Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A bicyclette

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

04 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

A bicyclette was blocked indefinitely by User:Black Kite for disruptive editing on 25 June 2018. After arguing against his block until 28 June I believe that since then A bicyclette has been evading that block by making a series of edits using IPs. A bicyclette acknowledging using these 2 IPs 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 before creating his account. Evidence is as follows:

I should add that IPs 125.192.86.52 and 124.85.14.35 were determined to be socks of each other here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive370#User:Mztourist reported by User:124.85.14.35 (Result: OP and 125.192.86.52 blocked, article semi-protected) and IP 126.151.34.213 which also participated in that discussion is a further sock/dynamic IP of them. Mztourist ( talk) 06:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Mmmm, I agree that the unvert is a bit suspicious, the rest not sure about. Apart from Unvert this is the sort of thing a lot of new edds do, and some older ones. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

And that is just a ridiculous weakness in the system, a blocked registered User can sock using IPs with relative impunity because a checkuser won't be run, even though in this case he outed himself before registering with IP edits from Canada. Mztourist ( talk) 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Using dynamic IP's is not socking, socking is using multiple accounts to either evade a block or make it appear that more then one users is commenting (so no admitting you have used more then one IP before creating an account is not admitting to socking). And (frankly) some of you "evidence" looks like you just picked on any damn IP you disagree with. This looks like a frivolous report whose sole function is to harass another user. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
These are multiple different IPs geolocated in different countries editing in a similar manner on 3-4 pages only since A bicyclette was blocked. This is not a frivolous report. I would expect you to be a bit more objective and if you can't then leave the discussion. Mztourist ( talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Some of which have also been editing since before he was banned. Not many edits to be sure, and are more active since he was, but if they are socks of him he has kept them in his pocket for a a month or more. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I assume those few earlier edits were made by other people on a dynamic IP, but this will presumably be considered in the behavioural investigation. My previous comments stand. Mztourist ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It is interesting in these matters to run a node trace (this reports the owner and location of every node that a PING is transmitted through up to the location of the final IP address). A falsified IP address usually shows up as a sudden shift in the trail towards the end. Disclaimers: In the case of dynamic IP addresses, it only reveals the final location of the current endpoint, and not necessarily the endpoint when any edit(s) were made (this applies to the simpler geo-locate utilities as well). The final endpoint always has a deliberate error included which can be up to 40 miles or so distant from the real location (and the error is never zero).

Two of the IPs are dynamic and currently (as of 15 or so minutes prior to this post) one traces to a location in Maryland, USA (and is active) and the other to the tip of Florida, USA (and is unassigned) and they are also unrelated ISP's. The remainder are all static IPs, one from Vietnam, one from Thailand and two from Tokyo in Japan (which although are different ISPs, are geographically close enough together that they could, but only could, be a single user posting from two locations, such as Home and Work). However, there is insufficient editing overlap to nail that hypothesis down with any degree of confidence. Given the subject matter, IMHO, it should not be that unsurprising that Asian IPs are pitching in.

Ordinarily, I would say that this report is suspiciously without merit. My only problem is that both A bicyclette and 173.64.109.152 used an entirely non-existent made up word, 'unvert'. What are the chances of two editors turning up in the same dispute believing that 'unvert' exists as a word? Note: typing 'unvert' into Google brings up many hits, but none of the sites linked to include the word (possibly Google trying to catch a typo for 'invert'?). Pretty well all the other issues are possible mistakes made by inexperienced editors given the absence of geographical co-location.

I pass this on with no opinion as to who is in the right as far as the content dispute goes. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 17:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Is this going anywhere? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Unlikely.
If A bicyclette really acknowledged the two IP addresses, 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 as claimed (no diff was provided) then none of the IP addresses given at the head of this report are connected as they all trace to different countries. There is a minor issue of two Tokyo based IPs possibly being the same person from two close locations, but insufficient evidence for a positive connection. But, in any case, they are definitely unrelated to A bicyclette.
My own opinion (for what it is worth) is that this is a classic case of one editor trying to include (or exclude) material believing that he is in the right and therefore the (apparent) multiple editors reverting him (or telling him he is wrong) are all supporting each other and therefore must be the same person. The reality is that they are not agreeing with each other so much as disagreeing with that editor because he is wrong. The last example of this that I saw was an editor who kept removing a paragraph from an article claiming that it was WP:OR and unsourced despite a strong consensus on the article talk page. In fact it was multiply sourced to several reliable sources.
As I said: I have no opinion as to who is right or wrong (as I have no knowledge of the subject). But I cannot see this SPI case going anywhere. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I never said that A bicyclette acknowledged the two IP addresses, 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 as his, rather that they were acknowledged as being socks/dynamic IPs of each other. Its not up to you or Slatersteven to decide if "this is going anywhere", it awaits behavioural investigation. Mztourist ( talk) 03:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Mztourist:. Yes you did claim that A bicyclette acknowledged using those two IP addresses. Above you stated

A bicyclette acknowledging (sic) using these 2 IPs 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 before creating his account.

Myself and Slatersteven are perfectly entitled to state our opinions here. Your statement is a clear attempt to silence any opposition.
@ JzG: I am not using WHOIS or simple Geolocate. As I said, I am using a node trace. This is a technique where a special type of message is sent to the IP address. Every node the message passes through returns its identification and location finishing with the IP address and location of the final connection. This shows up IP address spoofing of proxies because the trace suddenly jumps geographically toward the end. If this is meat puppetry, then it has been organised on a global scale given the range of countries featured in this report. Unfortunately, subjects such as this one tend to bring out editors that have axes to grind one way or the other. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
TheVicarsCat Apologies I read your comment too quickly and confused the IPs. A bicyclette acknowledged the other 2 IPs here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive#31 May 2018: "None of the original ones this user is accusing me of, is me. The only ones that are, are 172.xx IPs, which are my edits." I am not making any attempt to "silence any opposition" merely pointing out that its not up to you or Slatersteven to decide if "this is going anywhere". As can be seen below an Admin has undertaken a behavioural review and found WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 03:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Mztourist: I take your points you make. It's nice to have the diff that fully confirms that A bicyclette is in a different country to anyone else in this report. You may care to bear in mind that blocks are preventative and not punitive. As no one has edited the disputed article in several days, this is unlikely to attract attention as any block at this stage would be punitive. And no: the admin has not found WP:DUCK but only suggested it. He did not take any action as he could have done and even then has only recommended a close. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 17:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ TheVicarsCat: as this SPI has apparently stopped the IPs from editing further then I would argue that it is has successfully prevented further sock activity. I would also argue that blocks are both preventative and punitive, in that a sockmaster and his socks are blocked, preventing the sockmaster from evading their original block. Mztourist ( talk) 11:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mztourist: Whilst I concur completely with your first two points, you are wrong on the third point. Of the IPs listed above, plus the two acknowledged by A bicyclette, none have been blocked for anything except the two Tokyo IP's (and they were not blocked for socking but for disruptive editing - plus they are on the opposite side of the planet to A bicyclette). Since the two acknowledged IP addresses are dynamic there would be no point in blocking them anyway. Both are currently unallocated anyway. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

IP User:142.118.176.170 geolocated in Ontario Canada (near to A bicyclette's original IP edits) yesterday made a series of edits to Vietnam War casualties, particularly this edit: [26] which removed the sentence: " It is unclear whether or not this figure includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing in action" and undermined the Woodruff quote, both of which A bicyclette objected to previously. Mztourist ( talk) 04:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So what is the evidence that it is A bicyclette? The acknowledged IPs were in the 172.86.241.. range and were dynamic IPs. 142.118.176.170 is a different ISP and is a static IP and in a different part of Toronto so is unrelated to any other IP in this report. So someone supports one of A bicyclette's edits. One edit does not prove sock puppetry. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 15:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 05:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
More edits today by another IP: User:74.58.148.148 with same methods as A Bike here: [27] of book cite with url first and <ref name=":0"> and here: [28] of adding in ref before punctuation. Mztourist ( talk) 11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
A Bicyclette admits here: [29] that he editted using IP 74.58.148.148 geolocated to Montreal. So he has admitted to using a sock to evade his ban and socked using an IP in Montreal which would seem to undermine his previous denials of IP socking on the basis that they are so far removed from him. Mztourist ( talk) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 24.28.160.102 appeared out of nowhere on 27 September and went straight to 2 pages where I had removed dubious edits by User:A Bicyclette restoring those deleted parts and providing similar arguments that my edits were only my subjective views and hadn't been raised on appropriate boards. I reinstated my edits and then another new IP 72.178.68.100 appeared on 29 September and reverted my edits. As with A Bicyclette the IPs didn't follow WP:BRD and just went straight into edit warring. The fact that all these IP edits are on pages where I have previously had disputes with A Bicyclette (and in the case of Son Thang massacre apart from 1 other edit, we are the only Users who have edited the pages previously), follow the same idiosyncratic agenda and the fact that A Bicyclette has previously self-identified here [30] as IP 74.58.148.148 to evade their indefinite block to me is WP:DUCK that these are new IP socks to evade their block. Mztourist ( talk) 03:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Since I opened this report, User:Piccadillysquare has created an account and created Draft:Le Bac massacre which expands upon the dubious claims in Son Thang Massacre that I deleted here: [ [31]] as well as making substantial changes to Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre and South Korea in the Vietnam War on which I have had previous disputes with User:A Bicyclette. Mztourist ( talk) 08:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Nope, that user is located in the states way elsewhere whereas I am based in Hanoi. I just took notice of your edits, and decided to start tracking my edits. I just can't tolerate

We had a minor talk dispute on that article a month ago when you went on a diatribe on why all the sources are wrong without even reading them, since you decided to misrepresent AP/Reuters by pulling quotes out of context, and I interjected to contextualize them. It seems however that the edits themselves seem to be serving a quite obvious agenda since its a combination of not only misrepresentation to try to assert a NPOV point (as was the reuters/AP case), but now obviously deleting anything else you may disagree with in bad faith.

