Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kauffner

Kauffner (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23 July 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


As the contribs of these IP editors show, pretty much their only edits were to turn on MiszaBot archiving on talk pages where Kauffner had lost an RM discussion, tuned such that the history would be archived, after which Kauffner would come back with a new RM. The evidence is most clear in the contribs of the IPs and in the histories of the affected article talk pages, rather than in individual diffs. See Talk:Black Caviar history, Talk:Praha hlavní nádraží history (where the IP had to follow up with a lower minthreadsleft to get the intended effect), Talk:Ca Mau history, Talk:Carmel-by-the-Sea history, and Talk:Lady Trieu history; the ones where the second phase (Kauffner's new RM) hasn't happened yet or was interfered with include Talk:Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette history, Talk:Sooyoung history, and Talk:History of Champagne history. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I find this a rather interesting accusation. If all of the changes to the archive bot were done by someone with their main account that was involved in RMs, would they have violated any wikipedia rules? And if they would not, how would not bothering to log in to make simple adjustments to archiving bots settings in anyway violate rules? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot tweaking to hide RM results to get another shot at getting his way was bad enough, and would have been noticed much sooner if he hadn't hidden it via sock puppeting. That's where the violation comes in. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
" The bot tweaking to hide RM results to get another shot at getting his way was bad enough". But is it? Based on the response below, you may be right in your suspicions about the IP... but i do not see how any of this is in any way a rule violation. If the IP edit warred over Bot settings that would be bad, if the IP was used to assist in a RM along with a main account that would be bad, but i dont get where the crime is with altering archiving bot setting? Wanting old RMs and previous conversations archived to have a reasonably clear talkpage is not against the rules as far as im aware. And im not convinced that archiving would have a massive impact on any outcome of a result, there is little to gain seen as almost all the people who took part in the previous RM would have the talkpage on their watch list anyway. People dont forget simply because something moves from the main page to a archived page. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the grand scheme of bad-faith edits, these are not egregious, but rather borderline, and as I mentioned below, if it happened once or twice, it should be overlooked. But again, we have what seems to be a pattern, of forgetting to log-in when making edits to a talk page that will (potentially) help one's case at RM. Regardless of whether it would actually help, since there is this pattern of edits, once can assume that he believed it would help, and potentially intended to deceive.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts, WP:ILLEGIT: which includes:
  • Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."
  • WP:SCRUTINY: Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
  • Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding.
There is no "forgetting to log in" here; it's a clearly premeditated scheme of deception to get an unfair chance at winning an argument that he fairly lost; repeated many times over months, to the great annoyance of a lot of editors that he argues with, during the same time period that many of us have chastised him for presenting false and misleading evidence in those same proceedings. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there are more, at least including:

As per BritishWatcher above is Miszabotpuppeting violating any WP rule? In the Can Tho IP edits there was no new RM, but RM results were archived before a G6 "uncontroversial move" request submitted counter RM result. With Ca Mau two contrary RM results were archived before a User move. Several of the cases where Miszabot hasn't clicked in yet, such as Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, Kinmen → Quemoy, Sooyoung → Choi Soo-young are listed as future RMs on User:Kauffner/RM incubator. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC) (ec)[reply]

