Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philipandrew/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Philipandrew

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

I first noticed this user when he tried to insert a historically inaccurate photo collage and pass it off as a "scroll" in several Philippines-related topics. I removed it and nommed it for deletion in Commons (it was deleted) then explained to him why it was inappropriate. He promptly deleted that from his talk page then reuploaded and reinserted the images. I removed them again and tried to explain why his picture should not be used in Wikipedia. To my relief, he posted on my talk page in broken English, promising not to add the pictures again. Assuming he was finally coming around, I posted friendly advice on his talk page on why his "reconstructions" were not acceptable to Wikipedia as well as general advice on WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. By this time I was already aware that he seems to be engaged in a rather vicious talk page battle with User:Presidentbalut in Talk:List of Filipino inventions and discoveries (with User:Presidentbalut getting most of the flak from intervening admins and experienced editors for violating WP:NPA in his replies to User:Philipandrew).

A day later I noticed something alarming: five barnstars posted in quick succession in User:Philipandrew's talk page by users who registered within a day of each other. One of them (User:Analiza11) even repeats a peculiar mistake User:Philipandrew has on his user page: the use of the word specially in place of especially. All of it were so deafeningly quacky to me, especially in light of the ongoing dispute in List of Filipino inventions and discoveries (which I had no intentions of joining, as I had other things to do).

Still AGF-ing, I was thinking that maybe he was just making a rookie mistake so I posted a warning asking him to remove the barnstars immediately and confess his registration of the other accounts. He did remove the barnstars for a while, only to post two of them again a few days afterwards.

Having had my fill, I asked for help in dealing with him from other Filipino editors (section "Problematic editor") from the Philippine WikiProject, WP:Tambayan Philippines. A couple of long-time editors replied but no one actually tried to talk to him. Also note that one editor noticed that he claims to have started editing in 2006 in his user page (he actually only registered in late 2012). User:Philipandrew noticed my post there a few days later and posted this on my talk page. It's in broken English and Tagalog, And he's claiming he had a "cousin" who was using his PC who was also a Wikipedian.

I tried one last time to explain what he was doing wrong in his talk page in Tagalog and English this time, thinking it was a language problem. He deleted it yet again today without replying or even indicating that he had read it. Frustrated and knowing that the longer he gets away with it the harder it is to do damage control, I started poking around at the activities of the users I suspected to be his sockpuppets.

His main "alternate" account seems to be User:Kingchritian, who has the same poor grasp of English. He also uses specially like User:Analiza11 and User:Philipandrew. His userboxen are also almost identical to that on User:Philipandrew's page. Most importantly, he has one barnstar from a certain "User:Dimasgag", who as you can see is actually not a registered user name. That barnstar was actually added by User:Philipandrew who deliberately made it look like he was another user.

Looking for more possible sockpuppets, I also took a look at the history of Talk:List of Filipino inventions and discoveries and noticed the same behavior from an IP user. The IP deliberately altered their message to make it look like they were registered users. The IP had the same broken English and vocabulary patterns as User:Philipandrew, and mentions him explicitly in praises. It was 122.3.93.225 masquerading as User:janeo7 and User:Aprilmay.

Given that it's becoming quite clear that User:Philipandrew is using several accounts abusively, and he's not exactly that naive about it, I finally decided to report him to SPI. I do not believe he can contribute positively to Wikipedia anymore. Please note that I'm primarily an article writer. I steer clear of these processes if I can help it. I may have missed other socks of his. I'd appreciate it if someone more experienced in hunting socks would also try to track them all down. Thank you.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:58, 29 October 2013 (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]
  • information Administrator note After reviewing the information here, I was able to come to the same conclusion with independent evidence. Blocked all sock accounts indef, and the master 2 weeks. I blocked 124.6.181.210 2 weeks as well, but I wasn't entirely convinced on 122.3.93.225. It hasn't edited in a month anyway, so I'm just going to leave that IP alone. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked/tagged. Closing. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Obviously similar username. Edits Philippines article. Obsessed with pre-colonial history. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2016 (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]

