Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/༆

༆

༆ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/༆/Archive.

12 February 2013

– A checkuser has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Waorca (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Minh Tâm-T41-BCA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

Waorca admits to having "multiple accounts" here. ༆ does the same here. I write, "who can this be?" and he responds with a virtual confession. I notice a similar style of argument, see here and here. Making the same arguments on my talk page, in an RFC, and on the history template page "creates an illusion of support", albeit in this case on different pages, violating WP:ILLEGIT. Update: Here is another admission that the same person controls both accounts. What's the abuse? All three accounts are being used to make accusations against me, which is of course the only reason I know or care about them. Kauffner (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

After looking through the guidelines some more, I would think WP:Obvious sock is obvious would apply here: "It is very unlikely that new Editor C would share the same disdain for Editor B that was expressed by Editor A." ༆ tells me I should be editing Arab or Slavic articles instead Vietnamese, while Waorca tells me to edit Chinese articles. It's a trivial variation on the same theme. This is happening on different pages. So if they were independent editors, they shouldn't even know about each other. Kauffner (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It’s been two weeks now, so apparently nothing is going happen in this case. I think it is obvious that these accounts are controlled by the same person. So it’s OK to create multiple accounts and use them to gang up on another editor? Really, I had no idea. Kauffner (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The more I think about this issue, the more I am warming up to the idea. What's wrong with multiple accounts anyway? Kauffner (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Observer - Hello this SPI concerns editing activity in WP Vietnam article/template space with which I am familiar as creator and editor of several Vietnam articles. I am familiar with User YigMgo (the Tibetan caret sign in the User Name box), he's an editor in good standing who makes consistent and quality contribution to article space. I have informed all 3 editors that an SPI investigation has been initiated upon them. I do not believe the style is similar (beyond all being native Vietnamese-speakers, otherwise very different). This is the second time User:Kauffner has initiated an SPI against YigMgo, the second time he did not inform on Talk page. The first time [the complaint against YigMgo] was shown to be completely unwarranted. I do not know how to search and link to it. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, notification of an SPI report is not required, and is in fact often discouraged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I have read again "VI. Notify all the users you are accusing using the template subst:uw-socksuspect|Case name" and am still somewhat confused, is this for a different kind of SPI? In any case I cannot see where notification is discouraged. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Although my complaint was "completely unwarranted", the account I identified as a sockpuppet was nonetheless blocked. Kauffner (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The diff filed as ༆ supposedly admitting to multiple accounts is actually the first diff belonging to Waorca. Could you please correct that? Otherwise it's not really clear what the abuse is here. WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

---