It's an interesting case indeed. I don't think that, if logged in, these particular edits would have violated any rules, although they do show some slight disrespect for other editors. However, I think we have to look at a pattern of behavior. There are other instances where Kauffner (as Kauffner) has deleted the notice of a closed move discussion from a talk page just before asking an admin to move the page (to a result different than the consensus at the move discussion). In this case, if he edited archive settings once or twice while logged out, then I wouldn't make a big issue out of it. However, as evidenced above, there seems to be a pattern here, and that pattern, especially when matched with the similarity of the edits performed and their seeming synchronicity with Kauffner's edits suggests an intent to deceive (otherwise, some of the edits would presumably be done while logged in). So, a few isolated incidents or a few edits made while logged out? No big deal. But a pattern, of the same sort of edits, performed to the same sorts of pages, in advance of the same sort of re-hashing of a lost move discussion? I think it's going too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment More evidence: Kauffner evidently doesn't like this article Xam (history: [1]); he first tried to {{db-move}} it, which was declined. He then tried to delete all contents and redirect, again declined. Then, via an IP, he tried the exact same delete-all-content-and-redirect, 5 months later, which was reverted by a bot. You'll notice the IP made edits to Champagne and Carmel-by-the-Sea talk pages as well [2]. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For several weeks now, IIO has made various accusations against me in one forum or another almost every day, and in a manner that brings to mind WP:HOUND. These accusations are often based on his research of my edit history. As I have made over 30,000 edits, reviewing this history must have involved significant time and effort. KarlB/Obi-Wan Kenobi brought another set of complaints based on IIO's research at ANI. This complaint was closed summarily on July 21. The particular edits referred to above did not come up as an issue until yesterday. So they represent pure detective work, a fishing expedition, as the lawyers put it. I recognize the account names here, I have noticed the spiteful remarks on the corresponding talk pages and elsewhere, and I am all too familiar with their various grievances. I have often frustrated IIO's desire to put additional diacritics in titles, as you can see from this RfC. Obi-Wan was distressed when I tried to make the text of the Ivory Coast article correspond to the title following a page move. As for Dicklyon, he is much invested in a particular method of counting diacritics on GBooks, the validity of which I have disputed. Kauffner (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, I actually gave you a barnstar not some time back and supported some of your RMs. The "hound" as you put it was in the form of repeatedly asking you (i) to stop editing redirects with the result, intended or not, of protecting your undiscussed moves (ii) to cease using G6 "uncontroversial" deletes/moves. The issue of (iii) deleting RM notifications, and (iv) IP activity above wasn't even on the horizon. If you hadn't deleted reference to previous RMs before requesting G6 moving articles and editing redirects then no one would have even have noticed the IP activity. You have only yourself to blame. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, this particular case (and the other brought to ANI) have nothing to do with Ivory coast, or any other past issues. In addition, I was not aware of these IP-edits at the time I brought my concern to ANI, which was more about the mass page moves you had performed (and are continuing to perform). If you think we are hounding you, another interpretation is that you made/are making changes that we don't agree with all across the wiki, and we keep running into you as a result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these messages tend to confirm what I saying above, that the real issues here have less to do with IPs, archive bots, and Australian race horses than with the page move issue that has already been referred to the RfC. Archive bots being reset comes under the heading de minimis non curat lex, i.e. if these edits didn't have any significant practical consequence, and I don't see how could have, there really isn't a case to bring. Like BritishWatcher, I had previously assumed that if there no issue with the edit itself, it didn't matter what account it was made from. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I don't think that's true at all. This case is about those particular edits by IPs. Do you admit to making those talk page archiving edits listed by IP addresses per the circumstantial evidence above? If so, the investigation part of this can stop, and we can move to what an appropriate response should be (my opinion is, the response should be rather minor, like the edits themselves)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that the pattern shown does look extremely similar and if the IPs are Kauffner it would save time to admit it to avoid the need for investigations of multiple ips. However im still struggling to see even a "minor" rule violation, in simply not bothering to sign into make alterations to archiving bot settings. I do not get how a previous RM being moved to an archive from the talkpage would have any major impact on the outcome of a new RM. It all seems a little pointless with very little benefit in terms of outcome in influencing a vote. So if it is Kauffner, admitting it and committing to not alter archiving bots settings when not signed in would seem reasonable. Its certainly not something that would warrant a block, when nobody has even questioned or challenged the actions. If an IP sets a bot to archive too quickly, anyone is able to change it to a different date. it just does not seem like a malicious act that would swing a vote. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an obvious pattern of intent to deceive and avoid scrutiny. The RMs that he initiated and won this way should be rolled back, and new neutral RMs referencing the old discussions should be started. I don't see how you can dismiss this chicanery as mere "not bothering to sign in". Dicklyon (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undoing RMs on the assumption that there was malicious actions and on an even bigger assumption that it seriously impacted the outcome? That is far to extreme. I dont see how altering the settings on a archiving bot is some big conspiracy worthy of undoing previous RMs or a serious rule violation. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time ticks on. I perhaps have some rather old-fashioned ideas about honesty, and corny as it may sound in such a trivial context as editing a volunteer blogpedia, integrity and decency. To me it matters not only how one behaves in life, but how one owns up to things, even trivial things, when challenged. I took 4 of the IPs privately to Kauffner on 20:02, 22 July 2012, and this is where I would expect someone with the same old-fashioned ideas about honesty to say either "Yes, sorry that is me, explanation" or "No, that is not me". It is now 48 hours later, and evasion such as that de minimis non curat lex means not having to answer... well to me that is only adding to the pattern. But as I say I'm old-fashioned. I hope the next post from Kauffner is going to be a short post saying either "Yes sorry" and listing any other IP edits, or it will be "No, that wasn't me." Anything else and that makes it worse. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst im not convinced that altering archiving bots time on a main account or on an IP would be breeching the rules or in any way tip the balance and influence the outcome of an RM, i certainly agree that if the IP is Kauffner they should admit it and commit to not doing it in the future. The pattern certainly does look convincing in terms of the connection. It would be far simpler and save time to admit to it if it was. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BritishWatcher, but it appears that your seconding of that fell on deaf ears the only response was this edit 3 hours later, 22:58, 24 July 2012 at Talk:Ca Mau "There was no consensus in that RM and the vote was 6 to 5 in favor of non-diacritic titles. We are supposed to follow guidelines, not previous results" - which evidently means "not previous RM results" - in relation to the very archive-reset and move-counter-RM which Cuchullain and Amatulic below have highlighted as the most problematic. There's your answer... In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can no longer ignore the continual bleeps of this page on my watchlist. There's quite enough evidence on this page to indicate that Kauffner needs to give a solid undertaking to stop the problematic (really, deceptive) behaviour; or perhaps it should be taken further. Tony (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at WP:SOCKPUPPET, I see that it can be interpreted to mean that any time a user intentionally fails to log in and makes edits, that is a violation. I was previously unaware that there was a rule of this kind. It does not appear to me that it is applied in any practical way. I gather from the discussion below that we have now moved past that all of that. We are back to the golden oldy that we have been discussing for as long as I can remember now, namely the post-RM page moves for the Vietnamese cities. I made these moves under my own account. So enough about sockpuppetry already. I thought this issue was issue was already dealt with at ANI and referred to the RfC. Now it’s also an RM. So what is it doing here? Anyway, here it is, so here I have to deal it. I going to pull out the old broken record and play it one more time. Those of you who have heard this one before can switch to another sock puppet investigation. Post-RM page moves are hardly anything unusual. Usually they get moved back, story over. Sometimes they don’t. Nico Hülkenberg wasn’t moved back to Nico Hulkenberg; Édouard Hambye wasn’t moved back to Edouard René Hambye; and my favorite example: No Gun Ri Massacre was not moved back to No Gun Ri. I don’t think there is any question that the people who made these moves knew about the relevant RMs. In the case of No Gun Ri, I made strenuous protests, so I am quite sure that everyone involved was aware of this. With the cities, I moved a couple of them by accident, not realizing they were on the RM. No one seemed to mind, so I moved some more. The vote in the RM was 6 to 5 in favor of the move. IIO has spent weeks complaining about these moves, going from admin to admin, forum to forum. This is just more of the same-old, same-old. It has nothing to do with sock puppets, and there is no reason for this issue to be here. Kauffner (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, I will be filing an AN/I report soon, asking for you to be banned for a year from moving articles, from participating in move discussions, from starting RMs, and from adjusting archiving on talk pages. Unless you volunteer to self-restrict that way and save us all the hassle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Kauffner "With the cities, I moved a couple of them by accident, not realizing they were on the RM." - is that a claim that you are not responsible for the IP edits? Are these your IP edits? Please answer Yes/No. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, you removed all 13x RM bot links to your own failed RM in a batch of edits on 27 August 2011, immediately prior to requesting the first batch of 5x "uncontroversial move" redirects actioned 29 August by admin Graeme Bartlett (who has confirmed that they came from you), therefore you cannot claim "by accident, not realizing they were on the RM."