 Blocked and tagged --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Malcolmxl5: Are you sure about this one? Certainly, they're the same person, there's been no attempt to conceal that. There was a brief period when both accounts we're being used -- PhilipAndrew has three edits after PhilipAndrew2 was created, and that's it. I don't see any abuse of multiple accounts here; I don't know why the second account was created, but it doesn't seem to be deserving of a block, or even a talkpage comment. There's no general rule against abandoning an account and continuing with a new one. --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, --jpgordon. I saw the sockmaster tag on the User:Philipandrew user page that says the account had been blocked indefinitely but didn't double check that this was actually the case. I shall unblock with apologies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I have unblocked PhilipAndrew2 and no further action needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User has been engaging in historical revisionism (WP:OR) and is being disruptive on Philippines, List of rulers of the Philippines and other pre-colonial history-related articles.1, 2. Add: User admitted to feeding Wikipedia with "new information" and said that if we stick to mainstream RS then we should just name WP the "Republished WP".3. Very much like the master who likes to introduce "new terms", "new info" 4 5. This goes against the mainstream and accepted historiography for which a consensus was already reached last year and despite even a warning from Admin.

The user calls the sock master as already long dead 6, completely denying the violations they have done all through their time in WP. Broken english, OR edits, the user is definitely not here to contribute meaningfully to WP but introduce hoax tales and "new information" / twists/ conclusions to Philippine history to support his revisionist agenda. RioHondo (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristinperez – Registered just to give barnstar to sock puppet. 7 JasmineTea wang – No other past WP contributions but barnstar for sock puppet and user info. 8 Sock master Philipandrew even managed to give barnstar to his Kristinperez account after his indef block was lifted 9, and even messaged that account to make it appear that they are two different users. 10. Same with JasmineTea wang and Philipandrew2 11, 12.--RioHondo (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I do see his contributions, which it seems to me that it is not suitable for the said article, as it only violates free use rationale, those images he uploaded is nothing but only a Photoshop made, which is also not allowed by commons. And one thing, it seems that this is unfair for some other editors to give that user a barnstars / medal without any good proofs of his contributions here in Wikipedia. It is also suspicious that he also using different names of accounts (either name of a local or foreign), just to give him such awards immediately. That is abusive if you ask me. That is also unfair to us contributors here. Like what we've said here (in Filipino) Ang lahat ng bagay pinaghihirapan. Hindi yan nakukuha sa swerte-swerte lang (English: All things done in a hard way. It cannot be easily acquired by luck only.) Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 23:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • because of these barnstars that given on me , they will be suspected as my sock puppets, sad... how can i refuse ?

Their the one who gives? i dont mind of no awards after all my efforts actually I hope theirs a rule in wikipedia as WP::SimpleLogic to avoid these incident.

  • i dont related on this long dead philipandrew account i dont know why these cheesy couple here try to sue me  ? But anyway, i can only defend my self in generic terms..Since Only Philipandrew2 is my legal account which is here doing his job.
  • Awards are part of the Kindness Campaign and are meant to promote Civility and WikiLove (As i know, individual can give awards for whom user they like as i read so dont suspecting me for unknown accounts here).

Plus the images i made, Articles i create was almost a Merge version of what according to the description of the article WP:Sticktosource so i dont deal with this, its okay if your saying image is inappropriate but these articles are not because i only merge and adding information's based on what i read , (sorry on my english) but it was based on Source which contains no WP:OR but they said is not suitable for the said article well think carefully and read first.

  • Service awards may be self-awarded dependent upon number of contributions and the length of service.
  • i hope those admins are still on neutral on this investigations. i hope it would not fall to be a one person vs 3 Users
  • i hope the wikipedia welcomes the new Ideas by the backings reliable sources and stick in to source references and not just by a sterotypes in the brand of Main stream (the whole point why i had been sued here) But i only created Articles here base on the Stated article.

DISCLAIMER: i only answer based on your complains against me.

