Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FobTown
FobTown
- FobTown (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 December 2022
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
Suspected sockpuppets
User is indiscriminately returning information posted by FobTown's sockpuppet accounts. done across multiple articles. (feel free to verify the info yourself)
Article: Propaganda in China | Reason for Removal: failed verification [1]
Article: Kris Wu rape case | Reason for Removal: info failed verification and was original research [2]
Article: Concerns over Chinese involvement in 5G wireless networks | Reason for removal: quotations failed verification + unreliable sources
Info and quotations that failed verification (feel free to verify the info yourself): Experts have pointed out that “under [President] Xi's intensifying authoritarianism [since] Beijing promulgated a new national intelligence law" ... The two laws "[compel] Chinese businesses to work with Chinese intelligence and security agencies whenever they are requested to do so”, suggesting that Huawei or other domestic major technology companies could not refuse to cooperate with Chinese intelligence. [3]
information from a self-published newsletter/blog (substack): Klon Kitchen has suggested that 5G dominance is essential to China in order to achieve its vision where "the prosperity of state-run capitalism is combined with the stability and security of technologically enabled authoritarianism" [4]
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I accept my ban for edit warring and I would have stayed away from Wikipedia, but to see User:LilAhok blatantly removing entire sections and their supporting sources from such articles, this is what I cannot stand idle about because these are tactics similar to "Pro-Beijing people [who] often remove content that is sympathetic to protests" according to the BBC [5]. I would like the following edits to be actually judged on their content rather than user history, and in any case should not prejudice the supporting sources. [6][7][8][9] FobTown2 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- Per confession and evidence presented,
Blocked and tagged. Closing.. 1 week for 142.205.13.124 and 142.205.130.125, indef for the one that popped up here. @LilAhok: Please clean up as you see fit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
18 December 2022
– This SPI case is open.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Stormandfury (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- JadeKrusade (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools
The guy never had intentions to leave and is proven to be even more engaged with wik editing even more so in the first months after he had got blocked. He doesn't just edit with only one account anymore but instead have created multiple accounts with a fury within the last 5 months. I know he is not allowed to have new accounts after he got blocked let alone multiple new accounts. He has already proven to disregard his block and edit literally only days after he got blocked. Considering how has been proven to create new accounts days after Fobtown got blocked around 4 to 5 months ago, you need to block his ip range in making new accounts.
evidence for 142.205.130.124 as his sock,
He created a sock account called jadekrusade and made this edit on (high speed rail in china) where he says he just "trims the lead" except there is no decent reasoning for that blanket removal and he also deleted content from other chapters and gave no reasoning. [10] Jadekrusade got blocked for sockpupptry soon afterwards and literally only a hour later after the block, an angry anononymous ip editor's first and only edit is to mass undo all my and others' edits and re-add back in jadekrusaders' edits. It was obviously him. [11] And because of his interests, I as well as other editors alreadt knew he was from ontario canada and I think the admins already confirmed the geolocation of his sock is ontario canada.
Now yesterday, he became active again with his time wasting and his obvious sock 67.69.111.178 mass re-added JadeKrusades' edits and again undid all mine and others edits that Jadekrusader has edit warred on 2 months ago. He managed to stay quiet for only 2 months yet for some reason started popping up again recently. His geolocation again points unsurprisingly to ontario canada. Its obviously him however not sure why he is showing his IP address and make it too easy to spot him. [12]
Update - I didn't notice this before until just now, but it seems lilahok reported him yesterday for his sock account - 142.205.130.125 - which is extremely close to 142.205.130.124. It's obviously him by duck test alone and copying the same beahviour as Fobtown's sock Jadekrusade and dragonluver22, and the fact that the ip range is so close to each other. just one digit different.
evidence for stormandfury as his sock
Fobtown giveaway behavioural pattern is of a consistently of a selective and large removal of content within articles of his interest, and using invalid or dubious reasoning to do so and how I knew they were socks and reported them here, where at least 4 of his socks have now got confirmed and blocked. And I had to add back in my edits that his socks kept removing. [13]
I can tell that stormandfury is his sock because ONLY 5 to 6 days after FobTown got blocked for edit warring, I noticed a new account was created at that date and was called Stormandfury where like his name sake, started to go to FobTown's similar range of interests and making large amounts of edits and removal of other editor's content without even discussing it.
On his first day of his newly created account, he removed so much content and his reasoning for doing so, was just his own flawed opinion that the poll is not reported elsewhere (which he's both very wrong and the source given was very authoritive). [14] [15] That fits Fobtown behavioural pettarn to a T and throughout his barely 5 month history, has the very same pattern of questonable removal of contents.
He undoes my edits on (shanghai communique in the last few days) where if you take a look at stormandfury edits on that page. It's the very same toxic behavioural pattern of fobtown. He could easily add in the (unsourced) tag and allow others to add a citation but he instead does a vast hasty blanket and irresponsible deletion of all that information without discussion or giving others a fair enough time.[16] This is so him and the very same toxic behaviour why Fobtown got blocked in the first place and been crticised by a large number of other editors who are frustrated with dealing with him. [17] he makes it so easy to spot him.
Fobtown got blocked 30th july and he created at least 4 socks accounts later (that has been con ofrimed ) which has that same behaviour and has a history of hounding my edits.
FobTown couldn't even wait more than a week to create at least 4 sock accounts and started replicating the same behavoural pattern that got him in trouble in the first place. Stormandfury behaviour of mass removal of content, and interests is the same as Fobtown who got blocked just over 4 months ago. [18] And around the same time, that 4 month account Stormandfury was created soon afterwards and within a week after fobtown got blocked, and also went into angry edit warring and also started removal of mass content and hounding my edits. Co-incidence? I really don't think so.
UPdate on big giveaway - Fobtown re-emerged again with a sock account called FobTown2 and wrote on this page - 'this is what I cannot stand idle about because these are tactics similar to "Pro-Beijing people [who] often remove content that is sympathetic to protests" according to the BBC [5]. [19]
He is referring to covid protests in beijing and it's obvious that his current attention is directed at lockdown protests in beijing and I believe his sock is illegally editing there where he made numerous edits yesterday where he removed valid information just because he doesn't like it. THat is the same behavioural pattern of fobtown., [20] where again he removes information with flawed reaoning. Even veteran editor Amigao who I have history with, doesn't remove that info because she or he knows it's valid. So the evidence is overwelming. He just admitted to socking yesterday and that he is angry about the edits on beijing covid protests and it just so happens that stormandfury edited there extensively yesterday too. co-incidence again? too many co-incidences. He is proven to sock yesterday and admitted that he has issues with that page on beijing covid protests. couldn't be more obvious now, that he is also socking on that page yesterday. THat's enough evidence to do a checkdisk on seeing if fobtown2 is connected to stormandfury, though it more than enough fails the duck test in many ways.
Dragonkingluv23 (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Comments by other users
- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. The reasons that you gave to support your assertion that I am fobtown make very little sense. Fobtown was blocked for sockpuppetry in October but my account was created before then in August so it would have been an impossibility for the administrators to not know that I was fobtown’s sockpuppet by then and block their account but not mine. You also claim that I am hounding your edits in the Shanghai communique article but once again this makes no sense when you are the one who reverted me for reverting a totally different editor - and restoring their disputed material in whole which suggests on the contrary that you are that editor’s sockpuppet. I have no idea who either of you are and the records show that fobtown and I are interested in a completely different set of articles and issues. There is not a single article that we have both edited on. Please withdraw this investigation against me which you have very clearly and unfortunately opened in bad faith. Stormandfury (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)