You can also notice that I took a much more objective stance on the Le Bac event, given that there is two different views of the events as they occurred. Censorship/deletion without proper channels, alongside NPOV representation should make way for a clear report of the sources for an open-ended interpretation and I would welcome more evidence or report on the matter. Immediately deleting everything that others contribute is my fundamental disagreement since it shuts down any improvements to articles, its best that you should tag them first and leave it open for discussion if its disagreeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccadillysquare ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

It is very vaguely  Possible that the accounts are related, but the evidence is circumstantial. I have no comment on the IPs. -- Deskana ( talk) 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I'm assuming that Deskana saw the same thing as I did when I had another look: the data on its own is inconclusive because Piccadillysquare is using proxies pretty much exclusively. But the IP that A bicyclette admitted to using in the archive is also a proxy, and so are almost all of the suspected IPs that have been listed in both cases, regarding which JzG remarked "it's either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry". Considering the clear overlap in topic interests and continuation of similar disruptive editing, Piccadillysquare is blocked. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

02 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Picaddillysquare was blocked on 31 October and this IP turns up today making similar changes to Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre here: [32] and reverting edits I had made on other pages regarding Vietnam War massacres: [33], [34]. Also edit warring on Vietnam War body count controversy here [35] compared to Picadillysquare here: [36]. IP edit wars rather than discussing on Talk pages. Uses long edit summaries, accuses me of obsession with issues here: IP [37] Picadillysquare [38]. Same MO, same agenda, WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 07:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


03 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP proxy 116.106.89.77 was blocked yesterday. Today this new IP turns up and with their first edit goes to RFC to raise a very specific issue regarding inclusion of contested massacres in the campaignbox. Something which the previous IP changed yesterday [39]. Clearly another IP proxy. Mztourist ( talk) 04:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

The template that was edited is featured very prominently on the Vietnam War page, its not hard to miss that there was pretty significant edits. Secondarily, a look into the actual pages show there is consistent activity you posted, requesting for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre, which is where I first took notice of the recent string of edits, and which is not at all hard to miss when you just made it very prominently a feature of discussion. Finally, I neither edited, created consensus or anything to that matter since I just raised the rfc and do not plan to edit the page myself. As the matter doesn't seem to be settled in light of a recent edit warring post raised here [40], community input or comment will not detract from this. 183.107.0.107 ( talk) 05:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


04 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

another day, another 3 new IPs editing Template:Campaignbox Vietnam War massacres, a page that previous IP proxy 116.106.89.77 last edited on 2 November. Same agenda, same MO. Mztourist ( talk) 10:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All blocked, closing. GAB gab 17:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply


06 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 119.76.120.181 appears out of nowhere today and goes straight to 2 new pages I created yesterday, making the usual POV edits and then when reverted IP 45.62.243.176 appears tagging and criticizing sources. Same MO, different pages but same approach of proxies, POV and pointing to ( [41]) Vietnam War body count controversy a favourite page of A bicyclette. Using WHOIS IP 45.62.243.176 locates to Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, near to A bicyclette's original IP edits. Mztourist ( talk) 06:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 06:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

IP 50.92.44.9 appeared out of nowhere today and tagged multiple Vietnam War pages in a similar manner to IP 45.62.243.176. WHOIS locates this new IP to British Columbia, Canada. Mztourist ( talk) 10:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Well I am not the user you accused me of but not currently logged in so I have IP edits, yes I noticed that. I was looking recently reviewed articles by User:Pkbwcgs and noticed discrepancy between standardization and tagging articles for improvement per WIKIPROJECT:MILHIST. there was inconsistent pointing to the correct wikilinks which other users including yourself have corrected across some but not all articles. Further as this deals with military conflicts, and as User:Buckshot06 tagged a few articles with a template, these articles as they stand would be considered unreviewed, low-quality ones per MILHIST Rating found here [42]. If you are going to raise a ruckus about constructive edits to your benefit as some of these are ones you created I'm just going to stop since correcting wikilinks pointing and appropriate tagging for improvement was doing you a favor. 50.92.44.9 ( talk) 10:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, please stop. You aren't "doing [me] a favor." Mztourist ( talk) 10:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Just to comment, I don't get how by circumstantial evidence you think I am the same user just because I pointed to Vietnam War body count controversy. You have done the exact same edits pointing to this page, throughout several articles in the campaignbox. 50.92.44.9 ( talk) 10:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Unlike you I make all my edits with a User account, whereas as can be seen above, multiple different IP proxies/socks have been making similar edits to various Vietnam War pages and then you turn up today and go straight to tagging Vietnam War pages just as IP 45.62.243.176 did. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 10:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The other two are proxies and I've blocked them as well. Closing. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

12 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 126.72.143.235 appears out of nowhere today and goes straight to editing Vietnam War pages, reinstating edits made previously by A bicyclette and his socks/proxies. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 06:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP appears out of nowhere today and goes straight to 3 pages where I have made edits regarding massacres purportedly conducted by Korean forces during the Vietnam War. Same MO. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 09:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 09:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 174.112.21.209 appears out of nowhere on 19 January 2019 and goes straight to List of war crimes reverting my changes regarding "disputed" on certain Vietnam War war crimes here: [43], a topic on which A bicyclette was very active previously. Other IP socks of A Bicyclette IP: 110.168.170.123 previously made the same changes here: [44] and IP 193.56.28.126 here: [45]. IP geolocates to similar area of Ontario, Canada as previous IPs and where User identifies himself as being located. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 08:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply

IP's response makes the same arguments as A Bicyclette's IP socks - my ISP moves my IP around, none of these IPs geolocates to my location, they're far away. This IP appears out of nowhere, goes straight to a controversial issue and then has a remarkable familiarity with WP policies and procedures, clearly a banned user making a reappearance. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 06:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

My ISP shifts my IP around every so often. None of these IPs you listed are geolocated to my location, they are far and away. Second, your edits you keep pushing and others are RVing clearly distorts the format and introduces WP:BIAS without any substantive support for it. Its easy to see why such an edit would be removed. There is nothing else in the long list located on that page which places (disputed), or anything else in brackets in the wrong column under Event Names columns. As I said if you feel very passionate about it, put it in the notes column and cite it because this page isn't for you to state your opinions. 174.112.21.209 ( talk) 07:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

new user Charlesn66 appears on 2 May and goes straight to South Korea in the Vietnam War a page frequently editted by A bicyclette making these similar edits: [46] to remove "alleged" from unproven accusations of South Korean war crimes. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 05:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Noted, thanks, diffs here: of South Korea in the Vietnam War (by IP socks) [47], [48], [49]. Diffs on the underlying pages here on Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre by A bicyclette and IP sock [50], [51], on Bình Hòa massacre by A bicyclette [52] and on Hà My massacre by A bicyclette [53]. I would also ask you to consider the context here, a new User appears and their first and only edits are these which seems to me to be a clear example of block evasion. Mztourist ( talk) 03:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

