Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zenkaino lovelive/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Zenkaino lovelive is pretty much a SPA that only edits "ratings" articles, such as movie ratings, or computer game ratings etc. I have long suspected the account is a sockpuppet of but lack sufficient proof of this, because the edits are sufficiently different. SlitherioFan2016 would perpetually push color schemes for the tables at these article that were not compliant with MOS:ACCESS. The dispute was resolved via an RFC, and socks of SlitherioFan2016 would occasionally turn up and start another RFC. Now, Zenkaino lovelive has started a fresh RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system. This is completely in keeping with SlitherioFan2016's MO (see Sockpuppet investigations/SlitherioFan2016/Archive), but again, completely circumstantial. Now a new SPA account, ABOChannel, has entered the fray to support the position of Zenkaino lovelive. This editor has no edits outside of the RFC and his own sandbox. In fact, his very first edit was some very advanced table editing in his own sandbox (see User:ABOChannel/sandbox/1).

Again, I accept the above is not "hard evidence" but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. The article itself has a long history of sockpuppetry, the recent edits match the MO of a long-serving sockmaster that operates on the article, and the recent SPA activity is extremely suspicious. If it were just a standard discussion I would hold back for more evidence but considering it is impacting a current RFC I feel it is imperative to establish whether or not there is a connection between the two accounts. Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 3 April 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 and tagged. The two accounts are ❌ to SlitherioFan2016. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

First of all, this is a meat puppetry report rather than a sock puppetry report. Zenkaino lovelive has been indefinitely blocked for attempting to manipulate an RFC through sock-puppetry. After his account was blocked along with the sock he has resorted to meat-puppetry. Three days after being blocked he solicited the help of another editor on the Korean edition of Wikipedia:. RhapsoDJ then carried out the request at the RFC without declaring he was acting on behalf of the blocked editor. The RFC has now been closed so this is a dead issue to some extent (so I apologise for what may be regarded as a time wasting gesture) but I think the latest incident should at least be logged into the case archive even if there is no punitive sanction so we have a record of the editor's behavior. If Zenkaino lovelive applies to have the sanction lifted at some point the admin reviewing the case will at least be aware of the behavioral pattern. Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * FTR He (RhapsoDJ) is an established editor on Korean Wikipedia so I do not believe he is actually a sock. It's up to enwiki community to decide what to do about this though. &mdash; regards, Revi 10:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No he's a meat puppet, but at the same time he shouldn't be enacting editing requests (especially in an RFC) for a banned editor, and being established he should know that. I am not actually seeking a sanction against RhapsoDJ, but if Zenkaino lovelive pursues a standard offer down the line then the presiding admin needs to be aware of the meat puppetry too. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but I'm not a multiple account for that user. The address is different and I am thinking differently from the user. -- Rhapso  DJ  (Talk) 09:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You carried out a direct request from a banned editor so you are clearly not "thinking differently". Why did you act upon this request? And why didn't you declare that your opinion was directly canvassed? Surely you realize this was inappropriate conduct? Betty Logan (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the member well, so I didn't know that the member was a banned member. -- Rhapso  DJ  (Talk) 13:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I registered my Wikipedia account in 2012 and I have been contributing from a long time ago. -- Rhapso  DJ  (Talk) 13:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is unusual to check if they are blocked on other wikis, unless you are like me who do damn lot of anti-vandalism/LTA/administrative stuff. &mdash; regards, Revi 15:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We've created a sufficient record for what occurred, both Zenkaino lovelive's cross-wiki circumvention of their block here and RhapsoDJ's misguided implementation at the RfC. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)