Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThomasPark02/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



ThomasPark02

ThomasPark02 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

31 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


175.209.30.73, has, in the past day or two, engaged in persistent vandalism, which has lead to him being blocked for 31 hours. He/she made two abusive edits to Thomas Park, here and here. He also edited Tsushima Island on two occasions, here and here. Since the block, an editor with the name "Thomas Parke 02", whose account has been created recently and who has a history of vandalism and generally unproductive edits, made this edit to the Tsushima Island article. I think it's worth checking the two accounts. Display name 99 (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, thank you and I understand the decision. It is stated that the case is now awaiting a "behavioral investigation." I do not think that my actions here deserve punishment. This is my first sockpuppet investigation. The account and IP were both being used for vandalism, and in my mind there was a decent chance that they were connected. No personal attack was intended. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I've declined the CU request. We rarely public disclose the IP(s) of named accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Display name 99: The "behavior investigation" refers to an evaluation of the report, not your behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm closing this as there is zero evidence of socking. ThomasPark02 actually removed IP's addition. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

21 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Recently ThomasPark02 was given an indefinite block (see block log here) for making multiple unconstructive edits, especially (but not limited to) image changes. Following ThomasPark02's block a series of IP edits (from mulitple addresses) were being made to The Cenotaph (Hong Kong) in which a lower quality image uploaded by ThomasPark02 was repeatedly being re-added. Following a successful application for temporary semi-protection on the article, Thomas D. Park commments on the talk page trying to get permission to edit the page. The style of writing is substantially similar to comments left by IP addresses on my talk page which Godsy has identified as harrassment (see here). The names are so similar it is clear that this is the same user. Ebonelm (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Hello, this is Thomas D. Park. I have noticed that Wikipedia editors and saying that I am a suspicious member because of same IP address as ThomasPark02. I feel really disrespected because of it. I hope this SPI case ends peacefully and I hope this doesn't disturb anyone's editing life. 2016.10.21 Thomas D. Park

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked as ducks. DrKay (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Tagging and closing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

01 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Previously blocked as a sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ThomasPark02/Archive#21_October_2016). Same behavior (changing images). Requesting reblock as DUCK. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked again. DrKay (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

02 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

DUCK again... [1] EvergreenFir (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The sock puppet just confessed to me that he was ThomasPark02. I think an IP ban (if that's possible) is in order. Parsley Man (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not think the one-week block is justified in this case. The sockmaster has been indefinitely blocked three times before for sockpuppetry and has attempted to evade his block a fourth time. Parsley Man (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked for 1 week for block evasion. Mike V • Talk 18:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


04 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

IP 220.85.92.29 confessed to being ThomasPark02 on my talk page (see here). Has already made disruptive edits to Richmond Park by-election, 2016 and Richmond Park (UK Parliament constituency) which have been reverted. IP 88.202.190.199 has once again tried to reinstate the lower quality image as IP with the edit. Ebonelm (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I've blocked 88.202.176.0/20 as a web host, blocked 220.85.92.29 for a week, and semi-protected the Declared monuments of Hong Kong page for a month. Mike V • Talk 01:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

25 November 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


The user has been making substantially similar edits as ThomasPark02 and his previous socks. Case in point the attempt to reinstate his lower quality image into Cenotaph. Other similarities include repeated attempts to use lower quality or wide angle shots of politicians such as Matteo Renzi and Tim Farron which have always been promptly rejected by other editors. User's talk page also indicates that he has made a number of other bad edits which are similar to ThomasPark02's MO. Ebonelm (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC) Ebonelm (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Hello, Ebonelm this is Pierre Lam. Yes, I am ThomasPark02. I apologised to you and I requested you to review. I cannot understand why do you still think I am a vandalised. Some of my edits like Nick Clegg, Enda Kenny or Martin O'Malley was good. You should consider that and respect my edits. My edits to Irish senators are quite good because predecessors and successors were not indicated, but I improved it. I absolutely cannot understand why are you critiquing my edits and saying that it is vandalism. My edits to Irish senators were very good. I could show the people the predecessors and successors of the Irish senators.

