Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiang09/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

JSmith179's edit suggests he is most likely the most recent sockpuppet account of Xiang09 (IvatanWiki).

For example, IvatanWiki also focused his edits on the "Shamans" section of Philippine mythology, removing the sentences:
 * "These evidences, together with the fact that there were no written accounts of female sex/male gender identification amongst the women who exercised authority within the spiritual sphere, prove that spiritual potency was not dependent upon the identification with a neuter "third" sex/gender space, but rather on the identification with the feminine - whether the biological sex was female or male";
 * "Femininity was considered the vehicle to the spirit world during the pre-colonial era, and the male shaman's identification with the feminine reinforced the normative situation of female as shaman";

As can be seen here:.

Also, his other account Xiang09 also had the habit of removing images such as the Sto. Niño image, which is exactly what JSmith179 has done. Stricnina (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2019 (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

 * ✅, . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Ramayanath edits the same articles frequented by Xiang09 and his sockpuppet accounts IvatanWiki and JSmith179. In particular: LGBT themes in mythology, LGBT culture in the Philippines and Philippine mythology. Ramayanath's behaviour of undoing my edits without engaging me in talk pages (examples: and,  and ) reminds me of IvatanWiki's behaviour in the other page Philippine mythology, which also engaged in edit warring without engaging me in talk pages (examples:  and ).

Additionally, some edits of Ramayana are really similar to the ones made by IvatanWiki. Example: Ramayanath's edit and some of IvatanWiki's edits ( and ) Stricnina (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2019 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

My investigation is greatly hampered by low-speed Internet in my current location, but I believe this account is another sockpuppet of Xiang09.

As always, this user frequents some of the same pages as Xiang09 and its numerous sockpuppet accounts such as Ramayanath and IvatanWiki, such as Philippine mythology, LGBT culture in the Philippines and Ivatan people. For example, Xiang09 and Maniceb continuously insists on removing without justification images such as the Santonilyo (Sto. Niño of Cebu) in the Philippine mythology wiki page, as you can see here: Maniceb's contribution and Xiang09's contribution.

Another example are the similar contributions of Maniceb and the previous sockpuppet accounts of Xiang09, such as and, especially the part on the:

"Peoples who did not identify with their biological gender are accepted by their communities, and in fact, have roles aside from shamans. A notable example is the mentefuwaley, transgender peoples from the Teduray ethnic group of Mindanao." Stricnina (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2019 (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

 * - this account is using a different open proxy but matches other technical markers, and like previous socks they've also been editing logged out. Combined with the behavioural evidence this is enough to block. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Similar (or identical) to editing behaviour of its numerous alternative accounts, especially compared to the previous edits of its previous sockpuppet account Maniceb. For example, they both edit the same page Philippine mythology. Compare for example the edits of Hozuki66 and the Maniceb before the reversion of edits by IvanVector. As you can see, the edits are almost identical.

Just to bring the point across, I will point out identical editing contributions of both accounts, which include addition of the same images such as the Lake Coron with the following caption:

"Kayangan lake in Coron is a sacred abode for the Tagbanwa people and their deities since ancient times. The lake is within Palawan, a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve."

And the same Lapulapu image with the same caption:

"Lapu-Lapu, a historical figure in the early 16th century, has been associated with numerous myths since around the 17th century. Among these include his relationship with ally Datu Mangal and the forces of nature which backed Lapu-Lapu in the historical Battle of Mactan."

And the same Mindanao Bangsamoro Islamic Art with the same caption:

"A sarimanok statue displayed at the Bangsamoro and Lumad Cultures Gallery of the National Museum of Anthropology."

As you can see here (Hozuki66's edits) and here (Maniceb's edits).

Removal of the same passages such as the following:

"Historical evidence suggests that the religious realm was predominated by female shamans, with various accounts being specific about the fact that in the Philippines the majority of Animist shamans were women whose ranks were swelled by a few males who dressed as women."