All 14x of the cities were moved counter RM, and all 14x had the RM result obscured - Kauffner's own failed Can Tho RM, and Ca Mau (which had the earlier 2010 RM which Kauffner was not involved in + bot to Kauffner's failed RM2 on it) by IPs, the other 12x by logged in edits deleting the RM bot to the failed RM you yourself himself launched:

  • A. Cần Thơ → Can Tho
26 June 2012‎ admin Malik Shabazz reverts move
20 June 2012‎ Kauffner moved page Cần Thơ to Can Tho over redirect - reverting admin Malik Shabazz's restore
2 June 2012‎ admin Malik Shabazz reverts G6 requested moved Can Tho to Cần Thơ "undoing move; no consensus per Talk page archive"
2 June 2012 someone (User:Gimmetoo?) alerts admin Malik Shabazz to reverse move counter RM
2 June 2012‎ uninvolved admin Malik Shabazz actions request from Kauffner page Cần Thơ to Can Tho
24-26 Feb 2012 Series of anon IP edits to Talk:Can Tho setting up archiving, no consensus RM no longer visible
07 August 2011 admin Arbitrarily0 closes 14 cities RM at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 "no consensus"
28 July 2011‎ RM bot adds (+348)‎ (Notifying of move discussion) to other 13x cities' Talk pages
28 July 2011 Kauffner launches RM for 14 Vietnamese towns at Talk Cần Thơ
  • B. Cà Mau → Ca Mau
28 June 2012 Kauffner edits Cà Mau redirect preventing revert
21 June 2012‎ Kauffner moves Cà Mau to Ca Mau
4 June 2012‎ MiszaBot I (-3,313)‎ (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Cà Mau/Archive 1 --- but something strange here; there is no link to Talk:Cà Mau/Archive 1 left on Talk page?
2 June 2012‎ 118.69.174.139 IP inserts extra header into Talk, increasing number of threads
1 June 2012‎ 118.69.133.249 adds autoarchiving
27 August 2011‎ Kauffner (logged in) removes RM bot notice of previous RM discussion
28 July 2011‎ RM bot (+348)‎ . . (Notifying of move discussion)
14 July 2010 earlier RM Ca Mau → Cà Mau - 3 vs 1, Kauffner not present in 2010
  • C. Cao Lãnh → Cao Lanh
30 June 2012 Kauffner edits Cao Lãnh redirect preventing revert
29 August 2011 Kauffner submits G6 "uncontroversial move" actioned by uninvolved admin Graeme Bartlett
25 August 2011 Kauffner (logged in) removes notice of failed RM from Talk
  • D. Mỹ Tho → My Tho
5 Oct 2011 Kauffer edits redirect at Mỹ Tho, preventing revert
5 October 2011‎ Kauffner moved Mỹ Tho to My Tho
27 August 2011‎ Kauffner (logged in) removes RM bot notice of close discussion
07 August 2011 admin Arbitrarily0 closes 14 cities RM at Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 "no consensus"
28 July 2011‎ RM bot (+348)‎ (Notifying of move discussion)
28 July 2011 Kauffner launches RM for 14 Vietnamese towns at Talk Cần Thơ
21 July 2011‎ User:MSGJ reverts My Tho to Mỹ Tho "revert for now; that discussion did not mention this particular article and does not set a precedent for mass moving of articles"
21 July 2011‎ Kauffner moved Mỹ Tho to My Tho citing RM on Chicago University mathematician and other VN bios.
  • E. Nam Định → Nam Dinh
  • F. Phan Thiết → Phan Thiet
  • G. Quảng Ngãi → Quang Ngai
  • H. Rạch Giá → Rach Gia
  • I. Thái Nguyên → Thai Nguyen
  • J. Thanh Hóa → Thanh Hoa
  • K. Thủ Dầu Một → Thu Dau Mot
  • L. Vĩnh Yên → Vinh Yen
  • M. Vũng Tàu → Vung Tau
  • N. Yên Bái → Yen Bai
Others.. no point in repeating same history another 10x - all the same as Cao Lãnh and Mỹ Tho with (i.) 28 July 2011‎ RM bot being removed (while logged in) before (ii.) req for G6 as "uncontroversial move", or own move, and then (iii.) redirect edited preventing revert. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments cont'd[edit]
  • @Amatulić wrote:
    it is not sockpuppetry in the sense of giving the appearance of multiple contributors for nefarious purposes. This is simply deliberately editing while logged out.
But WP:ILLEGIT does equate this with sockpuppetry, under Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively. How could it be otherwise? In that case, this would be an obvious loophole for anyone to evade restrictions on sockpuppets.
Suppose Kauffner had registered a sockpuppet account named Abcxyz123 and had performed the "summon MiszaBot" edits while logged in under that account. Surely this would be considered misleading and avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, with intent to prevent anyone looking at the history from making the connection. Deliberately logging out has the exact same effect, per WP:ILLEGIT. This was a systematic pattern across multiple articles over time, so the logouts were indeed deliberate. Of course it is possible that it was not him, but he needs to say so, and has not. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Miszabot IPs there is still the G6 dbmove IP Obi-WanKenobi noticed. A check user is still required here, on the case of 3rd attempt to move Xẩm to Xam by G6 dbmove and disamb redirect. 2nd (of 3) refusing admin User:EurekaLott "if you want the article moved, please talke it to WP:RM." has not been notified of this SPI, nor has the sole article creator User:Grenouille vert, a substantial article contributor whose articles have been targeted (e.g. 21 June 2012 followed by 22 June 2012) for undiscussed moves/G6 dbmoves/redirect edits and complains to Kauffner here. Until Kauffner says "Yes, the Xẩm dbmove IP is me, I forgot to log in" we still need a check user. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I failed to tick the "need a checkuser" option when I started this SPI, and I couldn't find how to fix that. Hopefully a watching admin will help... Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that this SPI has generated sufficient circumstantial evidence, coupled with no denial on the part of Kauffner, that we can simply provide him with a wet WP:TROUT for these edits and move on. I don't think we need checkusers/etc at this point, but agree it would be much easier if Kauffner just said "yes, that was me, sorry I will try to not do it again".
On the other hand, I do think a RFC/U (not AN/I) *would* be called for, not because of talk page archiving, but because of mass-moves of pages against consensus, even when he had been warned by users ([3], [4]) that such moves away from diacritics were controversial - such warnings were deleted from his talk page shortly after, and the page moves continue. There is clear guidance that such moves should not be performed if they are known to be controversial, and while one could overlook a few, the fact that he did this to over 1000 articles over the past year is worrisome. Nonetheless, as a result of such an RFC/U I would not support a ban of RMs or participation in move discussions however, as he does take time to carefully prepare RMs and they are often reasonable cases. I would support a ban on direct page moves however, or at least a self-imposed ban by Kauffner himself, to not do page moves or {{db-move}}, and to refer all page moves he wants to do to RM.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A wet trout = you naughty boy. It's likely to encourage a resumption of the behaviour some time in the future. Tony (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True; my point is, these particular edits probably don't merit much more. I think we should focus on opening an RFC/U re: the aforementioned page moves against consensus - that seems to be the real issue; I think the talk page archiving is a side show.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Obi-Wan actually I would agree with Tony, Dicklyon and P.T. Aufrette, the IP deception is more of an issue than the things done without IP assistance. And rather than encourage a resumption of behaviour, the behaviour is happening at this minute - i.e. refusing to give a straight answer to the question "Is this hand in the cookie jar yours, yes or no?" Would you let your child have another cookie before he'd answered that question? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a trip tomorrow, so won't start an AN/I or RFC/U now. If someone else will, great; otherwise I'll do it later. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the pilot bails out, the plane may not be going to a place you want to be. Kauffner (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is the third example of Kauffner not only avoiding "Yes the IPs are me/No, the IPs are not me" but instead mocking the process. So it looks like we're not going to get a straight admit/deny. I have no idea if this is a usual response from suspected Users when SPI are asked to check against IPs. It looks like no one here knows how to set up this SPI properly to get a check on the two worst IPs - the Ca Mau Miszabot and the Xam dbmove - but from what I can make out on the instructions page clear diffs have to be provided before activating the check template. There's a list of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks who seem to be available to help those of us who are new to this kind of thing. Would anyone object if I contact 1 of them to ask for technical help? Also, in regard to the RMs which were rigged (not that I think any need reopening and Ivory Coast looks completely legit) I notified the closing admins to unusual IP activity in the initial stages of untangling this. But I didn't understand the Xam dbmove IP until Obiwankenobi explained it - should the admin who reverted and instructed an RM on Xam be informed or not? Should the editor whose article was targeted be informed?
+ Unrelated, Kauffner complains about No Gun Ri Massacre above. I'm not familiar with this, but does I'm visiting this page in a while but very surprised to see that this article originally about geographical information was merged without "discussion" and past discussions were all gone too. The editor who did this should tell the rationale, or I will restore the original title "No Gun Ri massacre" and the discussion page.--Caspian blue 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC) appear to show a more primitive manual way of achieving an undiscussed move and obscuring past discussions? In this case IP activity does not seem to be involved, so would not have even been considered it if Kauffner hadn't himself introduced it above. How many more of these are there? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point the checkuser is a must, yes. Kauffner is simply stonewalling and mocking us. This seems as good a time as any to bring up his participation in the now-deleted "WikiProject English", which was deleted as a den of battleground machination, e.g. "I can boast of moving the Vietnamese bios and geography to non-diacritic titles -- It's hundreds of titles and took me several months to do." The common thread here is a problematic attitude, whether in the form of this offputting triumphalism, or the current stonewalling and snark. To paraphrase a certain movie, we're going to need a bigger trout. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, even a negative checkuser result wouldn't entirely settle the issue. In developing countries Internet use is exploding but few locals can afford to have access at home, as opposed to expatriates. As a result there is a much greater density of Internet cafés. In Hanoi there are undoubtedly several within walking distance. One could easily arrange to make IP edits at a separate location from the logged-in edits. Rather than narrowly focus on checkuser, the broader issue is that of apparent tag-team collusion between Kauffner and the IP editor (who might conceivably be a meatpuppet confederate, but the Venn diagram intersection of coincidental circumstances and editing interests would be pretty darn small). — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still on my trip; looking to start this, I find that both AN/I and RFC/U suggest coming here to SPI to report sockpuppet abuse. This case says it's open and awaiting administration. So I'll wait and see what they do with it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have written about matters quite sensitive in Vietnam. Although these matters are not part of the current dispute, I do not necessarily appreciate the trumpeting of where I live, or attempts to ascertain what material I am responsible for.[5] I am confident that all parties involved can take into account the need for discretion. Kauffner (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on, there was no sleuthing or outing involved here. Until you edited it today,[6] your userpage had Category:Wikipedians in Vietnam, so you yourself were "trumpeting" it. The anonymous IP addresses (of the alleged sockpuppet edits) trace to a Hanoi-based telecom company, per whois at http://www.apcnic.net/ , so it's germane. Your userpage also claimed credit for a certain article before your edit today — I assume that's what you're referring to, based on the diff you provide above — so reading the plain text of your userpage hardly constitutes "attempts to ascertain what material I am responsible for". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a guessing game. Do I need to explain again why I do not want people speculating about where I live or what Vietnam-related material I have written? You do not know. Please do not respond with another paragraph speculating on either issue. Kauffner (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, are the IPs you? yes or no. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, is all this still dragging on? Kauffner, you need to explain yourself to the community. Isn't that obvious? We all knew that you were heavily involved in Vietnamese issues before this investigation. Nothing secret is being revealed in any untoward way; but if you think it is, you have the option of contacting a checkuser privately by email, explaining yourself in full, and simply noting the fact here. You could report whom you approached, but give none of the details publicly here. The checkuser could then review your submission, and everything on this page, and ask any further questions deemed necessary before closing things satisfactorily.
What stops you? You are wasting everyone's time and effort. Bring the matter to a reasonable end, please. If you will not, it should not surprise you if matters are taken out of your hands and an RFC/U is issued against you. It should be broad enough to encompass your persistent misuse of evidence at RM discussions, and your refusal to answer questions about the flaws in such evidence – and to mend your ways so that participants and closing admins are not misled.
Some responsibility now, please. ☺
NoeticaTea? 07:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer came there none.
We're supposed to AGF, but it's difficult when this sudden concern for secrecy about living in Vietnam is accompanied not by saying "there's no need to check the IPs, yes they were me" but by carrying on regardless: last edit Trần Văn Cung 05:08, 31 July 2012‎ Kauffner (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat) thereby locking a proxied G6 dbmove requested to uninvolved admin Sphilbrick. I'm not sure how this is similar/different from Dolovis' redirect edits, but the intention seems to be while we're all talking to secure the legacy of undiscussed moves for posterity, if not why these 1000s of redirect edits? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any case where IPs edited the redirects? If not, then let's close this and get on with handling the behaviour of the named account. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not from the IPs listed, only the IP 3rd attempt on Xam disamb to move Xẩm traditional music article by redirecting, ignoring admin EurekaLott's instruction to take to RM. Not the same thing as a normal redirect edit. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the "behaviour of the named account" included logging out and using IP edits with intent to mislead and avoid scrutiny, which is a sockpuppeting violation per WP:SCRUTINY, which is one reason we're here. He has thereby completely corrupted the RM/consensus process. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying, and I even think there's a "fair chance" that the IP edits are the user, but when I consider the likely censures for the unambiguous logged-in behaviour of the named account, I don't think the suspected logged-out behaviour would change anything. I can see some legitimate real-life privacy reasons (not simply to avoid wiki scrutiny) for the user not to be tied to a set of specific IP addresses. Such reasons may not really be in play here, but I don't see the wiki-value of pursuing the IP investigation (for archive manipulation) as anywhere near worth the potential real-life damage to the user if they are in play. Leave the user plausible deniability and let's get on with the clear stuff. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re comments below Cúchullain 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC), reply Dicklyon, 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC), Amatulić 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC),[reply]
(i) whatever is decided about the appropriate place, I think it'd be appropriate to note at this point that the manipulation of the archiving did in fact influence (perhaps in a minor way, but difficult to quantify) the result of some RMs. I looked again at Talk:Black Caviar, Talk:Inter Milan yesterday and saw that I myself supported both moves. In the case of Talk:Black Caviar I would probably have 'voted' the same, but in the case of Talk:Inter Milan and Talk:Lady Trieu I would have opposed if I'd seen the previous RMs - and although I suppose it's my own stupid fault for not checking the archive, since they weren't labelled "RM4" etc., you take these things on good faith, or at least have done so until now. Given that these articles Talk:Black Caviar, Talk:Inter Milan are (being realistic here) more important/more visible in the en.wp scale of things than WP:Vietnam articles whatever the next step/forum is it needs to be one that addresses RM issues rather than just the mainly (Xẩm music and Cần Thơ cities excepted) -logged in behaviour relating to VN articles.
(ii) re the 1,800 or so undiscussed (or G6 proxied) VN article moves. As far as I can see (and it's 20 years since I was in Vietnam or have used any Vietnamese so I've had to brush up) it looks like one user who despite the noise has only actually contributed 3 VN articles, appears to have really messed things up - producing all kinds of inevitable inconsistencies and ambiguities across the entire project. The most recent being the bulk renaming of the entire footballers category. In response to Obiwan's concerns a loaded RfC was set up but has had any value destroyed by stunts like canvassing WP:Conservatism with scares about Saigon being renamed "Sài Gòn". It seems impossible for this User to do the simplest tasks without gaming them. For that reason I'd suggest all 1,800 undiscussed moves being reverted to status quo - consistent with the way en.wp treats Czech or Icelandic, as most of them were created. Yes I know that SPI isn't the place for this, I'm saying it now to flag the issue of the article repairs probably needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New: the smoking gun, if that's the correct term. This edit clearly shows User:Kauffner going back 3 days later and forgetting to log out before adjusting the Ho Chi Minh IP's set up of Miszabot to archive his own RM1 (failed), before launching RM2 (succeeded). I don't know why no one spotted this before, but among a dozen tampered RMs there's a lot to look at. Is this enough to close the SPI without a CheckUser and issue SPI conclusion that the IPs are indeed User:Kauffner, and that the IP edits contravene Wikipedia:Sock puppetry on several points as above?

