Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan
- 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.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Miyokan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ilya1166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Berkunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence
- While the checkuser case came back unlikely, some recent ArbCom cases (e.g., Giovanni33 and SevenOfDiamonds) have shown that fooling a checkuser is not entirely impossible. I can also attest to this myself, as most of the IPs I come on through (and there are a lot) are off by a few hundred, sometimes a few thousand miles. Additionally, the new editor has edited quite a bit since the checkuser case, and additional evidence continues to present itself that a WP:DUCK comparison is quite likely. If this is not an obvious case, I would hate to see one that is obvious.
1. Immediately below I have presented the same articles edited by the two editors, and User:Ilya1166, a self-admitted sock [1]. For certain articles, it makes sense both would edit them (e.g., Moscow); for others, it is extremely questionable (e.g., Indian MRCA Competition). Additionally, you will notice that the locus of edits is on the same articles
| Article¶ | User:Ilya1166 | User:Miyokan | User:Berkunt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Russia | 809 | 1224 | 37 |
| Talk:Russia | 79 | 218 | 20 |
| Ukraine | 2 | 129 | 2 |
| Israel | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Moscow | 0 | 6 | 1 |
| Poland | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Template:Largest cities of Russia | 0 | 29 | 3 |
| Template talk:Largest cities of Russia | 0 | 29 | 1 |
| Russia national ice hockey team | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Serge Lifar | 0 | 6 | 1 |
| Nikolai Gogol | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| Grozny | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| Battle of Poltava | 0 | 7 | 1 |
| Ukrainian language | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Ilya Repin | 0 | 8 | 1 |
| Soviet war in Afghanistan | 0 | 11 | 1 |
| Dmitry Medvedev | 0 | 11 | 1 |
| Siege of Leningrad | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Iraq War | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| Eastern Europe | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Indian MRCA Competition | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Sukhoi PAK FA | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Template:Russia topics | 4 | 0 | 3 |
2. User:Berkunt is clearly somebody's sock: his very first edits are vandalism reversion, with the proper syntax and all: [2]. He is awfully knowledgeable of policy for his third day: [3], and second month: [4].
3. The two users both have a surprisingly good grasp on the English language for a Russian.
4. The two users both edit exclusively (or nearly so) articles dealing with Russia, Eastern Europe, and related politics, in that order, with a heavily nationalistic Russian bent, for which the user is willing to edit war.
5. Both editors make extensive arguments in edit wars in their edit summaries.
6. Both editors use very similar language:
| Article¶ | User:Ilya1166/ User:Miyokan | User:Berkunt |
|---|---|---|
| "self revert" in edit summary | [5] | [6] [7] |
| "see talk" in edit summary | [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] | [15] [16] [17] |
| frequently uses word "consensus", misspelt as word as "concensus" | [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24], etc. | [25] [26] |
| referencing Encyclopedia Britannica in an edit war | [27] [28] [29] [30] etc. | [31] |
Also cf. edit summary 1 vs. edit summary 2
7. Same edits across different ac
- a. Berkunt takes umbrage [32] with removal of material added by Miyokan [33]
- b. Berkunt knows this has been discussed before, despite it being his first edit here, probably because Miyokan was the one adding it before
- c. Removal of Ukranian spelling: [34] [35]
- d. Edit warring over images on Grozny: [36] vs. [37] [38]
- e. The primary rationale for invading was Iraqs alleged possession of WMDs: [39] [40]
- f. Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland: [41] [42]
- g. Exactly the same edit war with the Ukranians on Nikolai Gogol (both editors have 6-7 edits).
- h. ... and on Serge Lifar (this makes 3, with c and g)
- i. edit warring over use of term "Ukraine": [43] [44]
- j. I will not bother with similaries on Russia: there are too many edits, and I believe the similarities listed above are enough.
8. General editing similarities, "intangibles", if you will. Both editors are obviously intelligent, and usually smart enough to avoid a block.
- Comments
Convincing. Add to this the very similar habits in uploading serial copyvio images, as discussed recently on User talk:Moreschi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I am Miyokan, why didn’t somebody just ask me? I don’t know what exactly I’ve done wrong? I created a new account to have a fresh start. I haven’t been involved in any edit warring on this account - check my contributions for yourself. I did not read the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry so I didn’t know there was anything wrong with creaing a new account, but now I see Moreschi is worried about a provision called Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Avoiding_scrutiny. I see there is also something called Wikipedia:Sock_puppets#Clean_start_under_a_new_name. The Evil Spartan wrote:
Edit warring over images on Grozny: [45] vs. [46] [47]- What edit warring?
Edit warring to insert the same economic figures in Poland: [48] [49]- What edit warring?
Edit warring over use of term "Ukraine": [50] [51]- What edit warring?
My main work has consisted of fighting vandalism. When my contributions get reverted in almost all cases do not bother to revert them back, and in the rare cases when I do, I usually go to the talk page before. After that I do not bother with a third revert. --Berkunt (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusions
Okay, identity established. I note that in one sense Berkunt is right: It in fact would have been appropriate to first simply ask him. (That step seems to be forgotten all too often in these SSP cases). However, the "clean start" justification is not really applicable, because that implies a complete change in editing patterns. If you fail the duck test, the start wasn't really so fresh. Nevertheless, a change of account, especially now that it's out in the open, is generally tolerated. That leaves us with a finding of block evasion during the first day of Berkunt's editing, but that is stale now. Berkunt will of course be under closer scrutiny in the future than he would otherwise be, given the substantial block logs on his earlier accounts (and I'll leave it to other admins to determine if there's a pattern of concern), but I don't see grounds for a sockpuppetry block as such at this point.
However, one formal sanction that's clearly necessary: For a persistent pattern of copyvio image abuse, Berkunt/Miyokan is banned, until further notice, from making any image uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Additionally, I've annotated Berkunt's block log (by blocking him for one second, autoblock disabled) to include links to the block logs of his two prior accounts. This can probably now be closed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]