new user Charlesn66 appears on 2 May and goes straight to South Korea in the Vietnam War a page frequently editted by A bicyclette making these similar edits: [54] to remove "alleged" from unproven accusations of South Korean war crimes. Then today IP 174.114.57.231 appears making identical edits: [55] and then again when I reverted for socking: [56] and [57]. These follow previous similar edits by IP socks of A bicyclette: [58], [59], [60]. Running WhoIs on IP: 174.114.57.231 geolocates to Toronto, Canada, a similar location to the original IP edits made by A bicyclette and to other IP socks used by A bicyclette. With this diff: [61] IP states in the edit summary: Nope on all points; I am not logged in certainly since my password is lost and my autologin cleared accidently; but a mod can see I am neither that other guy or any other user for that matter since I have never edited on this page prior. This language is very similar to that used by A bicyclette and socks previously. e.g. "Nope" by User:Piccadillysquare here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive#30 September 2018; claiming not to be logged in: "Well I am not the user you accused me of but not currently logged in so I have IP edits" here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive#06 November 2018. "Guy" the edit summaries here: [62] "some guy's website"; [63] "They are from one guy who was some special forces guy"; [64] "some guy in Canada which I allegedly am" by confirmed sock Piccadillysquare WP Duck Mztourist ( talk) 08:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • User is completely wrong on this. I am neither located in Toronto as I live several hours away; nor are every Torontonian one person. The edit in question is very common as the user edited the page by inserting words clearly violating WP:NPOV. I suggest moderators look at the offending edits in depth to judge whether these edits have substance as my instinct is that many people would have made the same edits and the user seems to be throwing around sockpuppet/meatpuppet accusations to shut down dialogue. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 08:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Also note: The whoIs pinpoints to national headquarters of my telecom company; in the same way is every subscriber to Comcast also located in philadelphia? This is bad evidence and even worse logic. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 08:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Previous IP socks of A bicyclette claimed the same thing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive#20 January 2019 My ISP shifts my IP around every so often. None of these IPs you listed are geolocated to my location, they are far and away. While A bicyclette has previously admitted to IP socking to evade his indefinite block here: [65] Mztourist ( talk) 09:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Your points are incoherent too since this is not what I am claiming. If you find the actual IP geolocation I am not even in Ontario. Its clear you just want to shut down anything by loosely throwing around this kind of accusation. I will recommend any moderator to just make a judgement on their own whether these types of edits removing the word "alleged" before every mention of the word war-crime in the article; would be something many users would do to preserve WP:NPOV. It seems like a fairly common thing to edit. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 09:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Cabayi the master was using IP socks here: [66], [67], [68]. In any event Charlesn66 and the IP are clearly the same person. Mztourist ( talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Let me get this straight; any edit to this page means everyone is a sock? I literally just made one RV edit since I thought it was WP:NPOV. You are clearly abusing this process to shut down input from all these other users. Again I recommend mods look at the nature of the edits; mine resemble nothing of these users as I added no substance. This evidence clearly hinges on irrational. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 17:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I would also point out that South Korea in the Vietnam War was the very first page that [ [69]] A bicyclette editted (after some IP edits) and so its interesting that a new user like Charlesn66 came straight to that page for their first edits as did the IP. Mztourist ( talk) 10:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Believe what you want; I am not new to wikipedia and the evidence is still pretty weak that I am this other person and bordering on paranoia. Since the basis is a) some user noticed an WP:NPOV edit; b) you have Rv'd c) I disagreed with the RV. In your mind anyone who disagrees with you is one and the same person. And now because they seem to be editing the same pages they are one and the same. I recommend admins look at the IPs of the offending account; mine firstly and the other users because this user seems to be raising these SP processes loosely to stamp out any disagreements. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 17:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
If you make controversial edits from an IP account to a page that has been battled over by a blocked user and its socks then its a reasonable assumption that you are just another sock. Mztourist ( talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Mztourist, your evidence shows the sock removing "alleged", but no edits from the master for comparison. Cabayi ( talk) 20:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

23 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Deogyusan has had an account with two bursts of activity on 1 July and today on a very specific topic/set of pages namely alleged massacres of the Vietnam War. On 1 July on Operation Wheeler/Wallowa [70] Deogyusan incorrectly added back references to the My Lai Massacre having occurred in this operation, something originally inserted here: [71] by User:Piccadillysquare a sock of A bicyclette. Today in a burst of activity User:Deogyusan has edited numerous pages where I engaged in debates with A bicyclette and their socks, namely: Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre Deogyusan today [72] A bicyclette [73]; Vietnam War body count controversy Deogyusan today: [74], Piccadillysquare [75]; Son Thang massacre Deogyusan today [76], owning a page originally created by A bicyclette; Vietnam War casualties, Deogyusan today [77] A bicyclette [78]; shared reliance on Nick Turse, Christian Appy and Heonik Kwon as sources, an argumentative approach claiming to be backed by policy and addressing my "partisan edits" and a general failure to follow WP:BRD instead edit warring everything. Mztourist ( talk) 08:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Will break this into sections.
  • 1) I don't see how me not being an active user has anything to do with this. I typically do not log except when disputes arise with other users, since I primarily leave talk comments or edit current events by adding news sources and do not contest them given how active current events are. I can make an effort to remain more actively logged if this is an issue.
  • 2) The campaignbox on war crimes during the Vietnam War is a prominently featured one and I encountered this user several months ago. The first time that I had any issue with any user as he had demonstrated strong WP:OWNERSHIP conduct and treated my edit with hostility. I did not engage in an edit war or conduct violation and created the account to dialogue as the user assumed I was a sockpuppet for using an IP and reverted my edit. I dropped the issue since and did not edit on these pages since due to the hostility from the user, as shown here [84].
  • 3) I found one problematic edit recently as I had to make use of a source and looked at its edit history, on the Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre and noticed the user engaging in edit wars while demonstrating strong partisan editing on its page history, including with other users.
  • 4) I followed the user's edit history, and all subsequent overlap is from me editing pages he had edited in the past month. As the user seems to be the only active editor on alleged war-crimes during the Vietnam War while demonstrating very strong partisanship, I thought it necessary to check the user's edits. Though this may be grounds for WP:HARASS, I thought to only raise dialogue on the user's edits. The user seems to be active almost daily editing virtually every page and my edits were on topics where there is seemingly ongoing content disputes.
  • 5) I would recommend moderators look into this user's history of reporting any edits he disagrees with as being sockpuppets. There is a strong pattern of the user assuming any IP edit, or any user engaged in several topics are the same person. This is in my view a problematic abuse of process, especially as the user is active on wikipedia almost hourly and has made the bulk of substantial edits to virtually all articles related to the Vietnam War and in general is not receptive to other user's edits.
  • 6) None of my edits are "shared reliance" or any other such claims, they are almost entirely just reverts of poorly reasoned content removal. Nothing I contributed on this topic was original except source-checking or engaging in BRD. My sense was the user was engaging in censorship and partisan editing. My main contention in RVIng the user's edits is partly due to the user having a procedure of claiming WP:RS for any source the user finds disagreeable, without taking it to the appropriate board. Listing positive examples of overlap is fine, but the very few edits the user makes on other topics where there has been no previously overlapping dispute I have done the reverts for, e.g. on a massacre during the Spanish Civil War here [85].
  • Final Comment: Every edit I've made the user has just engaged in edit wars on all edits while refusing WP:BRD and now resorting to creating these proceedings. I don't really have the time nor patience to continue this dispute, I have already referenced it to appropriate discussion boards/talk pages.If the user wants to assert WP:OWN of an entire topic area I won't care to stop him as I'd rather spend my life doing something productive and useful. Deogyusan ( talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Likely, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

15 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 70.55.11.97 began making edits on 10 September 2020 to South Korea in the Vietnam War with this: [ [86]], adopting the same referencing style used by A bicyclette of <ref name=":0">. The edits follow a familiar pattern of denigrating South Korean forces as mercenaries and highlighting accusations of war crimes in Vietnam. The IP then edited Hà My massacre here: [ [87]] deleting "purportedly" a favourite point of contention for A bicyclette here: [88] and adopting the same <ref name=":0"> referencing style. The IP then edited Binh Tai Massacre here: [ [89]], adopting the same <ref name=":0"> referencing style. I would also note that the IP geolocates to Ontario, Canada, many of the IP socks belonging to A bicyclette also geolocate to eastern Canada. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 03:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Well that's my edits on a different IP. If you are accusing me of being someone else, you are mistaken. I don't have an edit history because my IP autoswitches but I do edit other articles throughout wikipedia. For example this IP has no edits to its history.

The user reverted the edit he found problematic, the word "purportedly" in a sentence, which i didn't think was a neutral term. I am fine with leaving it there and won't argue if its such a big problem for the user. My edits were mostly aimed at Korea-Vietnam diplomatic relations, domestic Korean politics and activity by the Korea Vietnam Peace Foundation/civic groups between countries. There was one small edit on one page which coincidences with another user. I invite any mods to look at the other edits I made which was not problematic or contested in any way.