Sock puppetry can take on several different forms:

  • Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address...

Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse

Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

...

Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding.

It's disappointing because I've gone from supporting this editor on his drive for "English names" a few months back to being, understatement, seriously concerned, but by what is written in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry this is IP-puppetry, and if it isn't then these sections of WP:Sock puppetry need to be rewritten to allow what User:Kauffner has done on a dozen RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

In ictu oculi alerted me to this issue yesterday. By and large the problems look trifling (there is nothing wrong with either archiving or starting new move requests) but there is some evidence of problem editing if the accounts are connected. For instance In none of these move requests did Kauffner indicate previous discussions, as he should have done per the WP:RM process, though if the IPs are him he was clearly aware of them.
The Ca Mau move is more troubling. The article was moved to Cà Mau following a move request; this discussion was archived after tagging by 118.69.133.249 here. Then Kauffner moved the page to Ca Mau without discussion here. If the IP is Kauffner, if follows that (1) he was aware of the previous discussion but made an undiscussed move anyway, and (2) he was trying to skirt the process and avoid scrutiny in doing so. Kauffner was previously called out for obscuring past move discussions before initiating new moves as "uncontroversial" here. If the accounts are connected, this is a misuse of alternate accounts, compounded if it's happened elsewhere.--Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that Kauffner's RM activity has at times seemed disruptive. However, all that I see here are IP addresses adding auto-archive templates on talk pages where Kauffner happened to initiate a failed RM. This in itself is not disruptive, and it is not sockpuppetry in the sense of giving the appearance of multiple contributors for nefarious purposes. This is simply deliberately editing while logged out. (Heck, I've done that myself now and then, to take a break from sysopping and contribute anonymously like most other editors, but I tend to keep those contributions separate from areas I participate in when logged in.)
Whether Kauffner logs in or not, I don't see how adding auto-archive templates can be considered disruptive or sockpuppetry. At most, the thread expiration time is set too short (60 days for low-volume talk pages is unreasonable) and those can easily be corrected. I also fail to see what Kauffner stands to gain by "hiding" these RMs in archives, because if they are re-started anew, enough prior participants will remember the prior one and refer to it in the archive.
The incident Cuchullian refers to above is more troubling, as that does suggest an attempt at deception via not logging in. A checkuser may be able to verify an association with that single IP, but I don't see a need to check others that have not engaged in disruption. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note: both these admins were notified of this SPI by In ictu oculi (as I was). Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that based on the discussion above about disregarding RM outcomes and moving articles anyway, some sort of ban might be in order. A SPI case isn't the place to discuss that, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence looks pretty convincing that the IPs are Kauffner editing while logged out. While the edits don't look very disruptive taken individually, there does seem to be a pattern of questionable tactics to influence article naming discussions. Checkusers don't generally associate IPs with named account for privacy reasons, so I'm not sure SPI is the correct venue here. As the behaviour seems to be connected with a wider issue with article titles and page moves, it would be reasonable to discuss some sort of restriction from RM and page moving. If public discussion at AN is out of the question because of Kauffner's privacy concerns, I'm sure ArbCom can be asked to look at the evidence privately. Jafeluv (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would drop the IP investigation for privacy issues. Checkusers avoid publicly connect users and IP addresses, and frankly, even if true it's at most a minor evasion compared with the move-related behaviour from the alleged master account. Had Kauffner noted past RM results when making or requesting "uncontroversial" moves, nobody would care that IP editors had manipulated archiving. And for the record: [7] [8] [9] I originally noticed Kauffner after this move of a featured article, citing a result of a RM that was not advertised at the featured article [10] Gimmetoo (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmeto, the SPI process is not only for checkuser investigations. We also conduct investigations based purely on behavioural evidence, which is not restricted by the privacy policy in the same way as is technical evidence. AGK [•] 01:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we had 100% clear CU confirmation that the IPs were the user, it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the logged-in behaviour, and anything less than 100% clear confirmation diminishes the drop. Is that drop in the bucket really worth the potential real-world damage to a real person, even if the "privacy policy" might allow it? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is still open? We need to wrap this up and move on to the next step, whatever that may be.--Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to start a next step of AN/I or RFC/U, but the language at those pages suggest they are not the right place. I'm stumped. Advice from a knowledgeable admin about possible next steps would be appreciated. I think we need to seek a community-imposed ban on further corruption of the RM process, and possibly of any involvement at all in moves or RMs. Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:AE? After all ArbCom recently had a ruling related to disruptive RM activities. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where might I find said ruling? Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only potentially related discretionary sanction I can think of is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions, but it's not directly on point. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to simply propose a ban, the correct place would be WP:AN. RFC/U would be a better venue for a more general investigation of user conduct issues, although someone would need to certify it to meet the minimum requirements. I agree that this SPI should probably be closed since it's clearly not going anywhere. Jafeluv (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 June 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

