Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asia Editor

Asia Editor

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

Populated account categories: suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asia Editor/Archive.

19 November 2017

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

User1959 (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

the sockmaster was not sockblocked for his username, but only 4 images were deleted from wikipedia. One of them File:Li Shengjiao in his 20s.jpg may pass the criteria to the public domain if the claim "it was taken in the subject's age of 20s" is true, but unfortunately it have waterstamp, which the edited work was copyrighted. The alleged sock uploaded File:Li Shengjiao in 1956.jpg to commons-wiki and inserted the image to the infobox in en-wiki in Li Shengjiao. Given the short timespan between creating account and previous deletion, may be the sockmaster did not understand multiple account policy. Matthew_hk t c 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

unrelated, so many people sharing similar or the same IP in the same community here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asia Editor (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed - Per evidence provided, please compare these two. Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Likely. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting administrative action Please indef sock and block master for 3 days. Sro23 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sro23: Could you comment on why only 3 days in light of the attempt to mislead us in the comments section above? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because this was their first offense. If that's too short then perhaps 1 week instead? Sro23 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done with the 1 week block time. Two weeks is fairly typical for a first offense where the sockpuppetry is clearly intended to mislead. Having said that, this user is new enough that perhaps 1 week is ok. I think 3 days is quite short given the lie above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]