Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hamham31/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hamham31

Hamham31 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I first suspected this user of being a Sockpuppeteer when I noticed very similar signatures on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk#Oppose, so I started to do some digging and found that the IzzyIzumi133 account was created on September 5, 2013. There was almost immediately a welcome template posted on IzzyIzumi133's talk page before the first edit had been made by IzzyIzumi133. The names are fairly similar whereas they are repeating the symbols of the verbose part twice "Ham-ham" and "Iz...y-iz...i" and while one is "31" and the other is "133" they share the same first two digits. I notice on the Hamham31 user page that there is an AKA notice there, but Izzy is not listed (and a search did not bring it up anywhere on the page). The two userpages share the same layout, colors, and userboxes. They are both editing the same content pages and some of their userpage edits sync up pretty nicely such as this edit adding an entire "signature history" section and this edit adding the same "signature history" section. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Technical 13 (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Comment - I've seen that you've accused me as a sockpuppet of User:Hamham31, well at exact point I Do not refer at his contributions, but since he is my co-worker I've tried to find his edits regards to his signature. And so I ended up looking on this page and copied it. And of course, do not base it as well on our usernames, he only sent me a welcome template on my talk page as he really welcomes me here. I know for a fact that the derivation of our usernames you've said above is the same to him, but I rely the other name on one of the Digimon character and used the number 133 digits to avoid confusions. Regards to my signature, I'm trying to re-edit it again so no one will having a conflict between me and Hamham31, and of course, the other users involved here in this investigation. This is just my opinion, I'm not have a bad feelings to the concerned editor. Izzy IzumiProdigious!Check! 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also noted the similarity in sigs between Hamham31 and IzzyIzumi133 in the RfA referred to. This is rather too striking to be a coincidence, but also rather too obviously copied for an abuser of multiple accounts to realistically think it would be a sensible thing to do if wishing to avoid attracting attention. It's trivial for users to copy such markup from others for use in their own sig. However, it's still worthwhile asking the question... but perhaps it might have been less invasive to drop notes stating intentions to file the report before actually doing so (although the wish you well in the mean time closing remark was certainly courteous). Anyway (assuming the investigation is closed satisfactorily in the negative) then it looks as if no lasting harm will have been done. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's get this over with, to be exact, this and the other accounts checked by the clerk is originally created by me (Hamham31is also included). I didn't meant to post as IzzyIzumi133 on the nominations of Trappist the monk as I didn't realize that I'm using another account without mentioning it to you. In fact, I'm just using this only as my alternate account, but I didn't meant to butt in for nomination of Trappist the monk as IzzyIzumi133 and Hamham31 to oppose the said candidate. I just forgot my password a while ago and now I've remember it so I marked all of these as my original account, but recently I used Hamham31 account instead to correct my wrongdoings. And to be exact', Hamham31 is not my brother, I'm the original creator of this account, but this account I currently used is no longer be used because of some issues barging me in. Shanayujilover (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you've remembered your original password, you need to decide which will be your main account (probably this one). Then you need to state under what circumstances you intend to use your alternate account and why this is necessary, to ensure compliance with the multiple accounts policy. -- Trevj (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will confirmed that since this account I'm currently using and suspected as sockpuppeting, I will declare that this account which is currently under investigation will be my main account since I've got the reviewer rights and to help other editors to review the edits of others properly. I'm disturbed as well that I was using the other blocked account, but in that case I'm just blaming myself for it. And I will declare that other accounts indicated (except BEBEQ200 account) will be my alternate account in case I forgot my password here on this account. I mean it and I'm serious, and I'll be promise that I will never use those account again just to crash others. About nominating Trappist the monk as admin, I also say that that's my opinion, and if you don't seen it, check Singularity42 nominations as well, I made 2 votes out there using this and IzzyIzumi133. I'm sorry if I caused trouble, now I know I will never be made an edits here again. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 05:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed to be technically identical. Also technically indistinguishable:
  1. TonyDavis810 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Shanayujilover (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. BEBEQ200 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. VLC2001 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Oxnardy32 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Jpgordon, can you address the multiple votes by this user on the RfA i mentioned, please? If you have already done so in this post is overlapping ((edit conflict)), please disregard. Technical 13 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else can address the behavioral analysis; I prefer to limit my checking to the technical side to prevent bias. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully understand. Thank you for your reply. Technical 13 (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A note: On my talk page, Hamham31 explicitly claimed that User:Daisuke110 was a coworker, and that said user was opening a new account (later, established as User:TonyDavis810) because of a lost and unrecoverable password. It is plausible that the accounts would be technically indistinguishable. The question, then, is whether the edits are all the same, or if the editors are supporting one another, as then we would block under WP:MEAT, since we've long held that if we can't tell the difference between a group of accounts, it doesn't actually matter if their operated by distinct individuals or not. I do find it particularly disturbing that at least one of the accounts listed below was blocked as a vandalism only account. I'll take a closer look at the behavior. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that User:Shanayujilover explicitly says that User:VLC2001 is an alternate accounts, and that User:Oxnardy32 is explicitly marked as an alternate account of User:Hamham31. Still checking more. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess...okay, I can't see a lot of serious tag-teaming here. The major concern are the double votes on 2 AfDs, though both of those AfDs appear to have been for hoax music stations, so it's not a terrible thing. There is overlap, but my guess is that it's because they're co-workers. What I'm actually worried about, though, revolves around this: given the types of edits they make, I have to assume they're employed in the radio business in the Philippines. If that is correct, I'd be inclined to call all of their editing in this topic (whether for their employer or a competitor) to be editing under a conflict of interest, and I'd like to see that stop. I would also be inclined to see all of their "alternate" accounts closed, as I don't think they actually need them, though I would be willing to discuss the matter. But I'm not certain enough to act either way here. Others' opinions? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Shanayujilover says on the talk page that he's the brother of Hamham31. It is a huge mess and if you ask me to draw a relationship chart amongst the named accounts you will see arrows flying all over the place. So let's make a summary... Shanayujilover said he has an alternate account (VLC2001) and has a brother (Hamham31). Hamham31 said he has an alternate account (Oxnardy32) and has two coworkers (IzzyIzumi133 and Daisuke110). TonyDavis810 said he lost access to his previous account (Daisuke110). I need to check their contributions tomorrow and see if there's any edit overlap and the length of absence. But I would like to hear which legitimate reason did they invoke for creating the alternate accounts. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Ok, this case has been open forever without any action, so I'm going to clean things up a bit here. What we've got is a case of "who the hell knows" and some technical data that doesn't tell us enough to block for certain. However, none of the accounts involved have edited in over a month, so I think it's appropriate under the "blocks are preventative, not punitive" policy, I'm just going to close this case with no action. If the abuse recurs, we can deal with it then. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hamham31/Archive&oldid=1075152489"