Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


MiG29VN

MiG29VN (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
24 March 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

MiG29VN has a fairly blatant habit of editing with multiple IPs, which I confronted him about (to no avail), but did not see as a serious issue until his recent block for violating the three revert rule at Massacre at Huế. Rather than taking a break, MiG29VN has opted to continue the edit war through block evasion, thus digging his hole a little deeper. While I believe even a cursory examination of the evidence should be enough to establish the truth of this matter (what are the odds that these two IPs are two random people who agree strongly enough in MiG29VN's position to make the same contentious edits for a fifth and sixth time following his four-reverts block?), I will point out a few telltale similarities between the IPs and MiG29VN:

Take a look for yourself and tell me these ducks aren't quaking.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Additional IPs pertaining to MiG29VN:

All IPs and the MiGVN account edit on the same type of articles (e.g. Tet Offensive, Hue Massacre, Vietnam War, Second Battle of Kharkov, Case Blue etc. - Vietnam War and WWII Soviet Eastern Front articles), all IPs & MiGVN add the same content attempting to deny the Hue Massacre's existence, using the same sources from the same group of authors, all engage in edit warring, numerous reverts and heavy disruption for the past week, all refuse any form of compromise between himself and other editors, the same type of edit summaries and broken English, and all IPs from Hanoi, VN. It's very apparent who is behind all this. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse Nguyễn Quốc Việt's comments above. MiG29VN has been getting away with using alternate IPs to make controversial changes for quite some time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, while MiG29VN's block has now expired, using alternate accounts/IPs for block evasion is never acceptable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
29 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


MiG29VN has a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry. After his latest block for violating the 3RR at Massacre at Huế, I was hopeful that he had learned his lesson. Unfortunately, the same IP he was previously caught using for block evasion has once again appeared to copy-paste all of his reverted contributions back into the article and make the same identical arguments on the talk page. MiG29VN isn't even trying to conceal his sockpuppetry: He attempted to appeal his block within minutes of the IP's intervention, his appeal justified the IP's continued edit warring, and it's the same IP that got him into trouble last time. His behavior cannot be allowed to stand.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This guy repeatedly removed my cites to a book that I have in my possession, even after I told him I have the book. He ignored every argument for why the cites were correct and forced me to directly quote from the book to stop his reverting. He got blocked for two weeks, and within 48 hours he was back using his IP to revert all of the work I had done. I started a discussion in talk about removing some unreliable cites. I got input from other editors. Finally the changes were approved and I implemented them. Now they've all be reverted. He is extremely frustrating to deal with. He reverts first and then posts in talk to make it appear that he is willing to discuss.

This is my first time doing serious editing on Wikipedia. I have been studying the Hue Massacre for the past two months and an working on an article about it. I thought I had something valuable to contribute, but this guy makes me wonder if it's worth the effort. Txantimedia (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This guy doesn't exhibit any indication that he recognized any wrongdoing, yet alone indicate a change of behavior, as evidenced on his block appeal explanations. They sound more like desperate excuses to get him unblocked asap to allow his resumption of his mad marathon campaign of reverts and forced institution of his POV copyvio article versions], with intentional deletion of other editor's contribs to root out content he dislikes. One must be critical and skeptical of what he says and does - serious integrity issues can be witnessed eg from his fabricated references, false claims of "vandalism", deviously removing cites to remove content altogether etc. MiGVC's behavior, already nonsensical, unreasonable and ignorant against myself and TTAAC earlier on in the conflict, became even more absurd and mad against Txantimedia where Txantimedia's contribs, be it added content or ref adding or improvements, were blindly reverted 100% most of the time, not even 50% or something. MiGVC wreaked total disruption and article instability for the past 4-5 weeks Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

information Administrator note This seems to be dealt with now. The sockmaster has been blocked indefinitely, and the page under assault from IP socks is semi-protected through July, so I think the disruption is over. I'm marking for closure. -- Atama頭 17:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


MiG29VN continues to evade his block using the same IP to advance the same POV on the same articles. Although Massacre at Huế was protected for the specific purpose of stopping his sockpuppetry there, I would argue it is a waste of time to manually revert his edits everywhere else. The IP should be given a block.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC) TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
28 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to the same old pet project articles of Vietnam War casualties and Tet Offensive, adding the same/similar content eg. about Oriana Fallaci and the Hue Massacre (yes ip 113.190.46.134 was used as a Mig29VN sock before). Using ip editting to evade the indef block imposed few months earlier. Same location in Hanoi like previous ip socks he used. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

