Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram: Difference between revisions

Ideogram is making odd edits to the User:Wang C-H page [7]. Ideogram has also blanked warnings from User talk: Wang C-H. [8] There's no talk between the two at all.
Wang C-H created User:Wang C-H/navigation templates. [9]. Ideogram later created the exact same thing in his own user space, User:Ideogram/navigation templates. [10]
In Wang C-H's seventh edit to Wikipedia, he copies a chunk of User:Ideogram/common article practices I dislike to his own user page. [11]
Ideogram has a history of disruption. (See block log.) We see the same sort of disruption from Wang C-H, including improper AfD nomination and then improper removal of AfD tags [12][13]
Both users seem to employ a "strike and run" tactic. Abusive motions are filed, and then retracted. Compare these AfD nominations by Wang C-H, [14] and [15] with this arbitration request by Ideogram: [16]
Both users focus extensively on China and seem to be pushing a pro-People's Republic of China POV by deleting, or reducing the visibility of any negative information or any mention of Taiwan/Republic of China:
Ideogram: [17] [18] [19]

Wang C-H: [20] [21] with deceptive edit summary, [22] removing mention of Republic of China and deceptive edit summary, [23]
These two users have not corresponded on wiki. The above pattern of editing strongly suggests sock puppetry or meat puppetry, in my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing sessions fit together neatly without overlapping. Editing sequences by Wang on Aug 5 - 6 do not overlap editing sequences by Ideogram.
Policy violation: Sock puppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [24] and [25] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
Policy violation: Sock puppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [26] [27] [28] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [29]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [30].

Leads

"R1es has 113 different edits, of which nearly half were on the 19th and 20th of April, a period for which Ideogram was banned." See [31].

Addhoc

Suspicious edits [32], [33], [34] among other early edits that indicate an experienced user constructing a new identity.
Addhoc shows up at WP:CSN to defend Ideogram. [35], but he has a history of patrolling this board.

Comments

Yes, it's my sockpuppet. My understanding was that sockpuppets are tolerated as long as no policy is violated, and I don't see any policy violation cited here. --Ideogram 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, and yes, there are legitimate reasons to operate socks, especially if they are openly declared which Wang C-H was not. We have to decide if there are violations of site policy. The most obvious would be operating multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny or for block evasion. Given your block history and excessive number of disputes, this is worth a bit more due diligence. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's save some time. They are all my socks. It is up to others to determine if there are policy violations worth acting on here. --Ideogram 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would you like to declare any others? Jehochman ^Talk 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. --Ideogram 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. You think I was edit-warring with myself? I suggest you not waste time on this. --Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on this case, but editors edit warring with themselves, to create a false sense of what's right or controversy, or just to throw people off their sockpuppet trails isn't unheard of --L-- 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, okay. But you really are wasting your time. --Ideogram 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. There are only three edits by Galindo (talk · contribs) and the first is not a revert. --Ideogram 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion: The contribs of User:You Are Okay are completely explainable without an sock relationship; his first three contribs were sort of spammy ext links (the first one using the "cite web" template copied from the link in the line above his), and DreamGuy reverted them all; when he went to complain at DreamGuy's talk page he noticed the AN/I controversy and piled on against DreamGuy. Just a newbie, not a sock. Dicklyon 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Referred to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard for further discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 05:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&offset=20060706&limit=50&action=history See here].  There are only three edits by {{User|Galindo}} and the first is not a revert.  --[[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 04:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
+'''Outside opinion:''' The contribs of [[User:You Are Okay]] are completely explainable without an sock relationship; his first three contribs were sort of spammy ext links (the first one using the "cite web" template copied from the link in the line above his), and DreamGuy reverted them all; when he went to complain at DreamGuy's talk page he noticed the AN/I controversy and piled on against DreamGuy.  Just a newbie, not a sock. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 06:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 ;Conclusions