I also used the autogenerated reference tool on the visual editor so its strange this user is accusing me of having the same referencing style as another user. By the way is this user even aware of how big in size and population Ontario is? There's 15 million people that live here. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 20:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

By the way, so the article you linked on WP:DUCK states a presumption of good faith editing, and requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is quite a high evidence standard and requirement, so don't see why its a good idea to jump to conclusions and accuse me of vandalizing a page right off the bat. Especially since I won't even argue with the edits you made, I am fine with leaving your edits and don't care to edit it anytime soon. I'd like to hope my edits were assumed to be in good faith by the user, since I have language competency for Korean and have a basic understanding of the Vietnamese language and am familiar with the topic that I edited. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 20:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Just going to point out one thing. I re-read this users complaint and just now noticed he stated my edits mostly "denigrated Korean forces" and "highlighted war crimes". Its clear the user didn't even read the edits I made except for one minor word deletion. This is hardly what I'd call evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's a credibility issue here for the user if he is abusing the complaint system in this way. I will leave these pages as is, since its not worth the trouble getting into a squabble over something like this. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Once again the long justifications with similar accusatory tone. Saying "I don't have an edit history because my IP autoswitches but I do edit other articles throughout Wikipedia" just like this "Well I am not the user you accused me of but not currently logged in so I have IP edits" on 8 November 2018 and this "My ISP shifts my IP around every so often. None of these IPs you listed are geolocated to my location, they are far and away." on 24 January 2019. Commonsense shows a Canadian IP user who suddenly turns up, goes straight to the same pages and makes edits that push the same POV as another Canadian sockmaster from the same area. This should all be able to resolved by a Checkuser but the rules are that heaven forbid we can't out a blocked User even though he has already IP socked on at least 10 separate occasions. Mztourist ( talk) 03:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm not the one accusing you of anything, clearly you are. I don't really get what you are accusing me of, having a dynamic IP address? Do you really think every Canadian IP is the same person? Look, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you and have already moved on from that article, and don't care to argue with you over something this trivial and pointless as a single word in a sentence. Since I work in the legal field, I do find it funny you think "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" of me being a sockpuppet is supported by me having i) a Canadian IP address, ii) making edits on a page you are attached to iii) having some quite irrelevant and downright hilarious similarities (I didn't even create those references FYI since I used a reference generator). I couldn't have not responded given how ridiculous these claims are but I'm quite done with all of this. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 03:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
"I'm quite done with all of this", just what User:Deogyusan another sock said on 23 September 2019. If you mean it then stop editing these pages, because I will oppose any POV pushing by IPs on these pages on the assumption that they're yet another sock of A bicyclette. Mztourist ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
What POV did I push? Re-read the edit that you linked. Its clearly about foreign relations between the two countries not being affected, and courtroom litigation/activism by civic groups within Korea. Nothing POV about it, certainly nothing about denigrating anyone like you accused me of. Look arguing about this is clearly pointless so I can agree to not dispute edits you found problematic, but clearly you just shouldn't jump to conclusions the way you did with these accusations. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 04:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Oh just the usual POV about Korean troops being mercenaries, murdering and raping South Vietnamese. Not the innocuous sounding "foreign relations" and "litigation/activism by civic groups in Korea". Mztourist ( talk) 04:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Since my response doesn't seem to be getting through to you, I'm just going to stop responding altogether. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not really sure what the context of this sockpuppet investigation is, but I've noticed that 70.55.8.116 ( talk · contribs) made some broad changes Meng Wanzhou that were in some parts improvements, but in others odd, especially in terms of grammatical choices. I don't have any direct criticisms, but the fact that the IP had no prior contributions to the page or any similar subjects, made me a bit suspicious. I think it would be better if the IP just made an official account, so as to make everybody more comfortable with the additions. Qiushufang ( talk) 04:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't ever get into these squabbles even without an account and this is the first time that I've been reported. Not on wikipedia enough to justify having an account. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That's a common refrain from IP users when they are brought to SPI. Don't you see the contradiction between "I don't ever get into these squabbles" and "Not on wikipedia enough"? Mztourist ( talk) 07:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I'm going to need a much better rationale than "uses the same ref style" (the ref name=":0" thing just means they're using visual editor) and "similar POV."
  •  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

03 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

By these diffs: [96], [97], [98] the IP has been edit-warring on Vietnam War casualties. Socks of A bicyclette editwarred the same issue here: [99], [100] and [101]. IP geolocates to Ontario Canada, same as other IP socks and A bicyclette's original IP edits. Same agenda, same MO. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I don't care enough to debate this accusation so I won't; just will point out that moderators should take a look at the user's edit history however. He not only did a 3R, but there have been repeated edit wars by the user in the last week with several different editors. User has a problematic editing history clearly. Its clear the user is also accusing other IPs and users of being socks as well. I am not going to continue this dispute or reply to this thread and already left a message on the user's talk page since this is a waste of my time.

On that page alone the user reverted every single edit by every other user this week.

1 2

The user violated 3RR and engaged in edit warring, I did not. Nor do I intend to; frankly this is too petty for me and I will drop it.

1 2 3

Another edit war where the user accuses them also of being a bicyclette.

1 2

And spent his time reverting other users. For example this IP user.

1 2 3 4 5


Another edit war here where user violates 3RR with a user:8ya

1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 11:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

"I don't care enough to debate this accusation so I won't" then writes this long list of diffs, if you don't care then just get off WP rather than coming back here again to create problems. Accuses me of ownership and obsession: Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Recent Edit Citing Joseph Babcock Article. Shows sufficient familiarity with WP to search my contributions and produce diffs, so clearly a banned user making a reappearance. Mztourist ( talk) 13:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm willing to make a defense, but not going to carry it. Simply no point exerting mental energy by getting angry at people on the internet, unlike you obviously. 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Just a few days after the close of an earlier SPI for inactivity, the IP returns along with XiAdonis arguing on the usual topics, Vietnam War and wartime rape by South Korean forces. A bicyclette continues to improve covering his/her tracks making proving socking increasingly difficult. A few giveaways are adopting the same referencing style used by A bicyclette of <ref name=":0"> even when the ref isn't repeated and the inclusion of English language in the reference even when it is plainly the case, IP here: [102] and A Bicyclette here: [103]. XiAdonis and 8ya operate as a tag team on Lai Đại Hàn, making the same edits: [104] and [105] and Xiadonis here: [106] and the IP has also joined in here: [107]. IP geolocates to Ontario Canada, same as other IP socks and A bicyclette's original IP edits. The editwarring and general argumentative style on Talk Pages, insulting me, accusing me of not accepting any other views is exactly the same as that of A bicyclette and their various socks. Same agenda, same MO. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I have just noticed that the IP makes the same arguments as User:Deogyusan, another A bicyclette sock here: Deogyusan [108] and IP here: [109]. Also Deogyusan didn't seem to know or like signing his posts: [110] and the IP and XiAdonis are the same, IP: [111] and XiAdonis : [112]. Mztourist ( talk) 17:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Also IP uses "guy" or "some guy" here: [113] a favorite phrase of A bicyclette's: [114] and one of his socks: [115] Mztourist ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • So I'm the IP User. I did edit a completely unrelated page on what I thought was a fair edit on the Tet Offensive page. User brazenly reverts it of course and starts trying to bully his way into an edit war, while I made a talk page, the user refused to try to resolve things and tries to take ownership of that page. Checking his early edits he was making, he seems to have a pattern of doing this, and I reverted an edit I thought was fair which led me to find the Lai Dai Han page. The user has an agenda by the way since the user is trying to discredit/wash out things he disagrees with, clearly. For example, he starts a talk page trying to discredit a group called Justice For Lai Dai Han. [116]. This is the source that refers to the group, BBCNews: [117]. Anyways, I made a very different edit on that page by summarizing the content of it, and did encourage the user to cooperate rather than try to get into edit wars. Instead the user reverts my edit, calls sexual assaults 'wartime romances', and uses some other pretty disgusting euphemisms. There also seems to be a problem in this user abusing SPI reporting. 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 10:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Going to comment that since the checkuser failed, admins should be weary of any SPI reports by this user broadly. It seems like he is trying to use it to block any disagreements, a clear abuse of process. 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 11:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Multiple users coming to a consensus that your edits are poor or in violation of wikipedia guidelines are not grounds for sockpuppetry accusations. I think this is a bad faith use of the sockpuppet investigation system. This is a view that I believe has also been brought against you before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
User:TheSandDoctor I request a behaviour review. The checkuser just says two of the suspected Socks accounts are unrelated, but says nothing about the IP. Mztourist ( talk) 04:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_bicyclette/Archive&oldid=1017872903"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A bicyclette

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

04 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

A bicyclette was blocked indefinitely by User:Black Kite for disruptive editing on 25 June 2018. After arguing against his block until 28 June I believe that since then A bicyclette has been evading that block by making a series of edits using IPs. A bicyclette acknowledging using these 2 IPs 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 before creating his account. Evidence is as follows:

I should add that IPs 125.192.86.52 and 124.85.14.35 were determined to be socks of each other here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive370#User:Mztourist reported by User:124.85.14.35 (Result: OP and 125.192.86.52 blocked, article semi-protected) and IP 126.151.34.213 which also participated in that discussion is a further sock/dynamic IP of them. Mztourist ( talk) 06:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Mmmm, I agree that the unvert is a bit suspicious, the rest not sure about. Apart from Unvert this is the sort of thing a lot of new edds do, and some older ones. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

And that is just a ridiculous weakness in the system, a blocked registered User can sock using IPs with relative impunity because a checkuser won't be run, even though in this case he outed himself before registering with IP edits from Canada. Mztourist ( talk) 15:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Using dynamic IP's is not socking, socking is using multiple accounts to either evade a block or make it appear that more then one users is commenting (so no admitting you have used more then one IP before creating an account is not admitting to socking). And (frankly) some of you "evidence" looks like you just picked on any damn IP you disagree with. This looks like a frivolous report whose sole function is to harass another user. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
These are multiple different IPs geolocated in different countries editing in a similar manner on 3-4 pages only since A bicyclette was blocked. This is not a frivolous report. I would expect you to be a bit more objective and if you can't then leave the discussion. Mztourist ( talk) 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
Some of which have also been editing since before he was banned. Not many edits to be sure, and are more active since he was, but if they are socks of him he has kept them in his pocket for a a month or more. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I assume those few earlier edits were made by other people on a dynamic IP, but this will presumably be considered in the behavioural investigation. My previous comments stand. Mztourist ( talk) 16:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

It is interesting in these matters to run a node trace (this reports the owner and location of every node that a PING is transmitted through up to the location of the final IP address). A falsified IP address usually shows up as a sudden shift in the trail towards the end. Disclaimers: In the case of dynamic IP addresses, it only reveals the final location of the current endpoint, and not necessarily the endpoint when any edit(s) were made (this applies to the simpler geo-locate utilities as well). The final endpoint always has a deliberate error included which can be up to 40 miles or so distant from the real location (and the error is never zero).

Two of the IPs are dynamic and currently (as of 15 or so minutes prior to this post) one traces to a location in Maryland, USA (and is active) and the other to the tip of Florida, USA (and is unassigned) and they are also unrelated ISP's. The remainder are all static IPs, one from Vietnam, one from Thailand and two from Tokyo in Japan (which although are different ISPs, are geographically close enough together that they could, but only could, be a single user posting from two locations, such as Home and Work). However, there is insufficient editing overlap to nail that hypothesis down with any degree of confidence. Given the subject matter, IMHO, it should not be that unsurprising that Asian IPs are pitching in.

Ordinarily, I would say that this report is suspiciously without merit. My only problem is that both A bicyclette and 173.64.109.152 used an entirely non-existent made up word, 'unvert'. What are the chances of two editors turning up in the same dispute believing that 'unvert' exists as a word? Note: typing 'unvert' into Google brings up many hits, but none of the sites linked to include the word (possibly Google trying to catch a typo for 'invert'?). Pretty well all the other issues are possible mistakes made by inexperienced editors given the absence of geographical co-location.

I pass this on with no opinion as to who is in the right as far as the content dispute goes. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 17:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Is this going anywhere? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Unlikely.
If A bicyclette really acknowledged the two IP addresses, 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 as claimed (no diff was provided) then none of the IP addresses given at the head of this report are connected as they all trace to different countries. There is a minor issue of two Tokyo based IPs possibly being the same person from two close locations, but insufficient evidence for a positive connection. But, in any case, they are definitely unrelated to A bicyclette.
My own opinion (for what it is worth) is that this is a classic case of one editor trying to include (or exclude) material believing that he is in the right and therefore the (apparent) multiple editors reverting him (or telling him he is wrong) are all supporting each other and therefore must be the same person. The reality is that they are not agreeing with each other so much as disagreeing with that editor because he is wrong. The last example of this that I saw was an editor who kept removing a paragraph from an article claiming that it was WP:OR and unsourced despite a strong consensus on the article talk page. In fact it was multiply sourced to several reliable sources.
As I said: I have no opinion as to who is right or wrong (as I have no knowledge of the subject). But I cannot see this SPI case going anywhere. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC) reply
I never said that A bicyclette acknowledged the two IP addresses, 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 as his, rather that they were acknowledged as being socks/dynamic IPs of each other. Its not up to you or Slatersteven to decide if "this is going anywhere", it awaits behavioural investigation. Mztourist ( talk) 03:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Mztourist:. Yes you did claim that A bicyclette acknowledged using those two IP addresses. Above you stated

A bicyclette acknowledging (sic) using these 2 IPs 172.86.241.3 and 172.86.241.193 before creating his account.

Myself and Slatersteven are perfectly entitled to state our opinions here. Your statement is a clear attempt to silence any opposition.
@ JzG: I am not using WHOIS or simple Geolocate. As I said, I am using a node trace. This is a technique where a special type of message is sent to the IP address. Every node the message passes through returns its identification and location finishing with the IP address and location of the final connection. This shows up IP address spoofing of proxies because the trace suddenly jumps geographically toward the end. If this is meat puppetry, then it has been organised on a global scale given the range of countries featured in this report. Unfortunately, subjects such as this one tend to bring out editors that have axes to grind one way or the other. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 11:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC) reply
TheVicarsCat Apologies I read your comment too quickly and confused the IPs. A bicyclette acknowledged the other 2 IPs here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive#31 May 2018: "None of the original ones this user is accusing me of, is me. The only ones that are, are 172.xx IPs, which are my edits." I am not making any attempt to "silence any opposition" merely pointing out that its not up to you or Slatersteven to decide if "this is going anywhere". As can be seen below an Admin has undertaken a behavioural review and found WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 03:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Mztourist: I take your points you make. It's nice to have the diff that fully confirms that A bicyclette is in a different country to anyone else in this report. You may care to bear in mind that blocks are preventative and not punitive. As no one has edited the disputed article in several days, this is unlikely to attract attention as any block at this stage would be punitive. And no: the admin has not found WP:DUCK but only suggested it. He did not take any action as he could have done and even then has only recommended a close. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 17:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC) reply
@ TheVicarsCat: as this SPI has apparently stopped the IPs from editing further then I would argue that it is has successfully prevented further sock activity. I would also argue that blocks are both preventative and punitive, in that a sockmaster and his socks are blocked, preventing the sockmaster from evading their original block. Mztourist ( talk) 11:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Mztourist: Whilst I concur completely with your first two points, you are wrong on the third point. Of the IPs listed above, plus the two acknowledged by A bicyclette, none have been blocked for anything except the two Tokyo IP's (and they were not blocked for socking but for disruptive editing - plus they are on the opposite side of the planet to A bicyclette). Since the two acknowledged IP addresses are dynamic there would be no point in blocking them anyway. Both are currently unallocated anyway. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 12:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC) reply

IP User:142.118.176.170 geolocated in Ontario Canada (near to A bicyclette's original IP edits) yesterday made a series of edits to Vietnam War casualties, particularly this edit: [26] which removed the sentence: " It is unclear whether or not this figure includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing in action" and undermined the Woodruff quote, both of which A bicyclette objected to previously. Mztourist ( talk) 04:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC) reply
So what is the evidence that it is A bicyclette? The acknowledged IPs were in the 172.86.241.. range and were dynamic IPs. 142.118.176.170 is a different ISP and is a static IP and in a different part of Toronto so is unrelated to any other IP in this report. So someone supports one of A bicyclette's edits. One edit does not prove sock puppetry. TheVicarsCat ( talk) 15:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 05:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC) reply
More edits today by another IP: User:74.58.148.148 with same methods as A Bike here: [27] of book cite with url first and <ref name=":0"> and here: [28] of adding in ref before punctuation. Mztourist ( talk) 11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC) reply
A Bicyclette admits here: [29] that he editted using IP 74.58.148.148 geolocated to Montreal. So he has admitted to using a sock to evade his ban and socked using an IP in Montreal which would seem to undermine his previous denials of IP socking on the basis that they are so far removed from him. Mztourist ( talk) 06:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 September 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 24.28.160.102 appeared out of nowhere on 27 September and went straight to 2 pages where I had removed dubious edits by User:A Bicyclette restoring those deleted parts and providing similar arguments that my edits were only my subjective views and hadn't been raised on appropriate boards. I reinstated my edits and then another new IP 72.178.68.100 appeared on 29 September and reverted my edits. As with A Bicyclette the IPs didn't follow WP:BRD and just went straight into edit warring. The fact that all these IP edits are on pages where I have previously had disputes with A Bicyclette (and in the case of Son Thang massacre apart from 1 other edit, we are the only Users who have edited the pages previously), follow the same idiosyncratic agenda and the fact that A Bicyclette has previously self-identified here [30] as IP 74.58.148.148 to evade their indefinite block to me is WP:DUCK that these are new IP socks to evade their block. Mztourist ( talk) 03:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Since I opened this report, User:Piccadillysquare has created an account and created Draft:Le Bac massacre which expands upon the dubious claims in Son Thang Massacre that I deleted here: [ [31]] as well as making substantial changes to Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre and South Korea in the Vietnam War on which I have had previous disputes with User:A Bicyclette. Mztourist ( talk) 08:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Nope, that user is located in the states way elsewhere whereas I am based in Hanoi. I just took notice of your edits, and decided to start tracking my edits. I just can't tolerate

We had a minor talk dispute on that article a month ago when you went on a diatribe on why all the sources are wrong without even reading them, since you decided to misrepresent AP/Reuters by pulling quotes out of context, and I interjected to contextualize them. It seems however that the edits themselves seem to be serving a quite obvious agenda since its a combination of not only misrepresentation to try to assert a NPOV point (as was the reuters/AP case), but now obviously deleting anything else you may disagree with in bad faith.

You can also notice that I took a much more objective stance on the Le Bac event, given that there is two different views of the events as they occurred. Censorship/deletion without proper channels, alongside NPOV representation should make way for a clear report of the sources for an open-ended interpretation and I would welcome more evidence or report on the matter. Immediately deleting everything that others contribute is my fundamental disagreement since it shuts down any improvements to articles, its best that you should tag them first and leave it open for discussion if its disagreeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccadillysquare ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

It is very vaguely  Possible that the accounts are related, but the evidence is circumstantial. I have no comment on the IPs. -- Deskana ( talk) 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • I'm assuming that Deskana saw the same thing as I did when I had another look: the data on its own is inconclusive because Piccadillysquare is using proxies pretty much exclusively. But the IP that A bicyclette admitted to using in the archive is also a proxy, and so are almost all of the suspected IPs that have been listed in both cases, regarding which JzG remarked "it's either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry". Considering the clear overlap in topic interests and continuation of similar disruptive editing, Piccadillysquare is blocked. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

02 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Picaddillysquare was blocked on 31 October and this IP turns up today making similar changes to Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre here: [32] and reverting edits I had made on other pages regarding Vietnam War massacres: [33], [34]. Also edit warring on Vietnam War body count controversy here [35] compared to Picadillysquare here: [36]. IP edit wars rather than discussing on Talk pages. Uses long edit summaries, accuses me of obsession with issues here: IP [37] Picadillysquare [38]. Same MO, same agenda, WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 07:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


03 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP proxy 116.106.89.77 was blocked yesterday. Today this new IP turns up and with their first edit goes to RFC to raise a very specific issue regarding inclusion of contested massacres in the campaignbox. Something which the previous IP changed yesterday [39]. Clearly another IP proxy. Mztourist ( talk) 04:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

The template that was edited is featured very prominently on the Vietnam War page, its not hard to miss that there was pretty significant edits. Secondarily, a look into the actual pages show there is consistent activity you posted, requesting for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre, which is where I first took notice of the recent string of edits, and which is not at all hard to miss when you just made it very prominently a feature of discussion. Finally, I neither edited, created consensus or anything to that matter since I just raised the rfc and do not plan to edit the page myself. As the matter doesn't seem to be settled in light of a recent edit warring post raised here [40], community input or comment will not detract from this. 183.107.0.107 ( talk) 05:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


04 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

another day, another 3 new IPs editing Template:Campaignbox Vietnam War massacres, a page that previous IP proxy 116.106.89.77 last edited on 2 November. Same agenda, same MO. Mztourist ( talk) 10:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All blocked, closing. GAB gab 17:31, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply


06 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 119.76.120.181 appears out of nowhere today and goes straight to 2 new pages I created yesterday, making the usual POV edits and then when reverted IP 45.62.243.176 appears tagging and criticizing sources. Same MO, different pages but same approach of proxies, POV and pointing to ( [41]) Vietnam War body count controversy a favourite page of A bicyclette. Using WHOIS IP 45.62.243.176 locates to Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, near to A bicyclette's original IP edits. Mztourist ( talk) 06:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 06:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

IP 50.92.44.9 appeared out of nowhere today and tagged multiple Vietnam War pages in a similar manner to IP 45.62.243.176. WHOIS locates this new IP to British Columbia, Canada. Mztourist ( talk) 10:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Well I am not the user you accused me of but not currently logged in so I have IP edits, yes I noticed that. I was looking recently reviewed articles by User:Pkbwcgs and noticed discrepancy between standardization and tagging articles for improvement per WIKIPROJECT:MILHIST. there was inconsistent pointing to the correct wikilinks which other users including yourself have corrected across some but not all articles. Further as this deals with military conflicts, and as User:Buckshot06 tagged a few articles with a template, these articles as they stand would be considered unreviewed, low-quality ones per MILHIST Rating found here [42]. If you are going to raise a ruckus about constructive edits to your benefit as some of these are ones you created I'm just going to stop since correcting wikilinks pointing and appropriate tagging for improvement was doing you a favor. 50.92.44.9 ( talk) 10:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, please stop. You aren't "doing [me] a favor." Mztourist ( talk) 10:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Just to comment, I don't get how by circumstantial evidence you think I am the same user just because I pointed to Vietnam War body count controversy. You have done the exact same edits pointing to this page, throughout several articles in the campaignbox. 50.92.44.9 ( talk) 10:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Unlike you I make all my edits with a User account, whereas as can be seen above, multiple different IP proxies/socks have been making similar edits to various Vietnam War pages and then you turn up today and go straight to tagging Vietnam War pages just as IP 45.62.243.176 did. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 10:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The other two are proxies and I've blocked them as well. Closing. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC) reply

12 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 126.72.143.235 appears out of nowhere today and goes straight to editing Vietnam War pages, reinstating edits made previously by A bicyclette and his socks/proxies. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 06:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

IP appears out of nowhere today and goes straight to 3 pages where I have made edits regarding massacres purportedly conducted by Korean forces during the Vietnam War. Same MO. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 09:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 09:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 January 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 174.112.21.209 appears out of nowhere on 19 January 2019 and goes straight to List of war crimes reverting my changes regarding "disputed" on certain Vietnam War war crimes here: [43], a topic on which A bicyclette was very active previously. Other IP socks of A Bicyclette IP: 110.168.170.123 previously made the same changes here: [44] and IP 193.56.28.126 here: [45]. IP geolocates to similar area of Ontario, Canada as previous IPs and where User identifies himself as being located. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 08:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC) reply

IP's response makes the same arguments as A Bicyclette's IP socks - my ISP moves my IP around, none of these IPs geolocates to my location, they're far away. This IP appears out of nowhere, goes straight to a controversial issue and then has a remarkable familiarity with WP policies and procedures, clearly a banned user making a reappearance. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 06:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

My ISP shifts my IP around every so often. None of these IPs you listed are geolocated to my location, they are far and away. Second, your edits you keep pushing and others are RVing clearly distorts the format and introduces WP:BIAS without any substantive support for it. Its easy to see why such an edit would be removed. There is nothing else in the long list located on that page which places (disputed), or anything else in brackets in the wrong column under Event Names columns. As I said if you feel very passionate about it, put it in the notes column and cite it because this page isn't for you to state your opinions. 174.112.21.209 ( talk) 07:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

new user Charlesn66 appears on 2 May and goes straight to South Korea in the Vietnam War a page frequently editted by A bicyclette making these similar edits: [46] to remove "alleged" from unproven accusations of South Korean war crimes. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 05:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Noted, thanks, diffs here: of South Korea in the Vietnam War (by IP socks) [47], [48], [49]. Diffs on the underlying pages here on Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre by A bicyclette and IP sock [50], [51], on Bình Hòa massacre by A bicyclette [52] and on Hà My massacre by A bicyclette [53]. I would also ask you to consider the context here, a new User appears and their first and only edits are these which seems to me to be a clear example of block evasion. Mztourist ( talk) 03:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply

new user Charlesn66 appears on 2 May and goes straight to South Korea in the Vietnam War a page frequently editted by A bicyclette making these similar edits: [54] to remove "alleged" from unproven accusations of South Korean war crimes. Then today IP 174.114.57.231 appears making identical edits: [55] and then again when I reverted for socking: [56] and [57]. These follow previous similar edits by IP socks of A bicyclette: [58], [59], [60]. Running WhoIs on IP: 174.114.57.231 geolocates to Toronto, Canada, a similar location to the original IP edits made by A bicyclette and to other IP socks used by A bicyclette. With this diff: [61] IP states in the edit summary: Nope on all points; I am not logged in certainly since my password is lost and my autologin cleared accidently; but a mod can see I am neither that other guy or any other user for that matter since I have never edited on this page prior. This language is very similar to that used by A bicyclette and socks previously. e.g. "Nope" by User:Piccadillysquare here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive#30 September 2018; claiming not to be logged in: "Well I am not the user you accused me of but not currently logged in so I have IP edits" here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive#06 November 2018. "Guy" the edit summaries here: [62] "some guy's website"; [63] "They are from one guy who was some special forces guy"; [64] "some guy in Canada which I allegedly am" by confirmed sock Piccadillysquare WP Duck Mztourist ( talk) 08:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • User is completely wrong on this. I am neither located in Toronto as I live several hours away; nor are every Torontonian one person. The edit in question is very common as the user edited the page by inserting words clearly violating WP:NPOV. I suggest moderators look at the offending edits in depth to judge whether these edits have substance as my instinct is that many people would have made the same edits and the user seems to be throwing around sockpuppet/meatpuppet accusations to shut down dialogue. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 08:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Also note: The whoIs pinpoints to national headquarters of my telecom company; in the same way is every subscriber to Comcast also located in philadelphia? This is bad evidence and even worse logic. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 08:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Previous IP socks of A bicyclette claimed the same thing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette/Archive#20 January 2019 My ISP shifts my IP around every so often. None of these IPs you listed are geolocated to my location, they are far and away. While A bicyclette has previously admitted to IP socking to evade his indefinite block here: [65] Mztourist ( talk) 09:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
        • Your points are incoherent too since this is not what I am claiming. If you find the actual IP geolocation I am not even in Ontario. Its clear you just want to shut down anything by loosely throwing around this kind of accusation. I will recommend any moderator to just make a judgement on their own whether these types of edits removing the word "alleged" before every mention of the word war-crime in the article; would be something many users would do to preserve WP:NPOV. It seems like a fairly common thing to edit. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 09:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Cabayi the master was using IP socks here: [66], [67], [68]. In any event Charlesn66 and the IP are clearly the same person. Mztourist ( talk) 10:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Let me get this straight; any edit to this page means everyone is a sock? I literally just made one RV edit since I thought it was WP:NPOV. You are clearly abusing this process to shut down input from all these other users. Again I recommend mods look at the nature of the edits; mine resemble nothing of these users as I added no substance. This evidence clearly hinges on irrational. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 17:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I would also point out that South Korea in the Vietnam War was the very first page that [ [69]] A bicyclette editted (after some IP edits) and so its interesting that a new user like Charlesn66 came straight to that page for their first edits as did the IP. Mztourist ( talk) 10:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Believe what you want; I am not new to wikipedia and the evidence is still pretty weak that I am this other person and bordering on paranoia. Since the basis is a) some user noticed an WP:NPOV edit; b) you have Rv'd c) I disagreed with the RV. In your mind anyone who disagrees with you is one and the same person. And now because they seem to be editing the same pages they are one and the same. I recommend admins look at the IPs of the offending account; mine firstly and the other users because this user seems to be raising these SP processes loosely to stamp out any disagreements. 174.114.57.231 ( talk) 17:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
If you make controversial edits from an IP account to a page that has been battled over by a blocked user and its socks then its a reasonable assumption that you are just another sock. Mztourist ( talk) 03:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Mztourist, your evidence shows the sock removing "alleged", but no edits from the master for comparison. Cabayi ( talk) 20:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply

23 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

User:Deogyusan has had an account with two bursts of activity on 1 July and today on a very specific topic/set of pages namely alleged massacres of the Vietnam War. On 1 July on Operation Wheeler/Wallowa [70] Deogyusan incorrectly added back references to the My Lai Massacre having occurred in this operation, something originally inserted here: [71] by User:Piccadillysquare a sock of A bicyclette. Today in a burst of activity User:Deogyusan has edited numerous pages where I engaged in debates with A bicyclette and their socks, namely: Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre Deogyusan today [72] A bicyclette [73]; Vietnam War body count controversy Deogyusan today: [74], Piccadillysquare [75]; Son Thang massacre Deogyusan today [76], owning a page originally created by A bicyclette; Vietnam War casualties, Deogyusan today [77] A bicyclette [78]; shared reliance on Nick Turse, Christian Appy and Heonik Kwon as sources, an argumentative approach claiming to be backed by policy and addressing my "partisan edits" and a general failure to follow WP:BRD instead edit warring everything. Mztourist ( talk) 08:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Will break this into sections.
  • 1) I don't see how me not being an active user has anything to do with this. I typically do not log except when disputes arise with other users, since I primarily leave talk comments or edit current events by adding news sources and do not contest them given how active current events are. I can make an effort to remain more actively logged if this is an issue.
  • 2) The campaignbox on war crimes during the Vietnam War is a prominently featured one and I encountered this user several months ago. The first time that I had any issue with any user as he had demonstrated strong WP:OWNERSHIP conduct and treated my edit with hostility. I did not engage in an edit war or conduct violation and created the account to dialogue as the user assumed I was a sockpuppet for using an IP and reverted my edit. I dropped the issue since and did not edit on these pages since due to the hostility from the user, as shown here [84].
  • 3) I found one problematic edit recently as I had to make use of a source and looked at its edit history, on the Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre and noticed the user engaging in edit wars while demonstrating strong partisan editing on its page history, including with other users.
  • 4) I followed the user's edit history, and all subsequent overlap is from me editing pages he had edited in the past month. As the user seems to be the only active editor on alleged war-crimes during the Vietnam War while demonstrating very strong partisanship, I thought it necessary to check the user's edits. Though this may be grounds for WP:HARASS, I thought to only raise dialogue on the user's edits. The user seems to be active almost daily editing virtually every page and my edits were on topics where there is seemingly ongoing content disputes.
  • 5) I would recommend moderators look into this user's history of reporting any edits he disagrees with as being sockpuppets. There is a strong pattern of the user assuming any IP edit, or any user engaged in several topics are the same person. This is in my view a problematic abuse of process, especially as the user is active on wikipedia almost hourly and has made the bulk of substantial edits to virtually all articles related to the Vietnam War and in general is not receptive to other user's edits.
  • 6) None of my edits are "shared reliance" or any other such claims, they are almost entirely just reverts of poorly reasoned content removal. Nothing I contributed on this topic was original except source-checking or engaging in BRD. My sense was the user was engaging in censorship and partisan editing. My main contention in RVIng the user's edits is partly due to the user having a procedure of claiming WP:RS for any source the user finds disagreeable, without taking it to the appropriate board. Listing positive examples of overlap is fine, but the very few edits the user makes on other topics where there has been no previously overlapping dispute I have done the reverts for, e.g. on a massacre during the Spanish Civil War here [85].
  • Final Comment: Every edit I've made the user has just engaged in edit wars on all edits while refusing WP:BRD and now resorting to creating these proceedings. I don't really have the time nor patience to continue this dispute, I have already referenced it to appropriate discussion boards/talk pages.If the user wants to assert WP:OWN of an entire topic area I won't care to stop him as I'd rather spend my life doing something productive and useful. Deogyusan ( talk) 09:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Likely, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

15 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 70.55.11.97 began making edits on 10 September 2020 to South Korea in the Vietnam War with this: [ [86]], adopting the same referencing style used by A bicyclette of <ref name=":0">. The edits follow a familiar pattern of denigrating South Korean forces as mercenaries and highlighting accusations of war crimes in Vietnam. The IP then edited Hà My massacre here: [ [87]] deleting "purportedly" a favourite point of contention for A bicyclette here: [88] and adopting the same <ref name=":0"> referencing style. The IP then edited Binh Tai Massacre here: [ [89]], adopting the same <ref name=":0"> referencing style. I would also note that the IP geolocates to Ontario, Canada, many of the IP socks belonging to A bicyclette also geolocate to eastern Canada. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 03:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Well that's my edits on a different IP. If you are accusing me of being someone else, you are mistaken. I don't have an edit history because my IP autoswitches but I do edit other articles throughout wikipedia. For example this IP has no edits to its history.

The user reverted the edit he found problematic, the word "purportedly" in a sentence, which i didn't think was a neutral term. I am fine with leaving it there and won't argue if its such a big problem for the user. My edits were mostly aimed at Korea-Vietnam diplomatic relations, domestic Korean politics and activity by the Korea Vietnam Peace Foundation/civic groups between countries. There was one small edit on one page which coincidences with another user. I invite any mods to look at the other edits I made which was not problematic or contested in any way.

