Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:44, 16 September 2014 editPhilKnight (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,353 edits checked← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:09, 16 September 2014 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,096 edits →29 August 2014: comment and request to RyulongNext edit →
Line 3:		Line 3:

	=====<big>29 August 2014</big>=====		=====<big>29 August 2014</big>=====
	{{SPI case status\|~~checked~~}}		{{SPI case status\|hold}}

	;Suspected sockpuppets		;Suspected sockpuppets
Line 51:		Line 51:
	{{endorse}}. Based on the above whatever-it-is, which I wouldn't read unless you're masochistic.--] (]) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)		{{endorse}}. Based on the above whatever-it-is, which I wouldn't read unless you're masochistic.--] (]) 19:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
	*{{Possible}} - based on a similar geographical location, but otherwise a lack of technical similarity. ] (]) 11:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)		*{{Possible}} - based on a similar geographical location, but otherwise a lack of technical similarity. ] (]) 11:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
			*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."). {{U\|Ryulong}}, I would appreciate it if you would provide a ''concise'' summary, including diffs, that would support such a block. Thanks.--] (]) 23:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
	----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->		----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 23:09, 16 September 2014

Instantnood

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive.

29 August 2014

– An administrator or SPI clerk has placed this case on hold pending further information or developments.

Suspected sockpuppets

Tvb10data (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Leeyc0 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

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)

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)

Comments by other users

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

I admitted that LungZeno requested help from Plurk , 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)
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)
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)
You explicitly admitted that you came to the English Misplaced Pages 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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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) 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) 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) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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) 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) 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) The fact that he has returned on the English Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

The fact that he has returned on the English Misplaced Pages 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)

I'm not trying to work on democracy to make decisions on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages?? Does English Misplaced Pages work on censoring of free speech like the Chinese Communist Party??? --Tvb10data (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't "news". You follow LungZeno on Plurk. He posted his problems on the English Misplaced Pages. You came to support him at his behest. That's our definition of meatpuppet. And Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages? 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)

I've seen the plurk, thus I've heard this incredible, ridiculous, peculiar and unreasonable thing has happened on English Misplaced Pages, 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)

Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

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)

Possible - based on a similar geographical location, but otherwise a lack of technical similarity. PhilKnight (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
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)

Categories: