot about this one: DW is almost irrationally obsessed with linking to Commons categories (perhaps to advertize the photos his last account uploaded?) within article text, going to the point of removing entirely reasonable technical additions. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Wilhelm Meis is wrong, whether or not I have edited an article in the past has nothing to do with why I would not want it to be changed. I have used and still do use the kabuto article as a learning tool, the images on it as well as the references and descriptions make it a unique learning tool that I have referred to many times in the past. I strongly opposed User:Wilhelm Meis when he stated that the article had to many images, and I stated my reasons why I think the article should be left alone (it is the only article of its kind that I am aware of). I have a great interest in the subject of the articles I have edited but I rarely edit these articles and I have learned how to edit them by imitating the edit style of previous editors which explains any similarity to any other editors particular editing habits. When I come across information which I think may improve an article I add it, also I have added articles I have an interest in to a watch list and when I see that there is a change I take a look, once in a while I revert what appears to be an edit that is not helpful to the article as many editors do, that is all, nothing sinister happening on my part as has been suggested.Darkness walks (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of your edits in the last 24 hours have been reversions of my edits, and you have made no attempt whatsoever to engage me on talk pages. If you are found not to be a sockpuppet you will still be taken to ANI for edit-warring. Konjakupoet (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you will be the one taken to ANI for removing referenced information, renaming and merging articles with out discussing your intentions, and your uncivil comments.Darkness walks (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is fixing numerous articles that you were vandalizing something worthy of being taken to ANI? You have removed the Japanese text from articles, apparently solely as "revenge", numerous times now. You have, without citing a single source, referred to the correct pronunciation of a word as "erroneous" in the article. You have tried to force me out of these articles and opposed my entirely reasonable RMs. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you get a large amount of your knowledge of Japanese history from images in Wikipedia articles, then please refrain from pretending to know more than legitimate scholars... Konjakupoet (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Konjakupoet, this space is supposed to be for presenting information that has to do with the discussion taking place here, not for personal attacks, you seem to have a complete lack of knowledge on the subject of Japanese weapons and armor, you seem hell bent on forcing your POV that all Wiki articles should conform to your personal beliefs based on your superior knowledge of japanese, you have renamed articles, merged articles, removed referenced text all without going to the talk pages of the articles first, you seem to feel that you have some sort of special insight because you can speak Japanese.Darkness walks (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, it's nothing personal, and I have no particular problem with DW. I just saw something that looked suspicious, and as I started looking into it, I found more evidence to make me suspect block evasion/sock puppetry.  In fairness, even an editor evading a block can go on to make valuable contributions to the project.  But most of them don't.  The first thing that tipped me off, though, was the thought "why would an editor be so defensive of an article he has never touched?" Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 15:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm_meis, it seems to be personal, otherwise why would you not have the decency to inform me that you were taking this measure? I have taken a close look at the contributions of the editor you are accusing me of being, do you really think that samuraiantiqueworld would be limited to the few minor edits I have made over the period of time I have been editing? I did some checking, samuraiantiqueworld has many thousands of edits on Wiki commons and several thousands here, how many have I made, and of course I have edited the same articles samuraiantiqueworld has edited because there seems to be not one Japanese weapons and or armor armour article that samuraiantiqueworld has not edited. I took some time to check the edit histories of a lot of these articles, most were not very good articles if not complete junk before samuraiantiqueworld edited them, now they have good references and images ,my few edits do not even come close to that, I have a job and family, I do not have time to do more than a few edits once in a while. I think the kabuto article is GREAT, I have no reason to edit it, if I were to edit it I would add more images and information, not less, I do not see any reason to take anything away from it. In SCA this article along with Anthony Bryant's web site are referred to all the time when questions about kabuto come up.Darkness walks (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DW, please stop making things personal. I'm planning on dragging your ass to ANI for the other reasons mentioned above here whether or not you are found to be a sock. You need to learn to discuss differences of opinion with other users on talk pages, and to give in when you are in the wrong. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not go off-topic here. This thread is about whether or not DW is a block evasion sock, nothing else. Anything you've got for AN/I should go there.  And no, DW, this is not anything personal on my part.  There is no requirement for a reporting editor to notify anyone of an SPI, and I wasn't trying to start any trouble with you, just looking into something that looked suspicious.  The matter at Talk:Kabuto is something I have absolutely no emotional investment in, and you'll notice I've been letting it rest in the meantime.  I may go ahead and add another note there just to clarify my reasons for opening that thread, but again, that discussion will take place on that page.  You may notice I have also offered some guidance on your talk page, because that's how a collaborative project works.  Members talk to each other and build consensus.  I would like to see you use the article talk pages more if you wish to continue contributing to the project, because frankly 92% article edits to 5% talk page edits is a bit too bold.  I'd like to see more editors making more valuable contributions to our articles, but consensus is important to this project.  THIS PAGE is about sock puppetry, though, so I'll just ask you straight out: Did you previously use the account User:Samuraiantiqueworld, and are you willing to make compromises to build consensus toward a better encyclopedia?  If the answer to both is yes, then there is a process for appealing a block. Wilhelm Meis (&#9742; Diskuss &#124; &#x270D; Beiträge) 16:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. How about the following for a summary of the details? (By the way, I think I've found at least one of the "missing links" you hypothezsized earlier.) Konjakupoet (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

STRONG for:                                                                                                                          — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konjakupoet (talk • contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both SAW and DW edit almost exclusively in the area of medieval and early modern Japanese weapons and armour.
 * Overuse of "bullet point"-style comments, in place of standard indentation.
 * Posting numerous comments at once, one below the other, as "bullet points".
 * Apparent desire to maintain text as previously written by SAW.
 * A desire to maintain links to commons categories originally added by SAW.
 * A tendency, similar to SAW, to format references in both articles and talk pages in the form of GBooks links.
 * DW appears to be the only one to have ever included Template:Japanese (samurai) weapons, armour and equipment in an article.
 * Except for SAW (the template's creator).
 * Many involved SAW adding an early version of his template that apparently got deleted, and Frietjes cleaning up afterward.
 * And a VERY suspicious IP.
 * The only exceptions were this and this, the latter seeming to be a misuse of the template.
 * Further, the suspicious IP is based in New Orleans, the same as Samurai Antique World. Could this be the missing link mentioned in "WEAK for:" below?
 * The IP also uses awkward GBOOKS likes as its sources and is very confrontation in talk page comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konjakupoet (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * SAW was likely evading his block through the use of an IP until 06:31 on 9 December and then DW's first edit was to the exact same article 42 minutes later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konjakupoet (talk • contribs) 13:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The unique beginning of a comment with a bold "Fact".

MID for:
 * SAW: 84.23% article edits, 5.1% talk edits.
 * DW: 85.94% article edits, 7.81% talk edits.

WEAK for:
 * SAW's last edit expressed a willingness to change his username, but upon getting blocked made no attempt whatsoever to appeal. Given his level of activity (~5 edits/day?) up to that point, it seems unlikely that he would just let Wikipedia go completely. More likely, he immediately created a sock account that got blocked in December, and DW is his second.

STRONG against:
 * (As pointed out by DW aboveSAW was prolific, averaging 5 edits/day over 2 1/2 years; DW has been here over 4 months and has made less than 100 edits.
 * DW once removed a Commons link.

MID against:       
 * DW appears to dislike the use of Japanese text in articles, but I can find little evidence of a similar trend for SAW.
 * (DW oddly re-added Japanese text that he had previously removed.)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . Samuraiantiqueworld is . --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I rather regret having to do this, since I always liked working with SAW - but the behavioural evidence provided in the diffs above, when combined with my own enquiries, is enough to convince me. I've therefore blocked DW and tagged the account as a suspected sockpuppet. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. Rschen7754 05:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

New account created by a Commons name-change in 2013 before global login. Editor may be allowed continue to edit on Commons (apparently even engaging in the same disruption that led to their block here), but they are indefinitely blocked on en.wiki so using their new alt-username here as they have done several times in the last two years or so is not acceptable. This is more procedural than anything, as there has not apparently been any abuse in the last year, but it should still be logged. Also note that while actively socking under his new user name last summer he engaged in an IDHT block appeal without disclosing his alternate account. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:44, 19 November 2017 (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

 * Re-report if account becomes active again. Sro23 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

WP:DUCK:
 * , which was created when his Commons account was renamed (see the previous SPI), uploaded an image to Commons on 26 December of last year and the account linked it on en.wiki six days later;
 * the account has edited SAW's pet template multiple times, as recently as last month;
 * the account shares not only SAW's interest in Japanese but also his more recent interest in Indian weaponry.

Most of the same applies to although that evidence is so stale as to only be valid to demonstrate that SAW doesn't have scruples about evading his block, something the other accounts already do.

Requesting CU for the Worldantiques account, which is definitely SAW and has probably at least logged in the last three months (I think that counts?), and the recently active Disinterested spectator account for confirmation, and to check for others -- clearly one unblocked account is not enough, so one wonders if two is enough either. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I thought the above was enough to warrant a CU request, and I thought (based on this) that CU worked based on an account having been "used" (insofar as it was logged in) in the past three months, which I assumed was probably the case with the Worldantiques account based on its level of activity on Commons and simply opening English Wikipedia while logged into Commons would count.
 * I guess I was wrong, and I appreciate that for reasons I'm not getting an explanation of how I was wrong.
 * I am convinced based on the above, and SAW's history of unapologetic block evasion, that DS is him, and I think the above evidence is at least as strong as what convinced User:Yunshui to block User:Darkness walks back in 2013. But I wouldn't hold it against a closer who felt the above behavioural evidence wasn't quite strong enough to block DS as a sock. I only posted it here because I thought I could get a CU to confirm.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:51, 22 November 2017 (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

 * - Only one account is not stale. Sro23 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Behavioral evidence is compelling. Please indef Disinterested spectator. No need to block Worldantiques, which hasn't been active in more than a year. Sro23 (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sro23 - ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   06:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing case. Sro23 (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)