Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Assault11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:KsyrieUser:Assault11

Suspected sockpuppeteer

* Ksyrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
-- stricken by Nlu (talk · contribs) after review of contributions and block log of Assault11 (talk · contribs)

• Assault11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  

Suspected sockpuppets

Yeahsoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Time of flight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

• Ksyrie & Yeahsoo

• A very strong observation is that their intervals of activity at the discussion page Goguryeo alternate. Take a look at the time when the signatures were posted here. Statistics on their periods of user activity is presented at User:Wikimachine/Sock_Puppet_Data.
• And they often form "1) statement by Ksyrie 2) reply by another user 3)criticism by Yeahsoo" type of 2-bind blocks.

• At the same time, Ksyrie, Yeahsoo (and Assault11) rarely communicate with each other, unlike other editors who side one way or the other on the CPOV-KPOV dispute. I believe that any human being would recognize the ineffectiveness of such modus operandi because of the such importance & magnitude of the dispute. Furthermore, Ksyrie & Yeahsoo do communicate with users other than themselves.
• Furthermore, the areas of participation in the discussion by the users can also be separate in certain cases. For example, Yeahsoo's the only one who talks to me directly @ my own posts while Ksyrie creates his own post as a reply to mine. In other posts, only one of the two participates extensively while the other is silent (often it's too surprising that both of them would not participate in that single topic)

• Yeahsoo & Assault11 are less considerate of their language than Ksyrie. All three of them are terrible in English.

• Evidence on the alternating usage can be found at the history tab of talk:Goguryeo, and also some of the examples listed in the User:Wikimachine/Sock_Puppet_Data can be attributed to that.
• Evidence of 2-bind blocks

• 1

Culturally,Korea inherit more Goguryeo than China,but for their offsprings,It is a question to be interesting.50% in Korea?I doubt,take in account to area of Silla occupying Goguryeo,maybe 30%.So what about the other 70%? and what about the people living in the 70%,did they dispear???Obviously no,some became Khitan,some became Jurchen,maybe some became Mongol,and some became Manchu,some became Han Chinese.And the 30% goguryeo became nowadays Korean,and they want the whole of Goguryeo.LOL--Ksyrie 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not understand what you're trying to communicate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 00:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are really original research. Its not very easy to make an accurate estimate as to how many Goguryeo people assimiliated into where. Also, you must remember that Balhae considered itself as the successor to Goguryeo and most Goguryeo people followed Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae. Good friend100 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

After the collapse of Balhae?Did the remnant of Balhae become the modern Korean?--Ksyrie 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, some did. Also just as clearly, some were incorporated into Liao Dynasty. --Nlu (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true, this is a fake topic, since even Liao people is very difficult to trace the population of descendants. It is impossible the trace numbers descendants of Goguryeo or Balhae, the only reasonable evidence is the record on tombstone or family tree book. But it is unfair to Korea, since by the time few Korean know how to write (no offense), so it is meaningless --Yeahsoo 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2

Again, no chance for stuff to be listed, like descendants of Goguryeo found in China, and Goguryeo use Chinese characters as writing system, and how Goguryeo kept as a vassal to China in hundreds years.(I bet some Korean hero rather undo this article everyminute than let this to be listed on wiki)--Yeahsoo 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys keep completely missing the point. This article should not be "Chinese POV" or "Korean POV" or even a mix of Korean and Chinese POV. This article in its entirety should be NEUTRAL point of view. That means relying on independent neutral (not Korean, not Chinese, not a combination of Korean and Chinese, but NEUTRAL) secondary sources. The main article about Goguryeo should contain a neutral description of the scholarly consensus on Goguryeo, which is that it was Korean. If there is a modern political dispute, then we cite a BBC article on it, neutrally describing the dispute, in a separate section about that dispute. Not a single word in this article should be a Wikipedian's interpretation of primary sources, Korean or Chinese. Etimesoy 22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am totally supporting your thinking,But the problem is that whenever there is some sources which favoured somehow chinese claim,it was deleted quickly or modified.it seems a bit of self-censorship by the korean side.--Ksyrie 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• 3

