Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tseung kang 99/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tseung kang 99

08 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Halseunlim created Draft:Bomsori Kim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) using a copyvio picture uploaded to Commons by Tseung_kang_99 (note that the titular user operated under the name of “Abcbabc11111” when uploaded copyvio). The IP was active both in the draft and on Commons, requesting deletion of kang’s duplicate files. I came too late and isn’t a Commons sysop, but can conjecture that files deleted as duplicates bore evidence of copyvio. All these users—especially Halseunlim—look too experienced to be genuine newbies; possibly some Wikipedian LTA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As history of the draft was mostly invisible few hours ago, I couldn’t see that Halseunlim pasted the text written by Tseung_kang_99 some days earlier. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it was Tseung_kang_99 who created “Bomsori Kim” on simple, but hastily deleted it on creation of Halseunlim’s draft here. It already looks like a duck to me on this stage; only interested in finding the master account. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Draft:Bomsori Kim contains had several deleted revisions. Were these revisions source of the stuff pasted to simple.Wikipedia? Can a check-user or clerk undelete all revisions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted. Yes, certainly it was the source for simple:Bomsori Kim. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I was asked on IRC about the contents of the page created on the Simple English Wikipedia. It is a copy of the English Wikipedia draft, afc template included. Vermont (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Draft:Bomsori Kim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) again—soon after deletion as copyvio—and PNG copyvios on Commons as well. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A clerk or a CheckUser, undelete please the oldest revision of the draft—the one saved by Iloveviolin45—once more. It was short and unlikely had copyvio; the latter was added later by Tseung_kang_99. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

Loveviolin123 is  Technically indistinguishable. Abcbabc3 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Likely.  Blocked and tagged.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This page creation matches exactly the most recent deleted version of the same page, last edited by the sockmaster (edit: not the most recent version, and created by a sock, not the sockmaster). I am considering extending the {{2nd chance}} offer to the sockmaster as they claimed to not have edited since December 2018, but upon asking them if this IP was them, they claimed it was not. I'm asking for CU to verify if this user was evading their block as this will affect my decision regarding whether to extend the 2nd chance offer. --Chris (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

@Crazycomputers: undelete everything in Draft:Bomsori Kim except for copyvio. I am sure that the version from August, 2018 didn’t contain any significant piece of a copyrighted text. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Incnis Mrsi: I have restored the most recent chunk of edits from recreation to deletion. This is the edit I was thinking of, which was edited by a sock and not the sockmaster (updated my report accordingly). --Chris (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - We cannot publicly link named accounts to IP addresses. Also, the confirmed sockpuppets are all  Stale. You can see that this IP address and the IPs in the archive all geolocate to NYC, so  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. —DoRD (talk)​ 16:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP is too stale to block effectively. Draft deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sir Sputnik: I filed this report not to request a block, but because Tseung kang 99 is requesting to be unblocked and claims that this IP was not them (though I suspect it was) and I'd like a second set of eyes on it to make the determination. --Chris (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tseung_kang_99/Archive&oldid=898909115"