Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive

< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations | Dino nam


Dino nam

01 November 2016

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Full disclosure, I have made an Edit Warring complaint against Dino nam here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: ), but believe that he/she has also been socking. User 14.177.199.124 only became active on 23 October and then made several material changes to Battle of Khe Sanh on 28 October see: [1], I reverted these changes as they were against consensus, but Dino nam reinstated them here: [2]. On 29 October User 77.75.203.108 made his/her first and only edit on WP with this argument in favour of the position adopted by Dino nam and 14.177.199.124: [3]. Later 14.177.199.124 made this change to the comments of Dino nam on the Talk:Vietnam War page: [4], I regard making changes to another User's comments on a Talk Page as highly unusual. Dino nam has then raised this query regarding a source used by 14.177.199.124 to justify his original changes: [5]. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • For sure, 77.75.203.108 is not mine. About 14.177.199.124, I'm not sure, as user:Mztourist claims that the IP has fixed my comment. May be I have unintentional fixed my comment when I haven't signed in yet, but I must repeat that I'm not sure 'cuz my consistent intention is to edit and comment under the name Dino nam.
  • There's not something "against consensus" as Mztourist claims, because nobody has yet agreed to his ideas. In fact, after the comment of 77.75.203.108, Mztourist remained silent on the talk page, yet he continued to revert my editing on the article (a violation of WP:COMMUNICATE. That itself is soundly against consensus. Dino nam (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Sorry but what is the point of checkuser then? Mztourist (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: The purpose of the CU tool is to investigate sockpuppetry and other abuse, but since the privacy policy prevents us from sharing much of what we discover, we must decline requests to link accounts with IP addresses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you mean by "we must decline requests to link accounts with IP addresses". Isn't the whole point of checkuser to see if a sockmaster is using other accounts (including IPs) to sock and, if so, to block them? Mztourist (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could continue trying to explain, but please read WP:SPI and WP:CHK first. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read them and it seems to be a flawed policy if a registered user can sock using IPs, but can't be called out on checkuser in order to protect the socker's privacy. Particularly because if an Admin conducts a behavior investigation and concludes that the IP is a sock the final result will be the same, i.e. the User will be linked to the IP. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Check declined by a checkuser - We will not publicly disclose any connection between named accounts an their IP address(es). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither IP has edited since this case has been filed. I trust that even if it was Dino Nam logging out to edit, this case will serve as a sufficiently stern warning to deter such future behaviour. It should also be noted that while CUs do not publicly connect accounts to the IP addresses they use, CUs can still respond to intentionally misleading logged-out editing with Checkuser blocks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15 May 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit


Dino nam was blocked in June 2017 for edit warring with user Tnguyen4321 in article Battle of Ia Drang. Tnguyen4321 is not permitted to edit that article. Day to day began editing in October 2017. This user has made only 7 edits to date, all of them to Battle of Ia Drang, all apparently following the same agenda as Dino nam. I have looked at three of the seven edits, and found that they clearly follow the same agenda:

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

This case is   Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

Dino nam was indefinitely blocked for edit warring on 28 June 2017. Dino nam created a sock account User:Day to day that only made edits to Battle of Ia Drang and was blocked on 17 May 2018. TDN92 made their first edit on 10 July 2017 to Battle of Ia Drang, TDN92 then went quiet until 10 May 2018 when they started making a variety of edits to battles of the First Indochina War, Vietnam War and Vietnamese football teams, often the same or similar pages that Dino nam wrote on. In addition several IPs have made the same/similar edits. The changes made by TDN92 are similar to those made by Dino nam, particularly disputing the results of the battles and operations, usually changing US operational success or US victory to See Aftermath. Specific examples are as follows:

Mztourist (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

edit

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit

TDN92 is   Confirmed to Day to day along with Deadpool 229 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Blocked and tagged the unblocked accounts. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 May 2018

edit

Suspected sockpuppets

edit

IP 172.86.241.3 started making edits on 21 May 2018, User:A bicyclette starting making edits on 27 May, the same day that Dino nam's latest sock User:TDN92 was blocked. Both the IPs and A bicyclette have made numerous edits to numerous Vietnam War pages, with User:A bicyclette frequently making similar changes to the same pages as the IP. examples are:

Comments by other users

edit

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

None of the original ones this user is accusing me of, is me. The only ones that are, are 172.xx IPs, which are my edits. None of the edits or edit warring or anything pre-2018 is me either.

Thank you.A bicyclette (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to edit with an IP after you have created an account is Socking. Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Battle of Dak To, User:TDN92 a sock of Dino nam made this edit: [48] on 22 May, User: A bicyclette made this edit: [49] on 5 June. Operation Cedar Falls, TND92: [50] A bicyclette: [51] regards Mztourist (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Also Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) TDN92 on 24 May [52] A bicyclette 9 June [53] Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow two people with vaguely similar edits must be the same person according to you. It doesn't occur to you that more than one person could actually disagree with you?A bicyclette (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda why is it so difficult to get a checkuser here? Can you please do it because I am spending all my time edit warring with A bicyclette on individual pages and arguing on talk pages, ANI and RSN, which is a waste of my time if a checkuser can quickly prove they're a sock. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is because you are hardcore claiming ownership of articles and straight-up reverting every edit I make. These articles don't belong to you, neither does this topic. Just because more than one person disagrees with you, doesn't make them the same person. A bicyclette (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

edit
  •   Check declined by a checkuser - So I'm not going to sanction someone after a week and a half for minor logged out violations, which as far as I can see, don't constitute edit warring using multiple aliases. I've seen a lot worse logged out editing cases, and only warned/preventative blocked the underlying IP. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and this far out, it'd be punitive. As for the connection to Dino nam from A bicycle, Mztourist has not met the evidence threshold for running a check (by connecting it to a previous sock). If after a few days no further evidence is provided, I'd recommend closure w/o action. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dino_nam/Archive&oldid=846106698"