Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinwiki12/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049:


 * a) share an extensive interest in PRC military and military related topics


 * b) have edited the same articles, sometimes contemporaneously
 * example #1 - Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049 . This example is note worthy because of the specificity and connectedness of the changes made
 * example #2 - Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049
 * example #3 - Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049
 * example #4 - Sinwiki12 (, and ) and Porxchp772049
 * example #5 - Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049


 * c) share the same pro PRC bias


 * d) exhibit the same idiosyncratic disparity in their edit comments. Both users do not or rarely leave comments when editing PRC military and military related articles but comment much more frequently and extensively when editing non PRC military and military related articles.


 * e) have advanced arguments that employ the same logical structure - Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049


 * f)have made edits which show the same pattern of interest convergence. Both users started and have been editing articles that are almost entirely related to the 2022 Winter Olympics at the same time. (From Feb 5 onwards) Before this neither user made any edits that were related to the olympics.

In addition to the apparent sockpuppetry between Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049 there appears to be evidence of meatpuppetry between the two and the Destinyseeker89 sockfarm


 * a) Porxchp772049‘s IP address geolocates to Australia which is also where the Destinyseeker89 sockfarm is from.


 * b) the talk page message which showed Porxchp772049‘s ip address was removed by the user  on same day when both Porxchp772049 and one of Destinyseeker89’s sockpuppet accounts User talk:WesternChristianitytestballi started editing articles related to the 2022 Winter Olympics and also when I filed a sockpuppet report against User talk:WesternChristianitytestballi  Prior to this, the message stood untouched for a month. As with Sinwiki12 and Porxchp772049, WesternChristianitytestballi’s edits showed the same pattern of interest convergence - the user started and had been prior to his sockpuppet ban editing articles that were entirely related to the 2022 Winter Olympics from Feb 5 onwards, before which WesternChristianitytestballi had made no edit that was related to the olympics.


 * c) Porxchp772049 and WesternChristianitytestballi have made edits of the same nature to the same pages, many times within the same time frame.
 * example #1 - Porxchp772049 and WesternChristianitytestballi.
 * example #2 - Porxchp772049 and WesternChristianitytestballi.


 * d)User talk:Nvtuil, one of Destinyseeker89’s sockpuppet accounts, and Sinwiki12 have made edits of the same nature to the same pages within the same time frame.
 * example #1 - Nvtuil and Sinwiki12.
 * example #2 - Nvtuil and Sinwiki12.
 * example #3 - Nvtuil and Sinwiki12 . I included this example because there’s an observations that i think is worth noting despite the relative time gap between the edits. Both users source information to what the encyclopedia’s records show is a fairly obscure magazine (neimagazine) to add positive information for the PRC - within the article itself the two users have been the only ones who use that source.


 * e) User talk: Casualfoodie, one of Destinyseeker89’s sockpuppet accounts, and Sinwiki12 have made edits of the same nature to the same pages within the same time frame.
 * example #1 - Casualfoodie and Sinwiki12 (,  Estnot (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT 1 - i am not sure how valid this argument is as I am not an administrator and have no experience conducting sockpuppet investigations but it seems to me pretty strange that neither account has yet to make a comment defending themselves throughout this process. Common sense would seem to suggest that they would have gone to at least some lengths to defend themselves against the sockpuppet accusations given the gravity of the charges. I would also like to point out that both accounts have shown yet another similar pattern of editing - neither account made an edit from the time that this investigation was filed to when it was confirmed by technical evidence that they were not sockpuppets, after which they have been editing fairly actively again. This appears to me to be yet another piece of evidence that the two accounts are related to each other in a way that warrants sanctions despite the technical information which you administrators say isn’t the case Estnot (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

We are not obliged to respond to accusations. Neither did you made a page edit during this time so I don't see your point. Porxchp772049 (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said you had an obligation to respond (that’s besides the point) and I’m not the one who is being investigated. Do you have anything to say that rebuts the specific arguments that I’ve made? Estnot (talk) 12:14, 25 February 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

 * -  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so is looking ❌ as far as CU goes - their IP ranges seem stable, and geolocate to a different country from  and their previous socks.
 * is - they geolocate to the same city, but are on a different IP range from previous socks.
 * However, the following account came up when I was looking at, and is ✅ to them:
 * I'm going to block and tag that one; behavioural evaluation will be needed to establish any connection with the two reported accounts. Girth Summit  (blether)  11:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at the various accounts named in the original filing. While I certainly see overlap in interests, I'm not seeing enough to justify a block for socking given the CU results.  Closing with no action for now; we can always come back and take another look later. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at the various accounts named in the original filing. While I certainly see overlap in interests, I'm not seeing enough to justify a block for socking given the CU results.  Closing with no action for now; we can always come back and take another look later. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)