Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orientls/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Orientls

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

08 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Suspected sockmaster removed large amounts of content endorsed by other editors from 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China ‎, shown here:[1]. This was reverted. The suspected sockmaster replaced their edits twice more, both to be subsequently reverted. Edits here: [2] [3]. This edit was replaced for the fourth time by CodeSlahh [4]. This is the first time this editor has edited this page, and only the thirty-somethingth edit after 4 years with an account in Wikepedia. After this revert, the editor made a few subsequent edits [5][6] on the same page. During the timeframe of these edits (09:46-09:59, edit at 09:46 being the revert), Wikipedia saw no more edits from the suspected sockmaster, whose last edit was at 09:46.

Furthermore, the two user's writing tone and style have strong similarities. Here are some selections of his writings from today. "Then why you are unable to understand the very policies you have cited here?" - Orientls, message left on my talk page. "have you even read the policies you cited?" - CodeSlashh, edit summary for fourth revert.

Also, one edit the suspected sock made was a removal of information, marked with "unsourced for a month" [7]. However, the puppet account has only been active for two weeks, and had not edited the page previously, making the fact that the editor has seen the information be there for a month quite an interesting claim. At the same time, the master account has been active on the page for a long while, and it seems that the suspected sockmaster has merely continued making edits that would have been made on the master account on the puppet account.

Both accounts have made edits in similar categories, that of India and Pakistan related areas. [8] [9]

If you take a look at the user interactions between the two accounts, a large amount of edits (~30%) from the suspected puppet account overlap with edits on the suspected sockmaster.

Mopswade (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2020 (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]

  • This looks like a content dispute to me, not sockpuppetry. Closing with no action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if i'm not allowed to write here, but I would think that there is certain evidence behind the suspected sockpuppetry that warrants further investigation Mopswade (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Another suspected sock for Orientls, complimentary to the report above for CodeSlashh. Both accounts edited many similar pages with highly suspicious interaction, to be explained further below(Interaction Timeline). These two accounts act together in reverting edits, [10], [11].

Their edit time card shows edits in approximately the same time zone, and their activity is both mainly between UTC 2:00-10:00. Both account average edit size in bytes are negative as well, showing similar editing behavior on Wikipedia.

Both accounts have the rare propensity to revert other editor comments on their talk page, shown here. ```NavjotSR```

07:31, 10 April 2020 diff hist  -535‎  User talk:NavjotSR ‎ Undid revision 950105961 by Mopswade (talk) can't see

```Orientls```


Editor behind Orientls seems to know the activity of the other account quite well, and is able to cite them in discussions, shown here [12]

Excerpt of edit history from UTC 7:00-8:xx 10/4/20 for Orientls and NavjotSR, you will notice that times of the edits do not overlap, and the edits time keep alternating between one account and the other.