Further information: WP:ABF

({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk))

I was asked to look at this, but doing so, I am a bit confused as to why the sockmaster is even "live" - according to the SPI archive, User:Philipandrew was blocked for socking in 2013 for 2 weeks with full knowledge that there were puppet accounts. PA2 claims no relationship, but PA stops editing regularly precisely 2 days before PA2 starts. What I don't get is why one wasn't indef-blocked for editing after the other one started. They both exclusively edit articles on the Philippines and Filipinos. The content issues themselves are a somewhat unrelated problem that needs to be dealt with there, but I don't think that it's even a question that this editor has a long history of socking. WP:DUCK, and should have a CU if there isn't one requested. MSJapan (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI: PA2's Commons page seems to indicate a strong potential for a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, as he self-describes as a "historical revisionist." MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Philipandrew2: (@MSJapan: @RioHondo: Please consider this matter as one of the admin talk to him already but he never listens. You may see more details regards to these here) Never base our comments here as bad faith. Were just only basing our opinions on your behavior and the way you talk to other user, especially RioHondo. And of course, yes Diannaa is right when she said that creating sockpuppets to present yourself with barnstars isn't going to fool anybody, and she also said that (this is regards to the images you've recently uploaded here in Wikipedia, which OhNoItsJamie warns you already with regards to that) Other Wikipedia pages and maps you created yourself cannot be considered as reliable sources for this wiki. What makes this a reliable source? Here you photoshopped an image and tried to use it in our encyclopedia. That is not okay. So how dare you'll gonna tell us that were assuming bad faith here? And who is the one who really violates Wikipedia in the first place? Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Dianaa Explained all me about that Images i make are inaccurate, so ive been remove it my self and other user to avoid conflict.. But still i dont want to be connected on this Philipandrew (many many times i told its Long Dead) Since Philipandrew2 are my Only Legal user page as i told, I been Working here peacefully but, until suddenly i been have arguments with my replies had a point so these comes up to the digging up my background but i told you always i just contributing in peace , i know some user dont like me here but i respect them, i only contributing articles in accordiance with the source based on Wiki articles ive read itself (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) plus i conceive for some image here i make , if its not accurate in your views, Actually , I dont need awards here People/User who appreciate my works is what i consider an awards and i don't Vandalized here or trolling everything i say had a point. So please, with all due respect , to Admins and Users here, Let me Work here in peace , Thank you !WP:AGF
    • Revisionism ? well When you read a book, and you add information which is reliable (lets say no WP:OR content) Plus, It was Based also on the Source it self available, you will revised the article (make your understanding wider) its just a figure of speech, Not what you think that i revising wikipedia and i owning/distorting the history as the User Riohondo and hamham31 trying to say Actually i just read and editing based on the Article stated.
  • Revise meaning -to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update:

({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Based on the archives, in 2013 the master was found to have created many socks. The socks were all indefinitely blocked and the master was blocked for two weeks. In May of this year Philipandrew2 was brought here. Based on understandable confusion, he was at first indefinitely blocked. Then Jpgordon intervened and correctly stated that although it was obvious the two accounts belonged to the same person, #2 was simply a continuation of the master account, which for reasons that aren’t clear was abandoned. Implicit in Jp’s comments was the fact that the master had never been indefinitely blocked. Therefore, after two weeks of being blocked, under whatever username he wished, he could continue to edit. He was unblocked.
  • That brings us to the present, and if the two new accounts weren’t socks, #2 could continue editing, at least as far as socking is concerned. However, the accounts are  Technically indistinguishable. I have therefore indefinitely blocked and tagged the master and the three puppets. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14 July 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This seems to be an old sock, but It was solely created to add barnstars to their talkpage, similar to their other apparent socks. 172.58.40.47 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • the defendant was already had statement (on the top of previous complains)
    • Philipandrew2 is contributing peacefully but some assumes of WP:ABF

({ ᜉ᜔ ᜀ᜔| ໑ } P.A.-II (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

The account hasn't edited since October 2015. If it resumes editing, an SPI against it can be refiled. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philipandrew/Archive&oldid=1145958866"