I also used the autogenerated reference tool on the visual editor so its strange this user is accusing me of having the same referencing style as another user. By the way is this user even aware of how big in size and population Ontario is? There's 15 million people that live here. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 20:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

By the way, so the article you linked on WP:DUCK states a presumption of good faith editing, and requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This is quite a high evidence standard and requirement, so don't see why its a good idea to jump to conclusions and accuse me of vandalizing a page right off the bat. Especially since I won't even argue with the edits you made, I am fine with leaving your edits and don't care to edit it anytime soon. I'd like to hope my edits were assumed to be in good faith by the user, since I have language competency for Korean and have a basic understanding of the Vietnamese language and am familiar with the topic that I edited. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 20:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Just going to point out one thing. I re-read this users complaint and just now noticed he stated my edits mostly "denigrated Korean forces" and "highlighted war crimes". Its clear the user didn't even read the edits I made except for one minor word deletion. This is hardly what I'd call evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and there's a credibility issue here for the user if he is abusing the complaint system in this way. I will leave these pages as is, since its not worth the trouble getting into a squabble over something like this. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 22:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Once again the long justifications with similar accusatory tone. Saying "I don't have an edit history because my IP autoswitches but I do edit other articles throughout Wikipedia" just like this "Well I am not the user you accused me of but not currently logged in so I have IP edits" on 8 November 2018 and this "My ISP shifts my IP around every so often. None of these IPs you listed are geolocated to my location, they are far and away." on 24 January 2019. Commonsense shows a Canadian IP user who suddenly turns up, goes straight to the same pages and makes edits that push the same POV as another Canadian sockmaster from the same area. This should all be able to resolved by a Checkuser but the rules are that heaven forbid we can't out a blocked User even though he has already IP socked on at least 10 separate occasions. Mztourist ( talk) 03:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm not the one accusing you of anything, clearly you are. I don't really get what you are accusing me of, having a dynamic IP address? Do you really think every Canadian IP is the same person? Look, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you and have already moved on from that article, and don't care to argue with you over something this trivial and pointless as a single word in a sentence. Since I work in the legal field, I do find it funny you think "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" of me being a sockpuppet is supported by me having i) a Canadian IP address, ii) making edits on a page you are attached to iii) having some quite irrelevant and downright hilarious similarities (I didn't even create those references FYI since I used a reference generator). I couldn't have not responded given how ridiculous these claims are but I'm quite done with all of this. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 03:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
"I'm quite done with all of this", just what User:Deogyusan another sock said on 23 September 2019. If you mean it then stop editing these pages, because I will oppose any POV pushing by IPs on these pages on the assumption that they're yet another sock of A bicyclette. Mztourist ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
What POV did I push? Re-read the edit that you linked. Its clearly about foreign relations between the two countries not being affected, and courtroom litigation/activism by civic groups within Korea. Nothing POV about it, certainly nothing about denigrating anyone like you accused me of. Look arguing about this is clearly pointless so I can agree to not dispute edits you found problematic, but clearly you just shouldn't jump to conclusions the way you did with these accusations. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 04:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Oh just the usual POV about Korean troops being mercenaries, murdering and raping South Vietnamese. Not the innocuous sounding "foreign relations" and "litigation/activism by civic groups in Korea". Mztourist ( talk) 04:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
Since my response doesn't seem to be getting through to you, I'm just going to stop responding altogether. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not really sure what the context of this sockpuppet investigation is, but I've noticed that 70.55.8.116 ( talk · contribs) made some broad changes Meng Wanzhou that were in some parts improvements, but in others odd, especially in terms of grammatical choices. I don't have any direct criticisms, but the fact that the IP had no prior contributions to the page or any similar subjects, made me a bit suspicious. I think it would be better if the IP just made an official account, so as to make everybody more comfortable with the additions. Qiushufang ( talk) 04:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't ever get into these squabbles even without an account and this is the first time that I've been reported. Not on wikipedia enough to justify having an account. 70.55.8.116 ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
That's a common refrain from IP users when they are brought to SPI. Don't you see the contradiction between "I don't ever get into these squabbles" and "Not on wikipedia enough"? Mztourist ( talk) 07:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I'm going to need a much better rationale than "uses the same ref style" (the ref name=":0" thing just means they're using visual editor) and "similar POV."
  •  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

03 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

By these diffs: [96], [97], [98] the IP has been edit-warring on Vietnam War casualties. Socks of A bicyclette editwarred the same issue here: [99], [100] and [101]. IP geolocates to Ontario Canada, same as other IP socks and A bicyclette's original IP edits. Same agenda, same MO. WP:DUCK. Mztourist ( talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 09:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I don't care enough to debate this accusation so I won't; just will point out that moderators should take a look at the user's edit history however. He not only did a 3R, but there have been repeated edit wars by the user in the last week with several different editors. User has a problematic editing history clearly. Its clear the user is also accusing other IPs and users of being socks as well. I am not going to continue this dispute or reply to this thread and already left a message on the user's talk page since this is a waste of my time.

On that page alone the user reverted every single edit by every other user this week.

1 2

The user violated 3RR and engaged in edit warring, I did not. Nor do I intend to; frankly this is too petty for me and I will drop it.

1 2 3

Another edit war where the user accuses them also of being a bicyclette.

1 2

And spent his time reverting other users. For example this IP user.

1 2 3 4 5


Another edit war here where user violates 3RR with a user:8ya

1 2 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 11:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

"I don't care enough to debate this accusation so I won't" then writes this long list of diffs, if you don't care then just get off WP rather than coming back here again to create problems. Accuses me of ownership and obsession: Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Recent Edit Citing Joseph Babcock Article. Shows sufficient familiarity with WP to search my contributions and produce diffs, so clearly a banned user making a reappearance. Mztourist ( talk) 13:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm willing to make a defense, but not going to carry it. Simply no point exerting mental energy by getting angry at people on the internet, unlike you obviously. 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Just a few days after the close of an earlier SPI for inactivity, the IP returns along with XiAdonis arguing on the usual topics, Vietnam War and wartime rape by South Korean forces. A bicyclette continues to improve covering his/her tracks making proving socking increasingly difficult. A few giveaways are adopting the same referencing style used by A bicyclette of <ref name=":0"> even when the ref isn't repeated and the inclusion of English language in the reference even when it is plainly the case, IP here: [102] and A Bicyclette here: [103]. XiAdonis and 8ya operate as a tag team on Lai Đại Hàn, making the same edits: [104] and [105] and Xiadonis here: [106] and the IP has also joined in here: [107]. IP geolocates to Ontario Canada, same as other IP socks and A bicyclette's original IP edits. The editwarring and general argumentative style on Talk Pages, insulting me, accusing me of not accepting any other views is exactly the same as that of A bicyclette and their various socks. Same agenda, same MO. WP:DUCK Mztourist ( talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Mztourist ( talk) 10:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I have just noticed that the IP makes the same arguments as User:Deogyusan, another A bicyclette sock here: Deogyusan [108] and IP here: [109]. Also Deogyusan didn't seem to know or like signing his posts: [110] and the IP and XiAdonis are the same, IP: [111] and XiAdonis : [112]. Mztourist ( talk) 17:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Also IP uses "guy" or "some guy" here: [113] a favorite phrase of A bicyclette's: [114] and one of his socks: [115] Mztourist ( talk) 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • So I'm the IP User. I did edit a completely unrelated page on what I thought was a fair edit on the Tet Offensive page. User brazenly reverts it of course and starts trying to bully his way into an edit war, while I made a talk page, the user refused to try to resolve things and tries to take ownership of that page. Checking his early edits he was making, he seems to have a pattern of doing this, and I reverted an edit I thought was fair which led me to find the Lai Dai Han page. The user has an agenda by the way since the user is trying to discredit/wash out things he disagrees with, clearly. For example, he starts a talk page trying to discredit a group called Justice For Lai Dai Han. [116]. This is the source that refers to the group, BBCNews: [117]. Anyways, I made a very different edit on that page by summarizing the content of it, and did encourage the user to cooperate rather than try to get into edit wars. Instead the user reverts my edit, calls sexual assaults 'wartime romances', and uses some other pretty disgusting euphemisms. There also seems to be a problem in this user abusing SPI reporting. 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 10:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Going to comment that since the checkuser failed, admins should be weary of any SPI reports by this user broadly. It seems like he is trying to use it to block any disagreements, a clear abuse of process. 216.209.50.103 ( talk) 11:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Multiple users coming to a consensus that your edits are poor or in violation of wikipedia guidelines are not grounds for sockpuppetry accusations. I think this is a bad faith use of the sockpuppet investigation system. This is a view that I believe has also been brought against you before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
User:TheSandDoctor I request a behaviour review. The checkuser just says two of the suspected Socks accounts are unrelated, but says nothing about the IP. Mztourist ( talk) 04:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_bicyclette/Archive&oldid=1017872903"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE