Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Ideogram

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Declared accounts
Suspected sockpuppets

All above have been confirmed by Ideogram. [4]

Ideogram also admits operating other socks, but we don't know for sure which ones those are. [5]


Report submission by

Jehochman Talk 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Addhoc (talk · contribs)

  1. Suspicious edits [7], [8], [9] among other early edits that indicate an experienced user constructing a new identity.
  2. Addhoc shows up at WP:CSN to defend Ideogram. [10], but he has a history of patrolling this board.

You Are Okay (talk · contribs)

  • Trolling at RFC after being asked to stop disruption. [11]. Continues trolling [12] after warning from admin El C, who then issue a 24 hour block [13].
  • Incivility and trolling: [14]
  • Intervenes in disputes at AN/I and RFC within first dozen edits. Supports Ideogram against DreamGuy. [15] .
  • First edit uses the cite template. [16]

Wang C-H (talk · contribs)

  1. Ideogram is making odd edits to the User:Wang C-H page [17]. Ideogram has also blanked warnings from User talk: Wang C-H. [18] There's no talk between the two at all.
  2. Wang C-H created User:Wang C-H/navigation templates. [19]. Ideogram later created the exact same thing in his own user space, User:Ideogram/navigation templates. [20]
  3. In Wang C-H's seventh edit to Wikipedia, he copies a chunk of User:Ideogram/common article practices I dislike to his own user page. [21]
  4. Ideogram has a history of disruption. (See block log.) We see the same sort of disruption from Wang C-H, including improper AfD nomination and then improper removal of AfD tags [22][23]
  5. Both users seem to employ a "strike and run" tactic. Abusive motions are filed, and then retracted. Compare these AfD nominations by Wang C-H, [24] and [25] with this arbitration request by Ideogram: [26]
  6. Both users focus extensively on China and seem to be pushing a pro-People's Republic of China POV by deleting, or reducing the visibility of any negative information or any mention of Taiwan/Republic of China:
    Ideogram: [27] [28] [29]
    Wang C-H: [30] [31] with deceptive edit summary, [32] removing mention of Republic of China and deceptive edit summary, [33]
  7. These two users have not corresponded on wiki. The above pattern of editing strongly suggests sock puppetry or meat puppetry, in my opinion. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Editing sessions fit together neatly without overlapping. Editing sequences by Wang on Aug 5 - 6 do not overlap editing sequences by Ideogram.
  9. Policy violation: Sock puppet R1es (talk · contribs) was used for block evasion numerous times on April 19-20, 2007. See [34] and [35] Note: 02:36, 19 April 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Ideogram (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (disrupting arbcom)
  10. Policy violation: Sock puppet Galindo (talk · contribs) was edit warring [36] [37] [38] along side Ideogram up to 4RR [39]. In the middle of this edit war Galindo left a 3RR warning for the opposing editor [40].
Comments

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

Thank you for that, and yes, there are legitimate reasons to operate socks, especially if they are openly declared which Wang C-H was not. We have to decide if there are violations of site policy. The most obvious would be operating multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny or for block evasion. Given your block history and excessive number of disputes, this is worth a bit more due diligence. Jehochman Talk 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's save some time. They are all my socks. It is up to others to determine if there are policy violations worth acting on here. --Ideogram 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would you like to declare any others? Jehochman Talk 03:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at this time. --Ideogram 03:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I have no opinion on this case, but editors edit warring with themselves, to create a false sense of what's right or controversy, or just to throw people off their sockpuppet trails isn't unheard of --L-- 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, okay. But you really are wasting your time. --Ideogram 05:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

That's a plausible scenario, but I think we should keep him on the list a bit longer so we can watch the situation. Jehochman Talk 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems suspicious that a newbie would even be able to find old RFCs from three years back, as they were not discussed recently. DreamGuy 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The contributions from You Are Okay (talk · contribs) are entirely spam, disruption and trolling. This looks exactly like an abusive sock puppet account. Jehochman Talk 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not amazing -- it was linked immediately above where he editted in this diff. And the archive he refers to was also just two clicks away using a link that was in his face. He's neither as stupid nor as devilish as you guys think. Dicklyon 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If You Are Okay found his way to the current RfC and saw it was titled DreamGuy 2, he could have inferred that it wasn't the first RfC regarding DreamGuy. A search of past user conduct disputes would then bring up other RfCs about DreamGuy, which is exactly how I found the old RfCs about DreamGuy a while back, even when they weren't explicitly linked to or mentioned. Not a solid explanation, I concede, but it's certainly a plausible alternative to sockpuppetry (which I won't deny is also plausible). --clpo13(talk) 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Addhoc

The idea that I'm a sock of Ideogram is laughable, unless evidence is presented, I'm going to ignore this. Addhoc 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Ideogram&oldid=385570386"