31 August 2014[edit]

I have found more socks of him, all based in Vietnam and returning to the same Vietnam War related articles and in special WW2 articles where he constantly edited nonsense into the articles without any (credible) sources or even explanation. His edits always had the intention of swinging the article into have some sort of Soviet bias, specially with casualties wise again and again, without sources or at 'best' with dead Russian Soviet-patriotic sites with no figures at all or ones based off of the Sovinformburo propaganda from the 40s and Soviet 'historians' from the 1970s (things like claiming double the amount of German tanks destroyed in an operation from the amount existing in the first place!). I've spent a good few hours fixing up his sabotage and vandalism, and adding in good sources as well as properly structuring the articles he damaged (including with my IP address initially as I had not logged in in over a month and a half here, which I would like merged with my account if possible).

The socks I highly suspect he uses too are: 113.190.46.134 and 42.113.99.210 and 1.55.57.128 and 117.1.187.48. If there are more I haven't found them yet. Again all these contain the same type of malicious edits on the same sort of subjects originating on the SAME location: Hanoi, Vietnam. I kindly request the administrators to do something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRussels (talk • contribs) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found another puppet of his, 1.55.181.60 Same story, very similar edits from Vietnam again. --JamesRussels (talk • contribs) 18:50 (GMT+1) 31 August 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And even more here 27.69.140.215, here 118.71.175.136 and here large one 113.190.46.130 and yet another from late July 183.81.11.147. The rabbit hole keeps going deeper and deeper, exact same characteristics, exact same location. He's becoming an epidemic.

Just when you probably thought it couldn't get any worse and more ridiculous I found 4 older ones, all from February: 42.113.151.223, 58.187.174.65(here he likes to pretend he's Russian, but again IP from Hanoi!), more deceptive bs: 14.163.32.161, 42.113.157.118

This guy is a real problem, he just doesn't quit. Could it please be considered to semi-protect all articles from IP's in Hanoi?JamesRussels (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more sockpuppet of his from April, 118.71.43.145, same story again etc etc.JamesRussels (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another very clear one: 113.190.46.114 JamesRussels (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk note: I blocked 113.190.46.130 (talk · contribs · count) for three months. He's the only recently active IP. The others' edits appear to range from August all the way back to 2013. In thre future, you can add IPs to the prose, but also add them to the list at the top. It will make easier for the clerk, whether it's me or someone else. Also, it's probably a waste of time to add ones that are really stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: For completeness' sake, I added all the IP addresses mentioned in the body of the SPI to the list of suspects. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


He has again switched his IP and made edits with an old one [1] yesterday and a brandnew one [2] today. Yet again the same story, IP's from Hanoi making misinfo edits in poor English on WW2 articles while blocked on another IP. I suggest blocking all IP's mentioned above and in the archive as he will keep on returning with others. I also suggested earlier to semi-protect WW2 articles against IP's from Hanoi (if that's possible). The concerning diffs are (besides the older well-known ones): [3] from the blocked account, which was re-edited in by his other IP sock after he got banned, here: [4]. The second account 113.23.40.65 just has 1 edit, but is from Hanoi again just like all others, and provides the same sort of edit. JamesRussels (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I've rangeblocked 1.55.244.192/27, so we'll see if that makes a difference (if they keep going with IPs starting with "1.55" let me know (on my talk page) and I'll expand the block. I've also blocked 113.23.40.65. Semi protection isn't really justified with the reasonably small number of edits. Probably best to either report to WP:AIV with a link to the archive of this case or reporting them here. Also thank you for the detailed report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27 November 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Both IPs and former MiG29VN account edit heavily on Massacre of Huế, Tet Offensive, Battle of Khe Sanh and other Vietnam War articles (see the contribs of MiG and the 2 IPs). Same pro-communist POV (deleting Viet Cong/N Vietnamese casualties and replacing them with significantly lower numbers). All IPs from Hanoi, Vietnam, just like the previously reported IPs. Same broken English. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
13 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