```Orientls```

```NavjotSR```

Similar occurrences happened on the 8th.

Orientls

NavjotSR

New Comments & Evidence
Hi @Ivanvector:, no worries, I have been discussing with the editors in regards to controversial edits on both sides, at the same time, the accounts I reported as sockpuppets are arguably less experienced than me. In regards to Codeslashh, I did make some edits to the case after you closed it, attempting to highlight potential suspicious behaviour, in terms of editing styles, similar language use, and the potential use of a second account to circumvent the 3RR rule. ALthough it is true that the editors I have reported have disagreed on my edits, at the heart of this is still a sockpuppet investigation.
In terms of the evidence, in summa, there is alternating use of accounts, both accounts do not edit at the same time, but there is significant evidence of a few edits on this account, then subsequently a few edits on the other, then a return to the first account. There is also evidence of editing in concert, and similar editing behavior, as stated above. Mopswade (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I seem too pushy, but I've taken a look at the China coronavirus talk page, and there is evidence to show that both accounts have been commenting in the same topics in concert. Take for example

Navjot's edits

Orientls's edits


Notice how the edit times never overlap, but Navjot picks up the discussion immediately after Orientls stops editing. "in the lead" is a subset of the discussion at "concerns about accuracy..." For context's sake, Navjot's last edit on the day was this:[13]. Within 10 minutes, Orientls first edit in over 3 hours(the last one was at 9:36, shown above), consisting of over 1000 bytes, is published within 15 minutes, here: [14]. Immediately afterwards the editor continues on the discussion. Mopswade (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]




Hi Ivanvector, I've done a bit of reading into their edits, and there are some interesting things to note as well.

Here is an extract from the talk page mentioned above, the formatting was added by myself, on Navjot's comments:

ONUS is on you because you are removing and modifying content by providing lousy reasons. Why you are edit warringto remove that piece now? You have not provided any justification for disputing the text so far, nor you have any evidence that the text is "WP:WEASEL and mis-attribution". All of this has been already addressed. It makes no sense why you are still ignoring the information supported by the source. NavjotSR (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, because WP:ONUS really couldn't be any clearer: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. That's a Wikipedia policy.

Observe that experts declare... is literally one of the bolded examples of WP:WEASEL, which is awfully similar to Experts have expressed doubts.... A list of other justifications is given a few comments above. — MarkH21talk 11:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The mentioned paragraph in the lead does not summarize the content of the article. Please, see 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China § :Undercounting of cases and improve if necessary before adding that paragraph to the lead. Current lead version gives an impression of expert consensus, which is far from reality (see the linked section). --MarioGom (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
There is unanimous consensus among experts that China has intentionally underreported the cases. If there isn't then why you are not providing reliable sources to counter it? NavjotSR (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


This following message was taken off my own talk page, written by Orientls

Then why you are unable to understand the very policies you have cited here? Instead of disguising your POV pushing under these baseless excuses, you don't you to start complying with WP:NPOV? Orientls (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

We see an interesting use of the phrase "why you are", which is arguably linguistically incorrect, and even if not, most certainly not commonly used by most other people.

If we are to take a wider scope for analysis, the phrase of "why you (verb)" is even more common, the following are taken from the pandemic in China talk page. Keep in mind that both accounts only made 9 edits each on the page; the frequency of this phase is very high. As of writing, no-one else has used this phase on that talk page. I think you wold agree that this is quite a rare occurrence.

I don't think that we are going to expect anyone except "News outlets" reporting on this matter this soon, other than the scientific facts for which journals are available. But academic papers, books, etc. are not going to be written right now about the underreporting. That is why I find "News outlets" to be unnecessary. You need to find other way to address it. Also, why you removed "With the increasing reported cases of infections," before "Fear..."? This existed in the previous version and is good for providing context. Orientls (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
We already added "WHO praised the effectiveness of measures taken in the country", then why you have to mention sources telling how China did something that other countries are not doing? It seemed unnecessary repetition. Their analysis is not exactly recognizing the "effectiveness of the response". A source which is dedicated to "challenging media bias since 1986" is actually reliable for you? You removed mention of British scientists and significantly lowered the presence of sources alleging China of underreporting. Your sources[19][20][21] don't support your claim that "analysts" say situation in China has been controlled. In fact they say that cases are still being reported but low in number. For all these reasons your edits had been reverted. Orientls (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say these linguistic idiosyncrasies, taken with the things written above is conclusive evidence for socking, or at the very least, should warrant a checkuser for further analysis and evidence collection. Please let me know if you have any further concerns or queries! Mopswade (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2020 (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]

  • I have removed CodeSlashh (talk · contribs) from this report since I already declined in the report above, and no new evidence has been presented.
  • no Declined with respect to NavjotSR. I do not see credible evidence to suspect that this is sockpuppetry, rather than several independent experienced editors objecting to the editing of one less experienced editor participating in contentious topics. @Mopswade: Wikipedia works on a consensus model; just because your edits technically conform to policy doesn't guarantee that they will be accepted by the community. It's up to you to discuss if your edits are reverted; see WP:BRD. If you continue reporting every editor who disagrees with you for sockpuppetry you will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already given my opinion and with the wall of new evidence I remain unconvinced a check is warranted, but I will leave this for another clerk to review and either endorse or decline. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The walls of edit histories which don't link to where they ought, the grammatical analysis which doesn't stand up,... Mopswade comes across as using SPI as the ultimate high stakes battle ground in an edit war rather than filing a legitimate request for investigation. I'm not willing to waste time trying to fathom out what nuggets of evidence may be buried under that wall of text and lean toward closing the report with no further action. Should Mopswade be warned off from SPI if they file any more non-actionable SPI reports, or keep reporting their edit-war "enemies"? Cabayi (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's not just me, then. Re-closing, and I'm going to archive right away. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I respect your judgement for this case, but this report was not a post-edit war reflex action, and certainly not a consensus issue solving action. Cabayi, what do you mean that the "edit histories which don't link to where they ought"? I copied and wikitext pasted them off the respective accounts user contribs, and actually, the walls were meant to draw your attention to the timings of the edits more than the content. Thanks for your time in this case, Mopswade (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Orientls/Archive&oldid=951430388"