To advance,I will take an exemple,before 1800,the USA was limited in her original 13 states.At that time the Louisiana wasn't seen as American as Today,and the frech lived in Louisiana were not recognised as Amercan.And Before the Mexican–American War in 1846,the New Mexico wasn't seen as American as Today,and the mexican lived there were not recognised as Amercan as Today.Ok,I had finished my little speech.--Ksyrie 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some very good points Wangkon. However, I recommend that you save your arguments and evidence for the mediation. That's what I'm doing. I doubt any of the current participants(Assault11, Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Endroit) here can be convinced otherwise. Cydevil 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, then why salon.com refer you as a key wiki fighter keeps undo edits, if you really behave that reasonable as you claimed. Well, it is not important now, just hope you will obey the rule in future.--Yeahsoo 20:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Statistical analysis on the two users is here. This study is shows long-term trends of the two users & may not be helpful as much as the individual instances listed above. It is possible that a single individual is dividing up his/her interests in order to kill two birds with the same stone (to avoid suspicion & to make that attempt more interesting).

• In conclusion, a single generalization cannot be made about their activities (in a theoretical world where they are indeed sock puppets). A combination of different strategies and considerations can turn out to make sock puppet accusations impossible & often self-contradictory; however, at specific instances of the editors' edits, that the two users Yeahsoo and Assault11 are sock puppets of Ksyrie can be seen quite clearly.

All the best, (Wikimachine 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

• Assault11

• As for this user, s/he might not even be a sock puppet of Ksyrie. It might even turn out that Ksyrie is innocent & Yeahsoo & Assault11 are the real sock puppet & puppeteer. However, I feel that it is necessary to check this user in case the main three I suspect might not be the ones.
• If you look at the user contribution, this user has edited only on Goguryeo & Balhae.
• He joined only a month ago. And he's quite familiar with Wiki language. This is his 4th edit.
• He has never communicated with another user on user talk pages except on mine b/c I accused him of being a sock puppet. That's kind of weird (if we were to assume that s/he's not a sock puppet). But it's not weird if you were to assume that he was indeed a puppet (b/c the puppet master already knows what this user should do & so the user does not need to discuss his agenda with anyone else).

(Wikimachine 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

• Additionally, this user has engaged in edit warfare with other users, as shown here.

1. (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 February 2007 Nlu (Talk | contribs) (rv to earlier version edited by Easterknight; subsequent edits caused formatting problems with the section; this is not intended to be a substantive edit)
2. (cur) (last) 15:37, 24 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs) (I'd like to remind you the name Gaogouli was written in traditional Chinese, also "C" comes before "K" in the latin alphabet)
3. (cur) (last) 10:59, 24 February 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (rv, why does it matter if the Korean name is on top?)
4. (cur) (last) 10:43, 24 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs) (←Undid revision 110597772 by Easternknight (talk))
5. (cur) (last) 09:50, 24 February 2007 Easternknight (Talk | contribs) m (no way should the Chinese name be before the Korean name)
6. (cur) (last) 22:00, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
7. (cur) (last) 21:57, 23 February 2007 70.137.104.118 (Talk)
8. (cur) (last) 21:46, 23 February 2007 Good friend100 (Talk | contribs) (→Dispute between China and South Korea - rv)
9. (cur) (last) 21:32, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs) (→Modern politics - Clarified some Chinese arguments. There was no proof that North Koreans are descedants of Gaogouli or migration of Gaogoulis into China.)
10. (cur) (last) 21:12, 23 February 2007 Easternknight (Talk | contribs) m (→Modern politics - 900 years not 700)
11. (cur) (last) 20:45, 23 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs)
12. (cur) (last) 20:41, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
13. (cur) (last) 20:41, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
14. (cur) (last) 20:37, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
15. (cur) (last) 20:37, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
16. (cur) (last) 20:36, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs)
17. (cur) (last) 20:25, 23 February 2007 Assault11 (Talk | contribs) (Please provide proof of Peking Uni's stance on the issue with the original Chinese sources)
18. (cur) (last) 20:20, 23 February 2007 Easternknight (Talk | contribs) (→See also)
19. (cur) (last) 20:19, 23 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs)
20. (cur) (last) 20:09, 23 February 2007 Yeahsoo (Talk | contribs)
21. (cur) (last) 19:35, 23 February 2007 Cydevil (Talk | contribs) m
22. (cur) (last) 17:16, 23 February 2007 Korea history (Talk | contribs) m (→Silla-Tang invasion)

• Time of flight

• Now, this user really humors me. I already posted my evidence in the discussion. Here's a copy.