These IPs have recently been editing across a number of Vietnam War articles including: Battle of Suoi Bong Trang, Battle of Coral–Balmoral, First Battle of Quảng Trị, Operation Junction City, Operation Kingfisher, Operation Swift, Operation Buffalo (1967), Operation Hastings, Operation Prairie, Battle of Hill 881, Operation Medina, Operation Union, Operation Union II, Operation Lam Son 719, Operation Starlite, Battle of Prek Klok II, Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, Battle of Khe Sanh, Operation Masher, Operation Cedar Falls, Operation Attleboro. Most of these articles are articles previously edited by MiG29VN and show similarities with his/her editing, and are with in the same numerical band as previous socks of that user (pls see the archive here - [[5]]).

Pls consider the following similarities: (there are many others but I’ll try to limit it for simplicity, will provide others if required):

  • MiG29VN - adding “US estimated” to casualties section at Operation Union [6]
  • 101.99.7.141 - adding "U.S. report” to casualties section of Operation Starlite [7]
  • 27.72.42.126 - adding “NLF report” to casualties section of Operation Starlite [8]
  • 113.190.46.114 - adding “U.S. report” and “NLF report” to casualties section of Operation Starlite [9]
  • 113.190.46.134 (currently blocked as a MIG29VN sock) - adding “Australian reported” to casualties section of Battle of Coral-Balmoral [10]
  • 101.99.7.141 - adding “Australian estimated” to casualties section of Battle of Coral-Balmoral [11]
  • 101.99.7.141 - deleting "41 killed" and inserting "unknown" in casualty field at Battle of Xa Cam My here [12], which is identical to an edit made by MiG29VN here [13].

Recently theses IPs have interchangeably been making a number of changes, including the addition of COPY VIO / close paraphrase material at Operation Attleboro : 27.72.46.121 here [14], and 101.99.7.141 here [15] and here [16].

Prior to this 113.190.46.114 had inserted the Daddis and Nannery sources here [17], while 27.72.40.71 also inserts them here [18] showing they are the same editor. While at Battle of Suoi Bong Trang 101.99.7.141 and 113.190.46.134 made identical edits here [19] and [20] showing their connection. 1.55.244.180 inserted figures on the number of wpns captured here [21] using almost identical language to 27.72.40.71 here [22]. 1.55.244.180 added "Strategic U.S failure" and inserted what seems to be OR regarding number of wpns captured vs bodies at Operation Union II here [23], similar to 101.99.7.141 at Operation Swift here [24], and 113.190.46.114 at Battle of Long Tan here [25] showing their connection. Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another point - 1.55.244.204 - a previously banned sock (pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive#20_September_2014) makes a similar typo fairly often "inculd", presumably to mean "including" pls see [26] and [27] for examples. The same spelling mistake is made by 101.99.7.141 at Operation Linebacker II here [28]. Also mis-spelling "unknown", see here [29] and here [30]. There are other examples of this in the edits of the other IPs listed. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Geolocate tool indicates that all the IPs listed come from Hanoi, Vietnam - same as those listed in the other 7 investigations for MiG29VN's socks. Pls see here [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38].

27.72.39.17 restored reverted edits from 101.169.213.68 at Operation Linebacker II here [39]. Anotherclown (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to Bbb23's decline) Ok no worries, sorry I'm new at this so probably got the process wrong. Thanks for looking over this anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk note: Declining CU request. No basis for checking IPs and nothing to check them against anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anotherclown, comments by non-admins or non-clerks, don't go in this section. And I haven't actually looked the report over yet. I or someone else will do so. And don't worry about getting things wrong; happens all the time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that all the IPs geolocate to Hanoi is not particularly helpful as it stands to reason that Vietnamese editors will be more interested in Vietnamese articles. However, the diffs were very helpful, and I appreciate the work that went into it. I've blocked most of the IPs except for those that have not edited recently. All blocks were for three months. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

22 June 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Hello, MiG29VN have recently heavily engaged in edit warring (Vietnamese Wiki) and seems to use the same accounts on the English Wikipedia. The current investigations against MiG29VN needs to be updated accordingly to the Vietnamese investigations, to prohibit further escalation. The above list include confirmed, suspected, registered and non-registered sockpuppets from the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Thank you.