This account has focused almost exclusively on making dozens of undiscussed moves removing diacritics from Vietnamese article titles, which is Kauffner's MO. Kauffner has used socks in this way in the past, and has continued to make veiled threats to use them since getting caught.[11][12]

Many of these moves restore a previous undiscussed move by Kauffner, which was later overturned by other editors. For one of many examples, this move repeated this earlier one by Kauffner, which had been undone by ༆ here. Similarly, this move restored Kauffner's preferred diacritic-free title. This was one of very many articles Kauffner tagged for G6 deletion as "uncontroversial";[13] the move was carried out and subsequently reverted by Edgar181 when the problem was noticed.

Additionally, the TenMuses account also makes minor edits to the redirects, preventing other editors from reverting his moves ([14][15][16]). This is another practice of Kauffner and his previous sock puppets.[17] Several moves (including [18][19][20]) targeted fairly obscure articles created by In ictu oculi, with whom Kauffner has ongoing contention. When In ictu made a technical request to restore some of these pages, Kauffner, not TenMuses, showed up to contest them.[21]

I'm requesting a checkuser due to the possibility of sleeper accounts; this one was created in March and made a number of edits before being noticed. Cúchullain t/c 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see these comments Kauffner made to In Ictu regarding TenMuses.--Cúchullain t/c 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Dieuhuyen (talk · contribs · count), which has no edits but was registered at en.wiki on May 11, 2013. Forgive me if I don't trust Kauffner's claim that this is another person using his computer.--Cúchullain t/c 13:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this SPI may have gotten hard to follow. To summarize for the clerks, TenMuses appears to be Kauffner because it follows the same pattern of removing diacritics from Vietnamese article titles, and then edits the resulting redirects so the pages can't be moved back without deletion. I'm requesting a CU due to the possibility of other undetected socks: Kauffner has abused sockpuppets before and has threatened to use them since. Below he essentially admits that User:Dieuhuyen is him. Hopefully we can get some movement on this one way or the other.--Cúchullain t/c 13:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the TenMuses account was created[22] right after obvious Kauffner sock RenffuaK (talk · contribs · count).[23] RenffuaK appeared[24] just after Kauffner made these threats to engage in sockpuppetry. This problem is clearly not going away.--Cúchullain t/c 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]
  • This is certainly a long list of accusations to address, although I have to wonder why we are rehashing this stuff at SPI. Diffs from 2011 and 2012? What's up with that? Perhaps they come from a file of my alleged misdeeds that someone maintains. After checking the article history, I can confirm that Thu Thua District was in fact moved at my request on Oct. 15, 2011.[25] A year and a half later, this move has now been entered in evidence against me. I have made over 36,000 edits on Wikipedia. I must confess that I have no specific recollection of this one. People of Thu Thua, forgive me! IIO requested that the article be moved back, and Edgar181 did so. I think it is a bit misleading to describe this in terms of a "problem [that] was noticed." IIO has claimed that I have moved over 1,600 articles, although I do not keep track of such activity myself. In any event, the point is that only a tiny fraction of these moves have been contested. I am not aware of any episode that could be referred to as my "getting caught" for anything. I do recall, however, that Cuchillian has a history of harassing me, including reverting my RMs.[26] As for IIO, he blanked sections of an article I wrote a few days ago.[27] As he has threatened to do more such blanking, I have been maintaining a close watch on his activities. This is why I can respond quickly to his "technical" requests. Kauffner (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misdirection won't help you. We have here a new account who's editing the same articles in the same way as you and your previous socks. Is this you, or not?--Cúchullain t/c 19:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then (A) the result "Kauffner is  Possible to TenMuses, by geolocation" confims the 30 min travelling time between two locations, (B) the similarities and interaction still say WP:QUACK, (C) this time too Kauffner has been asked four or five times to say yes/no whether TenMuses is him, and the same refusal to say yes/no with the last SPI, where after the SPI was closed "too long didn't read" with no action taken, Kauffner later admitted that the IPs were him. ....is this going to end with another turning a blind eye? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can tell you Dieuhuyen was quite annoyed to have her work labelled a machine translation. In any case, she did another round of edits, so perhaps the article can get a better assessment now. Her article is of course a partial translation of Han-Nom, a full-length article I wrote. I don't see a connection to Han-Nom Research Institute, which is just another IIO stub as far as I can see. I edited the category keys for Polk on 10 June 2011. IIO went to TENS about the keys just recently, so this long-forgotten dispute is something he has resurrected.[28] Kauffner (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend that User:TenMuses be indef blocked as a sock, and Kauffner blocked for a week for abusing multiple accounts. (The last time I looked at this report I didn't notice that Kauffner and TenMuses share both the Vietnamese connection and a Korean connection. Both editors have made changes in the article about a Korean band at Nine Muses (band), while Kauffner has engaged in a move war at Hyuna, per a complaint at Talk:Hyuna#Title). I have become aware of Kauffner's work through my closing of move requests at WP:RM and WP:RM/TR. The issue of Kauffner's article moves returned to my attention yesterday when he reverted the move of Duc Duc to Dục Đức. See a related move discussion at Talk:Song Cong#Requested move (11 June 2013) which undid some of TenMuses' mass moves, one of which was Tomb of Duc Đuc → Tomb of Dục Đức. Rather bold of him to do that while he knew that admins would be scrutinizing his edits per this SPI. I suggest that admins could suspend the block of Kauffner if he will voluntarily agree to make no moves that change the diacritics in any Vietnamese names without going through WP:Requested moves or WP:RM/TR. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. The account is clearly Kauffner based on the behavioral evidence and now the CU, and every one of the edits was disruptive.--Cúchullain t/c 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Kauffner is  Possible to TenMuses, by geolocation. This is purely a technical result.  Check declined by a checkuser for Dieuhuyen, not enough evidence presented to assume this is the same user, only enough to say they may edit on the same network. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12 July 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The new MergerDude account has only been heavily active since Kauffner's July 8 block for edit warring at Han-Nom.[29] That article was merged by a discussion, but Kauffner has continued to revert it, insisting it be taken to AfD instead.[30][31][32] Lo and behold, just after Kauffner reverted for the last time,[33] resulting in a new block, Merger Dude started an AfD using essentially the same wording as Kauffner.[34] It's hard to believe a new user would have this level of knowledge of Wikipedia's workings or adopt Kauffner's idiosyncratic position. As MergerDude has continued editing since Kauffner's July 11 block, this is block evasion. In ictu oculi has identified further evidence which I'll add momentarily (it didn't format correctly in the last attempt to open the SPI.) Cúchullain t/c 16:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is evidence provided by In ictu oculi, here; the edit didn't format correctly:

