Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan

User:Miyokan

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by


 * Evidence
 * While the checkuser case came back unlikely, some recent ArbCom cases (e.g., Giovanni33 and SevenOfDiamonds) have shown that fooling a checkuser is not entirely impossible. I can also attest to this myself, as most of the IPs I come on through (and there are a lot) are off by a few hundred, sometimes a few thousand miles. Additionally, the new editor has edited quite a bit since the checkuser case, and additional evidence continues to present itself that a WP:DUCK comparison is quite likely. If this is not an obvious case, I would hate to see one that is obvious.

1. Immediately below I have presented the same articles edited by the two editors, and User:Ilya1166, a self-admitted sock. For certain articles, it makes sense both would edit them (e.g., Moscow); for others, it is extremely questionable (e.g., Indian MRCA Competition). Additionally, you will notice that the locus of edits is on the same articles

2. User:Berkunt is clearly somebody's sock: his very first edits are vandalism reversion, with the proper syntax and all:. He is awfully knowledgeable of policy for his third day:, and second month:.

3. The two users both have a surprisingly good grasp on the English language for a Russian.

4. The two users both edit exclusively (or nearly so) articles dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, and related politics, in that order, with a heavily nationalistic Russian bent, for which the user is willing to edit war.

5. Both editors make extensive arguments in edit wars in their edit summaries.

6. Both editors use very similar language: Also cf. edit summary 1 vs. edit summary 2

7. Same edits across different ac
 * a. Berkunt takes umbrage with removal of material added by Miyokan
 * b. Berkunt knows this has been discussed before, despite it being his first edit here, probably because Miyokan was the one adding it before
 * c. Removal of Ukranian spelling:
 * d. Edit warring over images on Grozny: vs.
 * e. The primary rationale for invading was Iraqs alleged possession of WMDs:
 * f. Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland:
 * g. Exactly the same edit war with the Ukranians on Nikolai Gogol (both editors have 6-7 edits).
 * h. ... and on Serge Lifar (this makes 3, with c and g)
 * i. edit warring over use of term "Ukraine":
 * j. I will not bother with similaries on Russia: there are too many edits, and I believe the similarities listed above are enough.

8. General editing similarities, "intangibles", if you will. Both editors are obviously intelligent, and usually smart enough to avoid a block.

Convincing. Add to this the very similar habits in uploading serial copyvio images, as discussed recently on User talk:Moreschi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

Of course I am Miyokan, why didn’t somebody just ask me? I don’t know what exactly I’ve done wrong? I created a new account to have a fresh start. I haven’t been involved in any edit warring on this account - check my contributions for yourself. I did not read the Sock puppetry so I didn’t know there was anything wrong with creaing a new account, but now I see Moreschi is worried about a provision called Sock_puppet. I see there is also something called Sock_puppets. The Evil Spartan wrote:

Edit warring over images on Grozny: vs.  - What edit warring?

Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland: - What edit warring?

Edit warring over use of term "Ukraine": - What edit warring?

My main work has consisted of fighting vandalism. When my contributions get reverted in almost all cases do not bother to revert them back, and in the rare cases when I do, I usually go to the talk page before. After that I do not bother with a third revert. --Berkunt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Okay, identity established. I note that in one sense Berkunt is right: It in fact would have been appropriate to first simply ask him. (That step seems to be forgotten all too often in these SSP cases). However, the "clean start" justification is not really applicable, because that implies a complete change in editing patterns. If you fail the duck test, the start wasn't really so fresh. Nevertheless, a change of account, especially now that it's out in the open, is generally tolerated. That leaves us with a finding of block evasion during the first day of Berkunt's editing, but that is stale now. Berkunt will of course be under closer scrutiny in the future than he would otherwise be, given the substantial block logs on his earlier accounts (and I'll leave it to other admins to determine if there's a pattern of concern), but I don't see grounds for a sockpuppetry block as such at this point.

However, one formal sanction that's clearly necessary: For a persistent pattern of copyvio image abuse, Berkunt/Miyokan is banned, until further notice, from making any image uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Additionally, I've annotated Berkunt's block log (by blocking him for one second, autoblock disabled) to include links to the block logs of his two prior accounts. This can probably now be closed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)