And also the passage below (which is also what the other sockpuppet account JSmith179 did, as explained in the previous sockpuppet investigations):

""These evidences, together with the fact that there were no written accounts of female sex/male gender identification amongst the women who exercised authority within the spiritual sphere, prove that spiritual potency was not dependent upon the identification with a neuter "third" sex/gender space, but rather on the identification with the feminine - whether the biological sex was female or male";"

And also unjustifiably removing the same images that I have added such as the following (please refer to the previously linked diffs for reference):

"thumb"

- The Virgin of Antipolo has animist connections. Many of the rituals and prayers connected to the Lady of the Breadfruit (Tipolo) Tree have similarities to the pre-colonial indigenous cult of Maguayen, the Visayan god to whom people made offerings before building a boat or embarking on a voyage. Similarly, the Virgin of Antipolo is also asked for protection and well-being, as well as for the blessing of new cars, the modern mode of transportation.

"thumb"

- The Santo Niño de Cebu is the inspiration of the child rain-deity of Visayan mythology named Santonilyo

Stricnina (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2020 (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
'''This case is being reviewed by JJMC89 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.'''
 * per Stricnina's evidence —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, ST47 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Too many accounts so far to compare so my investigation is hampered because of this (the fact that I am also busier than before is not helping), but due to the nature of the topics of their contribution, I believe HKongBott is another one of Xiang09's accounts.

HKongBott:


 * HKongBott's contributions are like a summary of the contributions of Xiang09's multiple accounts. For example, compare the previously linked contribution to Ramayanath's edits since details regarding the binukot and the Waray mythology are also there. It even uses the same sources such as the "Change me into a Chieftain" and the Demetrio (1991) source. For details regarding Kaptan's attraction to both genders, compare HKongBot's edits to Maniceb's edits (in fact, the same John Maurice Miller (1904) and FilipiKnow sources are cited). Bathala's epicenity (or transgenderness) in HKongBott's contribution is also found in one of Xiang09's sockpuppet account edits as you can see here, and they all use the same Potet source. Like in IvatanWiki's edits and Xiang09's edits, the new account also uses the same images such as the Itneg potters;
 * Aside from the Itneg potter image, HKongbott also adds the same image with almost the same caption in the case of the Lapu-lapu image. Compare HKongbott's edit and Hozuki66's edit in Philippine mythology (see also Maniceb's edits before the reversions done by IvanVector for the same image with the same caption). The caption in Hozuki66's case is: Lapu-Lapu, a historical figure in the early 16th century, has been associated with numerous myths since around the 17th century. Among these include his relationship with ally Datu Mangal and the forces of nature which backed Lapu-Lapu in the historical Battle of Mactan. In HKongbott's case, the caption is identical, with minor variation;
 * Identical contributions (or just mindless copy-pasting of personal contributions, which was also a habit of Xiang09 and many of the associated sockpuppets). Compare for example HKongBott's edits with the previous contributions of IvatanWiki in the Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines, especially the part about the people can freely marry and have children, including male asog who were recorded by early Spanish colonists as being married to other men, an early notion of religious same-sex marriage, although the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriages was never given as both were viewed as equally the same thing. It even uses the same notes;
 * Minor behavioural similarity: similar excessive citation style (adding too many sources). Compare this and this, where even more than five citations are given to some passages;
 * Editing at least one Wikipedia article in common with the other accounts of Xiang09 (i.e. Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines). See IvatanWiki's contributions in said page for example;

Stricnina (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ibrahimsug:


 * Account created the same date as HKongbott;
 * This account's edits deal with the same topics as IvatanWiki (the same article named Cultural achievements of pre-colonial Philippines and even the same section). Also, contributions are similar, like the comment on the 17 unique scripts and 4 surviving colonization;
 * Adding the same image as Hozuki66. Said image is about the Monreal Stones. Compare Hozuki66's edits with those of Ibrahimsug. Even the caption is identical: One of the Monreal Stones, found in Ticao Island (Masbate), etched with a suyat script. Although pre-colonial writings on rock and copper have been discovered since the 20th century, shamans were noted to have been writing magic formulae, incantations, and spells on bamboos, leaves, and, later on, paper as well.