• Look at [1]. Only 11 edits. He first creates his user page as his first edit (quite experienced), on his first edit on a discussion, he is proper with all Wiki language (including "::"). He knows how to sign "~~~~" even though nobody told him. And he only talked on "Talk:Goguryeo". Quite interesting. His 11th edit makes it to WP:SOCK!
• That he made his 11th edit on WP:SOCK shocks me, but what shocks me more is that he seems to know about Wikipedia very well - almost too well b/c he talks about "NPOV credibility"! LOL.

(Wikimachine 16:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Comments

It's non-sense.I know nothing about the other two users.They reason why Wikimachine attacked me is just I and him hold the differnet view in the article of Goguryeo.I will let him to play.LOL--Ksyrie 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, glad to meet you here, Ksyrie. See, someone think if others are thinking different than him, then they must be guilty. I am amazed that that guy spend so much time to invest our speech, hope he could learn the valuable thing in it.--Yeahsoo 17:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to lose.Assault11 19:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've got everybody's attention here ....

FYI: Everybody listed here is party to a particular mediation Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo. Wikimachine, please don't forget to sign with a '''Agree''' or a '''Disagree''' on that page. You're the only one who didn't sign. Thank you.--Endroit 19:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can see Assault11 and Ksyrie can not be the same person simply by looking at their writing style. It's despicable that wikimachine is making this kind of allegation right at this point as a strategy to win the mediation. If they are not socket puppets as you have claimed, you lose all your crediblity as a NPOV wikipedian. Time of flight

The terms you've dictated on the table are not realistic. Let me explain that I at first aimed at Ksyrie & Yeahsoo (you can clearly observe that because I worked only on those two on User:Wikimachine/Sock_Puppet_Data; however, in midst of the project, I observed similarities between Assault11 and Yeahsoo. Since WP:SOCK procedurals entail that I include everyone whom I suspect to be related to the sock puppeting case, I included Assault11. If I was only to include those that I'm really sure to be sock puppets, then that's falls on my misinterpretation of the WP:SOCK procedurals, not my "NPOV credibility". Now, a question to you: where in WP:SOCK does it say that if you mistaken a user as a sock puppet you lose credibility? And I'm assuming that you can't accuse someone of being a sock puppet if you're in a mediation with them? Ha. Bogus. (Wikimachine 16:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

By the way, I wonder how in the world a user named "Time of flight" would come by to this discussion. Maybe s/he's the real sock puppet? Sounds like it. Look at [2]. Only 11 edits. He first creates his user page as his first edit (quite experienced), on his first edit on a discussion, he is proper with all Wiki language (including "::"). He knows how to sign "~~~~" even though nobody told him. And he only talked on "Talk:Goguryeo". Quite interesting. His 11th edit makes it to WP:SOCK! Wow. I think I might drop accusation on Assault11, & place a new one on you. (Wikimachine 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

• I think that Ksyrie might not really be a puppet master. In fact, it's quite clear that Yeahsoo, Assault11, and Time of flight are related to each other. I think I'm on the right track right now. If anyone wants to question my "NPOV credibility" as a Wikipedian, just check my contributions. I was POV in my first edits & those edits were terrible in grammar, contents, etc. But that just proves that I was new to Wikipedia & I was also a kid then. My edits since last year are.... perhaps very NPOV. (Wikimachine 16:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

There are somethings wrong for the User:Wikimachine/Sock Puppet Data in which User:Wikimachine claims that I had edited the Taisho Jima,But In fact if you have ever looked at the history [3],My name didn't appear at all.--Ksyrie 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikimachine's comparison is not credible,whether he or she fired into the wrong flock or deliberately making such mistakes--Ksyrie 17:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why? You can do the calculations yourself. If you want, I'll explain to you every bit of the info I've posted w/ reference to the dates. I don't get you. That was a new mistake that I made in attempt to fix a previous mistake. I mean, why would I try to fix a mistake while making mistakes on purpose? Editors w/ good faith wouldn't make such accusations. (Wikimachine 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

I didn't do the data myself, as for the top 6 main articles you've edited. It was user edit count tool, which I had linked by your name in the table. Also, I think that you have to click "older 500" in order to show everything. (Wikimachine 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I copied and pasted on the wrong column. If you look in the history, you'll see that I had made a mistake in my copy-paste procedure & I tried to fix it. I guess I missed that one. I'll fix it. (Wikimachine 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

You can check it yourself,I have checked the "older 500",but my name didn't appear.Maybe somethigs go wrong for the count tool.--Ksyrie 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

nNo, I agree with you. I fixed it. (Wikimachine 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

It has become obvious that the Koreans have no genuine interest in this round of mediation. Unfortunately, the Koreans have even reduced themselves to employ dirty tactics that question the very existance of the users in question (myself included). This comes as no surprise considering similar attempts by Cydevil to put down any dissent or opposition to his/her own view. Upon proven innocent, you will realize we are all separate entities who share the same views on the issue. Like I said before, we got nothing to lose, bring it.Assault11 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's not form "we" here. Who's "we"? (Wikimachine 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Request

I've happened to step on an unknown IP address user's edit that seemed highly related to this case, so I began intensely on all of you users' IP addresses. There's nothing to hide. Just tell the truth. What's your IP address? (Wikimachine 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Wow. Are you forreal? Is this a joke or something? Seriously now, do you honestly go around spewing out - for the lack of a better term - "stupid" questions like this? If anything, it would be in your utmost interest to NOT further reduce your stature by succumbing to non sequiturs.Assault11 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd react that way, unless you were really a sock puppet & really unwilling to tell me your IP address. I already know, but I want to find out who's lying. Why, is this against the rules? (Wikimachine 17:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine, this very last comment is exceedingly inappropriate. You are allowed to make requests for someone to look into sockpuppetry. You are not entitled to demand people's IP addresses. The users with checkuser privilege will decide whether your request will be accepted. Not you. Do this again and you'll draw a block. --Nlu (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, am I forcing them? This is a "if" scenario (like I would mind giving away my IP address). And specify where in the Wikipedia's policies admins can block users for asking an "if scenario" question? There's such a thing as freedom of speech here. You know, there are other admins too. There's no single rule here. (Wikimachine 18:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Let me think again. This is ridiculous. Also, I'd really like to hear other admins WHO ARE NOT IN THE GOGURYEO DISPUTE. Wow. Somebody threatened to block me. I'm shocked. (Wikimachine 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Shocked or not, your comment was still inappropriate. There's nothing conditional about your statement. Don't evade. --Nlu (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain further? There's difference between a discussion & a vandalous edit. Edit is something that's already been done. As for the discussion, it's not only the one who first makes a suggestion but also those who reply who constitute the final results of that discussion. Seems that you're the one who's evading. (Wikimachine 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

The problematic part of your comment was this:

I don't know why you'd react that way, unless you were really a sock puppet & really unwilling to tell me your IP address.

This is inappropriate, because this constitutes taunting, and is a less-than-implied demand for IP address. It comes close to, if it is not, a personal attack, and is certainly uncivil. It's therefore a violation of policy. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Then that should be considered a personal attack, not a vandalous edit that entails a block.

Second, the accusation of sock puppetry already presumes that the accuser accuses the accused of sock puppetry. And I was speaking within that framework of discourse. (Wikimachine 23:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

Furthermore, you should specify where in the laws Wikipedia bans demand for IP address b/c I think that's very unlikely. I could ask my fellow Wikipedians for their IP address, & they could either tell me or they could not. (Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)) At the same time, I'd like all others -Ksyrie, Yeahsoo, Time of flight, and Assault11, to reply to my request. (Wikimachine 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)) Stricken as improper; do it again and a block will result. --Nlu (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks are blockable. See WP:NPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlu (talk • contribs)

Only those concerning death threats & others of such severity. Repeated personal attacks result in arbitration.

