Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanessaliam/Archive

10 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Per CU being run by Ponyo here. Filing for future use, I will take care of the blocks and mop up. Feel free to review and close as you see fit. Dennis - 2&cent; 22:21, 10 November 2014 (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
Update: Based on behavior, I'm sure this is the same person as User:Nellyhan. Please see also Sockpuppet investigations/Nellyhan. I'll consider Nellyhan the sockpuppeteer, so I've re-blocked this account indef, and re-blocked nellyhan 1 month (with permission from the previous blocking admin). If the archiving clerk thinks these two SPI's should be merged, I'm afraid I don't know how, and I sort of think it's OK they're separate, but I'm also fine with deferring to someone competent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the other case to this page and updated the account tag, as Mischief7 is the older account. Mike V  •  Talk  23:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

07 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This began with ANI ticket now archived on ANI Archive 861 # Misuse of 3O
 * Nellyhan has edited the archive, replying to Floquenbeam.
 * Checkuser stated relationship here
 * Nellyhan stated use of two accounts here. First of all, Nellyhan is my recent ID, and Vanessaliam is my old ID User has made three edits in a 30 minute period with the Vanessaliam account since editing with the Nellyhan account. Old, but not abandoned.
 * Comment on ANI by here and on talk:Nellyhan here Jim1138 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nellyhan, Maintain1, and Willsturn have all edited Ahn Sahng-hong, causing the appearance of multiple editors in favor of a POV.

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

Case duplicated here: Sockpuppet investigations/Nellyhan

I notice that has not been indef blocked. Why?

Secondly, thank you Ponyo for your observations. Going more in depth leads you back to who used to edit very actively in Ahn Sahng-hong and the related  World Mission Society Church of God in 2013. One example:
 * is created 15:10, 30 September 2013, and makes their first edit,, on 07:37, 1 October 2013.
 * One week later on 03:34, 8 October 2013 they make their second edit,, thanking for help with their first article, quote "I really appreciated for your editing in my article. It was my first time to write the article in wikipedia." Which article? At that time IloveU4ever had not created an article. And Nancyinthehouse had not edited Ginseng either.
 * Judging from the contribs of Nancyinthehouse, Orostachys japonica must be the article referred to.
 * But that was created by on 02:26, 8 October 2013. Only 21 minutes after article creation, GloveU79 posts on the article talk page "Can anyone help me with this article? This is my first article in wikipedia. I think I couldn't solve this problem. Please help me." and only two minutes later Nancyinthehouse responds on the article talk page,, and edits the article between 03:10 and 03:15.
 * This example in a plant related article very much resembles Ponyo's Example no. 1, where Mischief requests an article on Aristolochia contorta from IloveU4ever, that is created a few hours later.

Judging from similar unusual interaction and signs there may, apart from the now blocked Mischief7, Vanessaliam, and IloveU4ever, be some 12-20 other dormant accounts. Sam Sing! 17:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. This is a mess, although all the accounts are blocked. confirmed two sets of accounts to each other and said it was "possible" the two sets were connected. As a result, we have two SPIs, this one, and Sockpuppet investigations/Mischief7. The oldest account is Vanessaliam (created October 30, 2013). Mischief7 was created on November 9, 2013. Some of the tagging and blocking doesn't make any sense based on Ponyo's findings. For example, Vanessaliam is tagged as a sock of Mischief7, even though the only account confirmed to Mischief7 was Thomathe81, and Vanessa was confirmed to the other set. Also, Nellyhan has been blocked only for a month as a "master", which is again absolutely inaccurate, as that account is a confirmed sock of Vanessa. So, I want to fix the confirmed part and, at the same time, I'd like to find that all of the accounts are socks of Vanessa, even though it isn't conclusive. I haven't decided whether I will then merge the Mischief7 SPI into this one. However before taking any action, I'd like to hear from Ponyo to see if she has any objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't get any pings here, but according to he doesn't think pings work on SPI pages. I looked through my notification archives and that seems to be the case. This entire case is a mess because it was handled in a number of places, each person acting, through no fault of their own, with only a piece or two of the puzzle. The lynchpin does appear to be the Venessaliam account. Let me take one last look (I crashed my browser earlier today when I tried - so many windows! so many tabs! all lost!) and I'll see if I can come up with a definitive master/sock/SPI tagging suggestion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Based purely on the technical evidence the following are ✅ as and should be indef blocked and tagged as such:


 * Technical evidence also shows that is ✅ to  and is  to be . When you add in the behavioural evidence it is all but confirmed. In addition, the account was revived after lying dormant for a year specifically to edit Ahn Sahng-hong, three days after the confirmed sock Nellyhan was blocked for edits to the same article.
 * As I previously noted at SPI, the technical evidence between and  shows a  match and they are editing from the same city. The final determination as to whether Mischief should be tagged to the same master will need to be based on a behavioural investigation. There is some obvious overlap:
 * Example 1: Mischief's first edits are to turn their userpages blue, then in their first edit outside of their own user space Mischief requests an article from ILoveU4ever, ILoveU creates it, Vanessaliam thanks them
 * Example 2: Guess who's there to greet Mischief7 when they start their account? Vanessaliam.
 * Example 3: For no discernable reason, confirmed sock Nellyhan asks the newly revived (after a one year break) Mischief7 account for a WP:3O on the contentious Ahn Sahng-hong article, then Mischief jumps into the dispute with both feet to support Nellyhan.


 * I can't imagine a scenario where these accounts are unrelated.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've retagged all accounts as socks of Vanessaliam with her as the master. The only slight hitch is that ILoveU4ever is an older account (by a month) than Vanessa, but other than noting that here, I'm going to ignore it. After I close this case (doing so now), I will merge the Michief7 SPI into this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I flipped the Nellyhan block to indefinite, I think it was just an accidental oversight that it wasn't extended earlier. It does indeed look like the redirects here should now point to this SPI. I know has some trouble with a previous merge to this report. I'm not sure if they have the desire to take another crack at it?she asked hopefully -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, folks, it wasn't the merge that caused the problems, just me. Making Nellyhan's block indefinite was on my "list", but I forgot (originally blocked for less time because it was thought the account was the master). I also fixed the redirect. Let someone else me know if there are any more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)