Stricnina (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2020 (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

 * ✅ plus:
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . ST47 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Per message on my talk. ST47 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2020 (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

 * . ST47 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Confirmed accounts . Ping . Closing. ST47 (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Draft:Mentefuwaley (history) was created and edited by three different known socks of Xiang09 (ClisAbante, AmberDguz, and DwataAnito). Since they know I have seen that draft and am watching for future socks, they instead created Draft:Mentefuwaley (gender identity) under this new account. I know it's them because the text of the new draft is almost entirely identical to the text of the old draft. Only a sock would strategically abandon the existing draft just to copy the same text into a new draft. I am requesting CU to check for sleepers/other accounts, since these have often turned up in the past. I also ask that their IP be blocked for as long as can be allowed. This person is clearly determined to keep popping up again and again, and I and others am tired of having to waste time writing up reports on them repeatedly. For the record, at least one report was done outside of SPI: Crossroads -talk- 03:03, 23 June 2020 (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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * On the basis of technical evidence only, ✅ + . Salvio 17:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize was also checking this. I call PCommission ✅, but suggest . Also,  is  though they have not edited. All these accounts are using one static-looking IP (not a range) and it does not look to me like a public computer or proxy. No other accounts seen. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Behavioral evidence for PCommission does not match previous Xiang09 socks, and reading between the lines on some of the past sock findings gives me a fairly good guess at why multiple accounts might be editing from the same IP. NCCAee, others left alone. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

So many materials to compare so far, but this user edits almost the same articles as its previous sockpuppet accounts. Similar behaviour includes using the same edit summary ("sources provided") 1 and 2, progressing from "colonially-imposed hate crimes" of the Spanish colonizers to outright "genocide", same style editing (like for example the same listing style used here and here), etc. A minor editing similarity includes adding multiple sources, most of which usually do not confirm the written claims, only making eventual verification difficult (compare the new account's edit here and the previous sockpuppet account activities here and here). Also have same interests, but the new account in particular is focused on other pages like Indigenous Philippine shrines and sacred grounds and Indigenous Philippine folk religions instead of editing primarily on the usual pages like Philippine mythology, probably to avoid suspicion. Stricnina (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

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

A previous round of CheckUser for this sockmaster found a match for PCommission, but they were not blocked at that time because it was thought that the behavioral evidence did not warrant it. But combined with this latest evidence, that CU match is highly noteworthy. Crossroads -talk- 22:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I think this is definitely them. At the last SPI, this account only had a relative handful of edits, and these were about certain animal species and a few about art, or else on their userpage. But now I see, in addition to Stricnina's evidence above, the same pattern of POV-pushing for Philippine indigenous culture that Xiang09 has always done. I suspect they deliberately dropped their editing on gender related topics this time around because that was how I caught them the last two SPIs. Crossroads -talk- 01:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I urge GeneralNotability to keep in mind that this is a very determined banned user who repeatedly returns under new accounts, many of them having been sleepers or running concurrently, and that this account fits that pattern perfectly. Because is familiar with this user from past SPIs, I am also pinging them. Crossroads -talk- 02:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A big overlap between this account and past socks is that they all edit in the area of Filipino mythology and religion. Compare, for example, the interest here to edits here by known sock Ggrandez17 showing that same interest (and that PCommission was also there). Here the new account adds text about diwata and anito; one of the known socks is named. If this has to be a behavioral investigation, I'm sure knows of more evidence. But really, between all the evidence above and the fact that PCommission is already known to be Technically indistinguishable from known socks, with one static-looking IP that does not look...like a public computer or proxy, there is no way that this is not the banned user. Doesn't "technically indistinguishable" mean the user agent data matches too, meaning they are on the exact same computer? Crossroads -talk- 03:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