Here is the list accordingly to Vietnamese Wikipedia ongoing investigations, i tried to differentiate the cases. All accounts should be blocked, the suspected accounts would need check-user.

Confirmed sockpuppets
Registered sockpuppets, potentially usage
Non-Registered sockpuppets, potentially usage
Suspected sockpuppets under investigation, need check-user

Hope this helps. TìmKiếm (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

09 October 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Both suspected socks have edited on Vietnam War articles relying exclusively on Vietnamese Government sources to claim Vietnamese victories in non-existent (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy) or disputed battles (see: Battle of Thượng Đức and Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966). Diffs are as follows:

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk declined. As best I can tell, there are no non-stale (less than 90 days old) edits by MiG29VN or previously identified socks, so a CU wouldn't have anything to compare the new suspected socks to. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you check user between the two suspected socks? Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would that further the case for connecting them to the suspected sockmaster? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood your Decline, you seem to state that MiG29VN hasn't edited in the last 90 days (presumably because he/she is indefinitely blocked), so you can't check if the two suspected socks are socks of MiG29VN, but isn't the whole point of SPI to see if new socks have been created by a banned writer? Even if you can't check if they're socks of MiG29VN, can't you check if they're socks of each other as I understand that editing from multiple accounts is socking? regards Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that MiG29VN's edit are all old — I looked at the SPI archive page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN/Archive, in hopes of finding some previously confirmed sock with non-stale edits that a CU might be able to compare to, but everything in the archive page was stale as well. We could possibly just check Haohaomyy and Tonnytaffoc to see if they are the same user, but without any established link between either of these accounts and MiG29VN, it would be necessary to close this SPI and open up a new SPI in Haohaomyy's name (since Haohaomyy is the older of the two accounts), and then request CU attention as part of the new SPI. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwales: Have you analyzed the behavioral connection between the master and the two listed accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have — and I really don't see a specific behavioural link involving any two of these three accounts.
The Editor Interaction Utility doesn't show any direct interaction between MiG29VN and the two alleged socks, obviously, since MiG29VN has been indeffed since 2014. But even Haohaomyy and Tonnytaffoc have edited only one page in common — namely, User talk:Mztourist — and their edits were a month apart and dealt with two different topics. Tonnytaffoc argued with Mztourist over the reliability of Vietnamese government sources, was advised to take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, but never did so — and Haohaomyy posted a claim that the Viet Cong had won the 1966 Tan Son Nhut airbase attack by comparing numbers of deaths and aircraft losses, leading to a discussion about H. and T. and their having been blocked on the Vietnamese Wikipedia as socks of MiG29VN, a discussion which neither H. nor T. followed up on. I also manually rechecked the editing history of MiG29VN, and the overwhelming majority of his edits were on the Massacre at Huế, an article which neither H. nor T. have ever touched.
So, what I believe I see here is multiple editors — all of whom have taken similar positions in a broad subject area, and indeed a subject where we could reasonably expect most people in a relatively small geographical region to espouse these same views (or to fear repercussions if it were to become known that they held some other view). So, I still believe there is insufficient reason (if, indeed, any reason at all) to suppose that H. and/or T. are socks of MiG29VN, based only on enwiki sources — we shouldn't indef them based solely on what was done on viwiki, since we don't know if that action was based on a CU check, or whether the viwiki SPI process as a whole would have met the standards which we use here. If an enwiki CU or admin who is fluent in Vietnamese wants to go over to viwiki and try to figure out if there is evidence over there that would be appropriate to use here, I'd be interested in hearing what they think, as long as any decision here on enwiki is based primarily on our policies and what we see here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your behavioral analysis, I'm closing this report with no action. I don't see the need to check the Vietnamese wiki, even assuming someone came along who could.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will open a new SPI on Haohaomyy as I believe that the choice of topics, sources and editing styles indicate they're the same person. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Hello, I just want to say that Wotvietnam and the other accounts belong to a series of hundreds of sock-puppet account, created by the same person, known under MiG29VN in en.wiki. A complete list of all sock-puppet that are associated with MiG29VN and his others sock-puppet accounts can be viewed on the vietnamese wikipedia,[[43]]. Wotvietnam, can be found under the umbrella of Saruman, under S in the list for example.