@Pierre Lam. You apologised but you did not change your behaviour. It does not matter how many times you say you are sorry if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia. 1 out of every 20 edits you do is productive and useful but that doesn't excuse the 19 out of 20 which aren't. Stop adding lower quality images which violate policy, established consensus on individual pages, and which detract from the article. You have made numerous edits to articles about British and Irish politics which demonstrate that you do not have the requisite level of knowledge to be editing. Your edits to Irish Senator pages were all incorrect, predecessors and successors were not indicated because Senators do not have predecessors or successors! In Irish politics, because they are nominated by TDs using STV which is a proportional system whereby they are elected in blocks it's not a single member constituency system. Similarly, you do not understand who is entitled to the use of the style "Rt Hon" in British politics and in your various puppet forms have made incorrect edits about the titles of Governors of Hong Kong as well. Ebonelm (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ebonelm. I would like to change my behaviour as soon as possible. Maybe you can help me. Please write your e-mail address here and we can talk about my behaviour and learn about good edits. Wikipedia's instructions are highly complicated, which means that you are able to help me. Instead of disabling me to edit, I can learn a lot from you and we can develop Wikipedia together. If I was doing vandalism like Irish senators and 'Rt. Hon', I highly apologise once again and I would like to do edits like Martin O'Malley, Nick Clegg, or Enda Kenny TD. Lets be positive, not negative.
I wish I could believe you but given that straight after this comment you made two more bad edits one to Nobert Hofer and one to Martin O'Malley it is clear that you are a lost cause. Pinging DrKay in the hope that this will speed up the blocking process. Ebonelm (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ebonelm, That was a mistake. I was anxious because somebody undid my changes. Since you replaced with new ones, I won't touch the edit.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked. Given User talk:ThomasPark02#Image changes and multiple attempts to explain why the image changes are inappropriate in both edit summaries[2][3] and on talk pages[4][5], the explanation given by the sock puppet is simply not believable when he continues to revert[6][7] even after he claims at this sock puppetry page that he wants to change behavior[8]. ThomasPark02, if you want to change your behavior, then show it by avoiding the behavior that is being challenged. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

02 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


User has been making the exact same incorrect edit to British political articles by adding PC after the names of politicans in infoboxes while the style the Rt Hon is being used which is incorrect in the exact same manner as ThomasPark02 was warned not to do, notably as DUCK:Pierre Lam (see for example John Bercow). The user also made this very unusual edit to ThomasPark02 clearly trying to see if any user could unblock the sockmasters account. As Steve Dim only has about 30 edits to their name it is strange that they should suddenly come across an unblock request from a 5 times blocked user by chance. The users self description on their user page matches up with ThomasPark02's edits on Korean articles and on a recent visit to the Gapyeong Canada Monument. Pinging DrKay and Boing! said Zebedee. Ebonelm (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Ebonelm (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Hello, this is Steve Dim. I am Thomas' former Science teacher. I am also interested at politics like him, so I decided to unblock him, so he can have another chance to edit. I got an e-mail from him that he is wildly upset because he got unblocked. Until Thomas gets unblocked, I decided to make some edits, so that Thomas can be happy.

Unfortuntely your actions are a violation of Wikipedia policy, a very serious violation as well, as you are perpetuating disruptive editing. If you genuniely do know the individual in question (and are not merely ThomasPark02 pretending to be someone else) you should know that only admins have the power to unblock in the first place so you did nothing to help ThomasPark02. By violating our WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT policies you are likely to keep ThomasPark02 banned indefinitely. Ebonelm (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ebonelm I understand. However, for Privy Council edit, I made edit because 'PC' was missing to lots of politicians. Check List of current members of the British Privy Council! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Dim (talk • contribs) 16:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Well rather unfortuntely for you, your edits were incorrect. We only use the post-nominals "PC" if the individual in question is a Lord or if the style "Rt. Hon." is not being used. You clearly know nothing abouth this topic and should not be editing on it. And furthermore ThomasPark02 has already been warned about making this exact same incorrect edit so there is no excuse for trying to carry out such editing, it is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Ebonelm (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE #1: even after being warned you edits were incorrect in my initial evidence you have continued to make incorrect edits here and here you are only making this worse for yourself and proving that you are not editing in good faith. Ebonelm (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE #2: And even after the above warning explaing why you were incorrect you do it again here. Ebonelm (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't believe for a minute that any responsible school teacher would proxy for a student blocked from editing Wikipedia. I've indef blocked as a sock - even if this is genuinely meatpuppetry, it's effectively the same, and continuing to make challenged edits after being asked to stop and while this SPI is in progress is the last straw for me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


03 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


TP02 is clearly an abbreviation of ThomasPark02. User's edits were all attempts to reinstate edits by ThomasPark02's sock Steve Dim yesterday after I reverted them (see here, here and here). The introductions by TP02 on their user and talk page's also seem substantially similar to the statements used by sock Steve Dim. Pinging DrKay and Boing! said Zebedee. Ebonelm (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Ebonelm (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked and tagged. This basically confirms that the sock master is either a troll or incompetent. It has been clearly explained why "PC" is not used with commoners and yet he continues to pursue the edits, just as it was clearly explained why headshots are preferable to long-distance shots in biographical infoboxes. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

05 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

[9] WP:DUCK Sro23 (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The names are nearly identical, along with the message left on the user pages of both. Is this guy even trying anymore? I think it's an obvious sock. I'm sorry, people, but this is isn't amateur hour. If you're going to sockpuppet, at least make it a little bit obscure. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 15:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked and tagged. DrKay (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


06 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Behavior appears similar to previous socks, including nominating articles for FA status even though the request is clearly not up to FA status and malformed (see 1 2 and 3 4, in line with the previous blocked sock. Pinging @Dank as the suspected sock left a message on their talk. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Closed. Katietalk 22:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

27 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK, name + restoring sock edits ([10] [11]) + intersection ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). Sro23 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

very similar language used on User Page and User Talk page to every confirmed and suspected sockpuppet of ThomasPark02, as well as similar incorrect dash usage seen at the following([18]) and image changes without consensus or need as seen ([19]). Per previous comments about sockpuppets of ThomasPark02 and edits to British politics articles and also Korean politics articles like ([20]) and also, ([21]) this seems like a WP:DUCK to me. Iambic Pentameter (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also added P 53 - similar interest in British and Korean politics, similar user page and talk page content, and featured article candidate additions, the account has not been used in just over a week, but could be returned to.--Iambic Pentameter (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: The user has just left a message on my talk page attempting to defend his edits, similarly done before to Ebonelm and DrKay. Even if these edits are constructive, the user is still evading the block enforced in the first place. The reason I bring this up is the unusually similar use of the phrase "I feel ... disrespected because of this"[22], the exact same phrase used by ThomasPark02 and his sockpuppets at the following instances ([23], [24] (mentioned by ThomasPark02 a number of times in two different unblock appeals), [25] (mentioned in two different unblock appeals as well)). The same use of overly dramatic adjectives suggesting similar proficiency in English can be found here [26] and throughout ThomasPark02's unblock appeals here [27]. --Iambic Pentameter (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

I added Paswaine, same interest in British and Korean politicians. These socks always come back to make the same edit on Park Jie-won. The CU request is probably a good idea since now this person is apparently using more than one sock simultaneously. Sro23 (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: @Iambic Pentameter: Please forgive me if I come off as confrontational, but if this appears to be a DUCK, is CU necessary? I have not yet assessed the sock's behavior. Thanks, GABgab 01:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @GeneralizationsAreBad: I've followed this case personally, since many of the edits made by the sockmaster were to articles that I follow. Having reverted many edits by the sockmaster and the various socks, including the latest to be blocked TP Chan, I almost expected the user account above to be created, and when seeing the academic styled username as well as fairly similar edits it immediately looked like a WP:DUCK. However, the edits made by Professor PC could be seen as a weak correllation between Professor PC and the various socks of ThomasPark02 since they aren't exactly the same per se. The case is long standing going back to May of last year and so CU evidence might help to confirm the user as a sock from IPs of recent blocked accounts in the investigation, since the behaviour of Professor PC is more like recent socks rather than the original ThomasPark02. Please forgive me if my CU request was erroneous. --Iambic Pentameter (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've indef blocked User:Professor PC as an obvious sock. User:Paswaine and User:P 53 look very likely to me too (and almost certainly both the same person), but I think probably need Checkuser confirmation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Clerk endorsed - I looked at the socks' behavior and concur. Thanks again, GABgab 16:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  •  Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