New user MergerDude has begun significant activity 3 hours following 2 weeks block of Kauffner for edits accompanied by demand for an AfD for merged article Han-Nom (24 May, 31 May, 1 June etc.), new user edits have placed an AfD for merged article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han-Nom (log).

MergerDude has come out of nowhere highly expert in wikipedia terminology and editing. Account creation on 27 June 2013 follows 19 June merge (following 2 months discussion, cumulating in 6-1 consensus) of article Han-Nom and extensive discussion at 30 May Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting an AfD rather than a merge.

MergerDude AfD request echoes demand of Kauffner at ANI ANI 09:08 8 July "Somebody man up and take this to AFD already". MergerDude revised wording expands on Kauffner argument at ANI ANI 10:38 8 July "..original research. That's certainly a basis to go to AFD." MergerDude also picks up Kauffner's understanding "Nom" (Vietnamese written in Chinese characters)]. This could of course simply be a new User who witnessed ANI, without contributing there, and was persuaded of the validity of the demand for an AfD, and therefore reflecting Kauffner's language at ANI. Likewise MergerDude could have picked up the understanding "Nom" = Vietnamese written in Chinese characters" from Kauffner's arguments.

However, the reason why this looks less like benign coincidence is the staggered time signatures between Kauffner's pauses in activity and MergerDude's activity. This has the same Vietnam timezone UTC+7 hours and travelling time from one terminal to another as the previous sockpuppet User:TenMuses which were in the 12:00-15:00 time slot. The log in / log out timings are as follows:

Third set:

  • Kauffner 05:00, 12 July 2013 ‎ Continued edit warring: unblock request - arguing for an AFD for Han-Nom
  • Merger Dude 03:18, 12 July 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+157)‎ . . User talk:MergerDude ‎ (→‎Requests) (current)
  • Merger Dude 02:07, 12 July 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+35)‎ . . N User:MergerDude ‎ (MergerDude moved page User:MergerDude to User:MergerDude/chart)
  • Kauffner 23:23, 11 July 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+399)‎ . . User talk:Kauffner ‎ (r)

Second set:

First set:

  • Kauffner 01:24, 28 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-641)‎ . . User talk:Kauffner ‎
  • MergerDude 15:37, 27 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+187)‎ . . User talk:MergerDude ‎ (requests)
  • MergerDude 13:36, 27 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+421)‎ . . N User talk:MergerDude ‎ (who I am)
  • Kauffner 12:35, 27 June 2013 I definitely had fun writing Talk:Fucking, Austria#Requested move