Since this person use open proxy ip to obscure his footstepts, as noted in vi.wiki for the ban of Wotvietnam, on vi.wiki, [[44]], I can't say how they are associated among each other. Those are only a few which I could identify that were active on en. wiki, but were banned or under investigation on vietnamese wikipedia. There certainly much more accounts probably. Please have a look, thank you. Bluskz (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Bluskz (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

04 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hello, it is probable that these accounts, althought only Rudotua and Uoat365 are currently active, belong to MiG29VN as per vi:WP [[47]]. These accounts have similar interest, editing style and defend each others reverts. Unfortunately, the investigation on vi:WP have stalled, currently there are over 1,200 accounts to MiG29VN confirmed. Please have a look on these accounts above. Thanks. Bluskz (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Bluskz (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

01 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Hello, as per Vietnamese Investigation: [loại:Thành viên con rối], Utakem8 likely belong to the master sock. The editor contributed to articles that have been previously challenged or edited by Uoat365 and Rudotua. All of these accounts make similiar criticism, spelling mistakes and generate same citations to Vietnames Google Book searches. However, it is difficult to establish which accounts are active here in en.wiki, I will request a checkuser for that matter. Thank you. Bluskz (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

15 March 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I have suspicion to believe that user Baccaihp is actually user MiG29VN (master). The person persist to make same edits as previous caught accounts, e.g. Uoat365, Rudotua and Utakem8: TP entry from August 2018: [48] In specific, Utakem8 claimed diff and Baccaihp repeated diff. I also have the suspicion that user Mendako belongs to that person. Unfortunately, the same addition diff to the Eastern Front article got striked because of copyright violation (March 12, 2019) but I'm absoulte certain that Baccaihp added it first. Wildkatzen (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk assistance requested: Please move to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This case is being reviewed by 1997kB as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

Bbb23, In the first one I couldn't provide a diff since there are many revisions deleted in that article, but it should be one where Dianna removed it with comment - "remove copyright content copied from https://notevenpast.org/lend-lease/". And yeah these are two different articles but as Wildkatzen said that these were identical. But since now you confirmed them, I guess we no longer need comparison. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@1997kB: I don't think that's what Wildkatzen said, although it's a little hard to understand them, but the two versions are two long articles that are completely different, as you would expect them to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07 July 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Chùa Tam Chúc a new account, restores Meliodas Samas edit [1], after one time appearance a month ago [2]. Editing behavior and style resemble previous master MiG29VN [3]. Wildkatzen (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the correspondent article (Battles of Rzhev) in the Vietnamese Wikipedia, I suspect that Duongqua56 is probably a duck too. [4] Wildkatzen (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk assistance requested: Please put this in the correct case.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:  Done. GABgab 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06 March 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Adding unsourced content with irrelevant links: Special:Diff/1068611898/1068848068. This kind of disruptive editing is similar to that of a confirmed sock. Side note: their behaviour at viwiki is also duck-able. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More informations

They attempted to add unsourced content or questionable sources to articles, namely at "Casualties" parameters in infoboxes:

These, and articles about battles generally, were also edited by previously confirmed socks:

Are these enough or should I find some more? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 10:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added another one per viwiki RfCU. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 07:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Additional information needed - NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh, "unsourced content with irrelevant links" isn't exactly a distinctive feature. You've given me a single diff and told me to go review the contribution history of someone else. SPI folks are lazy, please give specific pairs of diffs comparing the suspected sock to past known socks. Also, please say why you think CheckUser is necessary here. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another diff: Special:Diff/857689572/857698583. Since this master is known for edit warring/making controversial edits using multiple accounts/IPs (see /Archive) a check might reveal sleepers. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 05:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh: Please present specific diffs we can compare against; you may also be interested in having a quick look at User:Blablubbs/How to file a good SPI for some guidance on evidence presentation. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to close this. Partly because there's not really a convincing argument of socking to justify a check, but also because even if I did a check, there's not much to check against. Everything in the archive is stale, and if I wanted to go log-fishing, I'd have to go all the way back to 2017 to find a confirmed sock. Relatively recent log comparisons are iffy. 5 year old ones are tending towards pointless. Not to mention that of the accounts mentioned here, one only has 2 edits, and neither has edited in 2 months, so there's no good argument that a block would be preventing ongoing disruption. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MiG29VN/Archive&oldid=1079897757"