, Occam's Razor applies here. An account that has the exact same narrow interests, edits in the same style, showed up at around the same time as other accounts that are now blocked, is suspected to be a very determined repeat offender, and is on the same exact computer? Sure, we could posit that it's someone in the same house or something, but we could do that for any CheckUser match. What even is the point of CheckUser then? The simplest conclusion is that it's the same banned user once again misrepresenting sources to push their POV. In the off chance it's someone new, they would probably appeal their block; if it's the banned user, they'll just abandon it and start yet another account. I don't expect this comment to change any minds, but I am putting it here for the record. Crossroads -talk- 16:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Londontoledo6 is definitely a sock of Xiang09 based on behavioral evidence alone; they have both added the exact same text to the same article.

Since Londontoledo6 matches PCommission, and we know from the archive that PCommission matches known socks, therefore Londontoledo6 matches known socks, correct? (If A=B and B=C, then A=C.) That combined with the behavioral match I just gave (why would a new editor copy the exact formatting of an obscure edit from 10 months ago?) shows that Londontoledo6 should be blocked as a confirmed sock.
 * Londontoledo6 added text about "Waray mythology"; note the text and the reference formatting, including an accidental space between "The Soul Book" and its period:
 * This was the exact same (except for an additional wikilink), down to the reference formatting, as was added by, a known, blocked sock of Xiang09, way back in December 2019:

As for familiarity, I saw that you (Ivanvector) have blocked Xiang09's socks twice in the archives, while GeneralNotability had only commented that one time, so it didn't seem to me they were more familiar than you. During the June filing PCommission had few edits, which were focused on animal species and a few about art and on their userpage; the pivot to mythology came later. In any case, the technical match between PCommission and Londontoledo6, along with the behavioral match between Londontoledo6 and a confirmed Xiang09 sock, would seem to bolster the case that PCommission is also Xiang09. Crossroads -talk- 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - With this having already been checked, i'm not going to run it again. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 01:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the 23 June 2020 archive discussion, the gist is yes, these are from the same computer (that's the "Technically indistinguishable" part), but no, they don't appear to be the same person, based on an analysis of their behavior. That probably means multiple people sharing a home computer, or co-workers sharing an office computer, or something like that.  So, no, not socking.  If their edits are actually disruptive, there's other forums (WP:AIV, WP:ANI) where that can get investigated on its own. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * could you take a look at this? I closed this based largely on my interpretation of your comments in the archives (23 June 2020).  Was my interpretation correct?  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * still seeking your input. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you really want 's input here, they decided that the behaviour didn't match in the last investigation. Salvio and I didn't comment on that, only that the accounts checked appeared to be using the same device at the time. I think Crossroads makes good arguments here, but GN clearly knows more about the history than I do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, PCommission is ✅ to . They are an exact technical match, and this new account has exactly 9 edits with an interest in common. I can't see any other explanation than that this account is a sleeper. I'll leave this for a clerk to determine what action to take, and whether or not to wait for GeneralNotability's input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, both accounts . Tagged both as confirmed based on the findings in the June 2020 investigation. Closing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

This latest account is inserting the same exact text from over a year ago that confirmed sockpuppet inserted:
 * Early colonial accounts point out that same-sex sexual relations were common for precolonial Filipinos of both sexes, not only the asog. In general, there was a great degree of sexual freedom in precolonial Filipino societies. Virginity was not valued, adultery was not perceived negatively, and there was wide use of genital piercings (tugbuk and sakra). (Brewer, 1999) - Mihan N8
 * Same text, likewise inserted within a footnote: DwataAnito
 * Bonus: here, another confirmed sock, inserts the same exact text in September 2019 at an article on a different topic, amongst other material.