At the same time, you haven't responded to the fact that I am speaking within a framework in which I already assume that those I accused are sock puppets. I think that "personal attacks" are usually name calling, cussing, insults on religious & national basis, etc. Referring to somebody as a sock puppet is only a part of the procedural language. (Wikimachine 00:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

The thing is, you are not allowed to assume that they are sockpuppets. You can allege that they are sockpuppets, and it's up to the admin with checkuser authority to determine whether they are. Until shown to be sockpuppets, they are presumed to be non-sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Further, personal attacks are only referred to arbitration if they are non-disruptive. (Again, see WP:NPA.) Disruptive personal attacks -- and yours count -- is blockable. --Nlu (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'm tired of this accusation-defend thingie. So, here are the offenses.

Your arguments are flawed for the following reasons:

• "Unless you're really a sock puppet" is an if-clause. That means that that is personal attack only if the user is indeed a sock puppet.
• However, we're supposed to assume that the accused are not sock puppets. Within that context, here's a double bind: either we are allowed to assume that the accused are sock puppets & the if-clause doesn't apply but at the same time there's no harm done, or we are ont allowed to assume that the accused are sock puppets,but the if-clause applies and there's no harm done.
• Calling somebody a sock puppet is procedural. "unless you're a sock puppet" is different from "You are a sock puppet, and I know it."
• "Unless you are a sock puppet" can only apply if I was making a threat to get their IP address (why, so that I can hack into their computers?), not the identification of the users as either sock puppets

Again, my suggestion was "if-clause" & also procedural as in proving whether somebody is a sock puppet or not. However, getting their IP address is not the end to a means but a means to an end. Within that context, it is not a threat. (Wikimachine 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Whatever. Again, do it again you will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever? Not again... Try, and I'll talk to another admin to unblock me. (Wikimachine 00:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

Your invitation is accepted. You have been blocked for 48 hours. Do it again after your block expires, and the block will be one week. --Nlu (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, see WP:RCU's policies on why asking people for their IPs is improper. As the checkuser admins often put, checkuser is not a fishing expedition. --Nlu (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:RCU only says that you can't apply for check user to prove your innocence. (Wikimachine 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

WP

RCU filed.

It was filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Assault11. (Wikimachine 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Conclusions

• I have no access to checkuser; therefore, nothing close to complete can be resolved -- but -- I checked into the 24-hour 3RR block I imposed on Assault11 back on March 6, and Ksyrie's edits were not disrupted by that block; if Assault11 and Ksyrie were editing from the same IP, a block on Assault11 (as I disabled all edits from his IP as part of the block option) would have blocked Ksyrie.
• The same cannot be said about Yeahsoo and Time of flight, neither of whom edited during the window of that block. This doesn't prove sockpuppetry; it just does not disprove it.
• With this being the case, I am modifying the report as a report against Assault11 and removing Ksyrie from the report. --Nlu (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I want to make sure that the people who are following this case understand that this page is not Checkuser. Cases filed on this page are judged on the basis of the accounts' behavior only. If IP confirmation is needed, this case needs to be filed at WP:RCU. This case probably should be sent there, since the SSP page receives very little admin attention. If this case is filed at WP:RCU, I would strongly recommend that you make the evidence much shorter; a lot of the stuff above seems like complaints, rather than a concise presentation of policy violations. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but I don't think that the situation meets the requirements specified by WP:RCU. (Wikimachine 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, it does. Assault11, and Yeahsoo combined engaged in 3RR violation (if we were to assume that they're sock puppets). (Wikimachine 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC))

Then file a RCU. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Accusations against DefenderofGaogouli (talk · contribs), et al., are not proper sockpuppetry accusations; rather, they're accusations of, effectively, edit warring and vandalism without sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry. File in proper places (WP:ANI, for example). They will not be acted on here (by me, anyway), due to a thorough lack of evidence presented. (Specifically, this is now a report against Assault11; those accounts may still be someone's sockpuppet, but there's no evidence presented that they are Assault11's. File a separate report if you have to.) --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing this one up as unlikely. There's a lot of mudslinging, but very little hard evidence, and Checkuser has already confirmed that the users are not IP-related. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---