06 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

These sockpuppets always come back to make the same edit on on Park Jie-won: [28] [29] [30] [31] Sro23 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Looks rather blatant, please block. Thanks, GABgab 00:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Tagged and closing. GABgab 02:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

13 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Unfortunately, it seems that TP02 could be on their twelfth sock account. I originally noticed the user as he/she was a new editor to British politics, which isn't common (except IPs). It was also close after the last sock of TP02 was blocked. I appreciate that this wasn't much evidence to go off which is why I didn't raise anything. However, after about a month it seems quite likely that Robinette Q is linked to TP02, since the editing patterns have become very similar. Most recently, the user posted an innapropriate Featured article candidates request here as well as here which some of the socks also attempted (see [32], [33] [34]). The matter was almost immediately raised on their talk page. The user has also been reinstating socks edits, most commonly here (accounts P 53 and Doctor TP). Secondly, the user's interest in British and also asian politics has been something raised repeatedly, as well as the users interest in changing images to elections such as at [35] and as in socks' editing, [36]. However the most glaring similarity can be seen with their changes to biographical infobox images. This was raised continuously throughout these past 13 SPIs, extensively at TP02s talk page, especially at this section. Evidence of Robinette Q changing (without consensus) images from close up head shots to wide angle shots which don't show someone's face easily can be found at the following examples ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 13:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: Socks tagged. Closing. TDL (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

21 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits as usual (adding numbers to infobox offices, changing images on politicians' articles, all without edit summaries) Mélencron (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

This one seems very likely, especially since the account started editing only a day after DrKay blocked the user above. The message on the User/User talk page of Sun Osborne looks very similar to those of previous socks', as well as the interest in Asian and British elections as seen in their user sandbox. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 17:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked on the basis of [43][44]. DrKay (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: Socks tagged. Closing. TDL (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


23 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Same behavior as above report; replacing image on Yannick Jadot on new account without edit summary following block. Mélencron (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: Socks tagged. Closing. TDL (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

07 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

More of the usual. New account changing European politicians' infobox images (with a focus on British ones in particular), as numerous Hong Kong-related edits. Mélencron (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Oh dear. The editing pattern is very similar. Image changes especially. Is this guy ever going to stop...? The CU request is probably good since the last sock to be blocked (Murray102) has apparently been used (and created) simultaneously with this account. — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


12 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

New account created during the same day as another of Thomas' socks was blocked, Turboliner. Displays the same old editing pattern re political images, as demonstrated here.

Most importantly, User:Column25/sandbox shows the same memorial shrine and other political content as User:Turboliner/sandbox. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked. DrKay (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


14 March 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

New account, again with a weird obsession with the image on Manuel Valls's article. Mélencron (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Quack quack. Mélencron (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked. DrKay (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

30 July 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Same focus of adding images to British/Korean politicians. Examples: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] Sro23 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • None of the listed diffs appear to be disruptive, so I personally am uncomfortable taking action against Thomson02. Given that this hasn't been touched in three weeks, I'm wondering whether other admins feel the same way. --Deskana (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No action or comments have been made by other administrators in the past six days. No edits have been made by the account in three weeks. Given this, and my comment above, I am closing this without action. --Deskana (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

01 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Note edits to UK politics topics, which resemble those of previous accounts. Mélencron (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ThomasPark02/Archive&oldid=1083930010"