Note that the rest of the material is very similar in what it says about same-sex marriage amongst Philippine natives, and how they both use the same Garcia 2008 and Kroeber 1918 sources. There is no way that two different people wrote this identical material. Crossroads -talk- 05:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Hopefully the CheckUser data from the previous numerous incidents has been saved, given the months that have passed since the last SPI. Crossroads -talk- 05:31, 19 April 2021 (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

 * I'm rather confident this is them, but regardless, since this one has created sleepers in the past. Barring the existence of login data, the archives are stale, but they note a static IP being in play and log data may still be rather indicative. CU, please look for others and compare to the archive. Thanks and best,  Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Mihan N8 is ✅ to Xiang09 plus the following accounts:
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , closing. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Brand new account, restoring content by User:Markova2021 on Japanese occupation of the Philippines

Markova's diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_occupation_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1018772782

Jose's diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_occupation_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1022169937 Loafiewa (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (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

 * ✅ to :
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 *  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Blocking all three. Tagged as proven due to the likely result and evidence. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 21:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The sockpuppet mostly writes on Philippine mythology related articles and content, just like the earlier sockpuppets. The editing style is identical to a sockpuppet I have dealt with exactly a year ago (PCommision), which includes: very large additions in 1 single edit, large scale replacements of article content with new content created by the sockpuppet, large removals of content. An example of a very large addition to Philippine mythology related content can be seen in this dif: 1

Note also, that on the linked dif, one can see previous sockpuppets such as "PCommission" and "Denvylz" in the page history making similar edits. The new sockpuppet is simply continuing where they left off. Glennznl (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just checked all of those IPs on Bathala, they all show similar behaviour, like the strangely formatted references as mentioned below, the same Potet source. I think the page should be reverted a couple of months back and put on protection against unregistered users. --Glennznl (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Looks likely behavior-wise to me. In that diff linked above I see them citing that same Lulu.com (self-published) Potet source they have been known to use. I very much recommend CUing them. Crossroads -talk- 17:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
'''This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.'''
 * Based on topic area and editing style, this is likely, although neither is dispositive on its own. There's a noticeable shift in edit summary style, although still some shared quirks like and .  in hopes that CU evidence will be more conclusive, and to check for sleepers due to the extensive history of them documented in the archive. Also,  the history at Bathala has a lot of suspicious-looking IPs. Since you're both familiar with this case, any thoughts on whether any of them (particularly ones active more recently) is Xiang?  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Same country, different ranges. Old socks are stale, so can't compare devices. I don't think CU told us anything here we couldn't have guessed, fwiw (not criticizing requesting it, just letting you know I don't think these results say much.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the CU, Tony. Was hoping we'd get something, because I had my reservations behaviourally due to the change in edit summary style. Looking further, though... The two components of identifying a sock are identifying suspicious behavior and ruling out alternate hypotheses. In this case, the suspicious behavior is ample, as noted in my endorsement statement. At the very least, it's obvious that this isn't a new user. No newbie, even one who's been editing as an IP for a while, adds a fairly well-written, well-formatted 40kB as their first edit. So our alternative hypothesis becomes that this is a clean start or an undisclosed alt, which is a pretty weak alternative hypothesis to begin with. But then the question is, are there enough similarities to rule that out? Well we have the shared topic area (easily a coincidence). The generally similar editing style (a bit less likely coincidence). The use of the same specific sources—old sock, new, ctrl+f  —(less likely a coincidence). What clinches it for me, though, is the reference style: Always well-formatted plaintext references, no templates nor links nor italics. Usually with the format , but not always, in a way that makes me think they're perhaps copying from "cite this page" on various sites. That's a bridge too far similarity-wise.  for indefinite block.  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . GeneralNotability (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Setting status back to open till I can follow up on Glenn's request. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the disruption at Bathala was coming from two IP ranges: 2001:4454::0/32 and 49.147.192.0/20. If the disruption were ongoing, I would request a pblock of both ranges from that page (in lieu of protection). However, neither range has edited the page since late July, and while Xiang does appear to still be on at least the former range, they've yet to set their sights back on Bathala. So, upon review, I'm going to re-close this, but If disruption resumes at Bathala, or if you see the IP ranges I mentioned active at any other known Xiang targets, drop a note on my talk and we'll figure something out. Or feel free to point to this finding in any future RfPP filing / rangeblock request.  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)