Hence a check user request is made between MergerDude and TenMuses - based on travelling time from the main User:Kauffner terminal. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also highly suspicious of Mergerdude's sudden interest in this article, immediately after kauffner reblocked, but was not sure if it was strong enough WP:DUCK for an SPI. However, I add my support to this investigation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that pun is awesome. Totally stealing it, and perhaps making a new  Looks like a duck to me template to go with it :)Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved by Legoktm (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - post SPI notification edits don't know if post-SPI opening edits form part of SPI or not normally, but perhaps worth noting that the response to this SPI by both User:Kauffner and User:MergerDude seems in line with previous responses to the User:TenMuses SPI, namely to not give a straight confirm/deny. I don't know if this is normal behaviour in SPI cases, but it is the same as the two previous cases documented here. UserMergerDude embarked on a series of 40 or so (randomly suggested?) page edits from 15:11, 12 July 2013 to 17:35, 12 July 2013 every 2-3 minutes with one prolonged gap 16:37-17:00. Exactly within this 23 minute time window User:Kauffner logged back in making 4 edits 16:39 to 16:47, 12 July 2013. This edit in User:MergerDude's 23 minute gap is so blatant that it almost looks like a deliberate challenge to User:Cuchullain's 16:11 notification of SPI, or even an attempt at "suicide by admin." It also suggests that my earlier (botched, sorry, thank you Cuchullain for fixing) attempt to open an SPI was incorrect in talking about travelling time between the two terminals, or at least that isn't a factor in the 12 July edits with no travelling time between terminals. All in all, bizarre. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Obviously, User:Kauffner is operating a sockpuppet. I originally was a socker and (moved on) and this is exact evidence that points to it. I propose an extended block (maybe a month) to Kauffner and an indefinite block for his sockpuppet. Leoesb1032 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • As an involved admin I'll of course recuse from using the CU bit here, but my SPIdey-sense certainly pinged when that AfD was opened .--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I'm not advocating for the use of CU here, I only wanted to comment that the timing of the account creation and related AfD was suspicious and note that it was my opinion as opposed to the result of any actual CU action on my part.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - My spidey sense is also tingling. MergerDude has similar interests, similiar edit times, and similar edit summaries. That, combined with the evidence presented above, warrants at least a check, almost a block. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite  Likely; I would be surprised if Kauffner were not MergerDude based purely on the technical evidence. NW (Talk) 02:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking and tagging based on the combination of technical and behavioral evidence. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23 July 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Summary: Block evasion (User already blocked for previous puppets) New account, but evidently not new user; expert familiarity with WP:RM system, quirks of language and argument, edit summary style, shared articles of interest (Asia, nobility), and timings with User:Kauffner, User:MergerDude all indicate same user. More detailed: After registering starts with a a quick run of edits following random article same pattern of random edits as used to provide edit history for previous sock MergerDude on 30 June, with Kauffner's edit summary mannerisms "wordsmith" "simplify". Significant activity starts on 06:01 11 July with Requested Move John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan → Lord Lucan. Highly expert RM proposal following style of many previous RMs sandboxed at User:Kauffner/RM incubator (including examples of royalty RMs) and effectively challenging the current WikiProject Nobility WP:NCROY guideline. Next significant activity at a RM Talk:America where another (unrelated) User has input a RM for a move originally proposed by User:Kauffner Talk:America/Archive_3#Requested_move:_America_.28disambiguation.29 America → America (disambiguation) 05 Sept 2011. 03:47 21 July 2013, 06:36, 23:51 supporting 3x but forgetting to actually formally post a Support !vote since Kauffner already formally posted Support on July 4 with 2 other posts supporting the same day. Warrior of Zen knows to formally Support (and edit summary 'Support') on another RM the day before but with America RM forgets because User has already !voted under main account. Most clear evidence in RM to restore Vietnamese diacritics at Talk:Nguyen dynasty - a high visibility example of Kauffner's single handed movement of the WP Vietnam article corpus during July-September 2011: Warrior of Zen posts 22 July Oppose I assume ... Britannica ...Amazon, where citation of Britannica was a hallmark in many of the edit summaries on the undiscussed moves of the Vietnam article corpus, and also many Talk pages. As far as timings go a detailed presentation of log-in log-outs by main account and the 2 other recently blocked socks can be provided, but a check shows no conflict by overlap log-ins and instead staggered editing. Check User requested because of likelihood of other sleeper accounts. Both User:TenMuses and User:MergerDude were carefully prepared, so too was User:Warrior of Zen, this makes it likely there are other active accounts. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:03, 23 July 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]
  • It's patently obvious this is Kauffner. They're making the exact same arguments at the same pages, as in [35] vs. [36]. The account was also created around the same time as Ten Muses and similarly became more active after Kauffner's July 8 block. A checkuser should be done as it's likely there are more accounts; Kauffner has said he's editing with an open proxy.--Cúchullain t/c 02:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very  Likely match to Kauffner and MergerDude. WilliamH (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on behavioural evidence and the technical result above, I've blocked the sock and extended Kauffner's block to indef. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Tagged socks Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same pattern again, random article generator to establish history, then verbatim into old editing habits removed Viettext warning template (compare Kauffner), dictionary citation about Han-Nom (continuation of Kauffner Talk:Han-Nom, Merger page previous), citing Britannia and VN newswires against diacritics (instantly recognisable from many RMs, here also RM to restore article User Kauffner moved and redirect locked). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 12 August 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]

Yep, this is obviously Kauffner. --Cúchullain t/c 01:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Kauffner returned to an RM that they have previously participated in giving a strikingly similar rationale. Seems like a pretty clear WP:DUCK to me... TDL (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Agree - same WP:DUCK pattern yet again. Sleeper set up with a few edits from random article generator, then back to old behaviours. Particularly telling is the RM comment about using a German-English dictionary (rather than print source, same as own RM nom) and "The current title is in Wikipedia’s standard format for German train station names" - a standard comment from Kauffner after undiscussed controversial moves of an entire category. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has Kauffner not been indef blocked yet for all his abuses? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is already indef blocked. He needs to be banned. Agathoclea (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about the edits (article contributions and discussions) that his socks make? In the past I have made a point to remove posts written by other sockpuppets on the reasoning that otherwise the editor continues to contribute. Tough but maybe necessary? --Merbabu (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have always been told that all posts made by blocked editors (sockpuppets or otherwise), can be removed instantly without hesitation or fear of 3r's. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I just checked on current policy and that appears to be the case. I seem to remember that a stable indefinite block is effectivly a ban as no-one reverts it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agathoclea (talk • contribs) 09:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Found a sleeper: Neologiphile (talk · contribs). WilliamH (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Could we have a check-user on this to make sure it's Kauffner and not some impersonator (like Technoquack or whatever his name is)? I see a CU on Aug 13 caught the Neologiphile sleeper account but not this SpanishHarlem1, which had made its first edit before that date. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Another place a sleeper, a Korean War-specific sleeper, would be expected to show up would be Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre. This has two new active redlinked Users, one continuing Kauffner's combat with historian Cjhanley, though not having followed the detail of watchlist bleeps not sure which of the two Reader0234 (talk · contribs) created 12 August 2013 WeldNeck (talk · contribs) created 28 June 2013 would be the most likely. The timeframe of sleepers goes back to 4 March 2013 for the Korean pop groups-sleeper TenMuses (talk · contribs) so both the Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre new Users are within the timeframe. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WeldNeck (talk · contribs) certainly followsKauffner's MO of making a a few random edits before delving into Vietnamese topics. Agathoclea (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have little interest in Vietnamese topics, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to write an article base don them. WeldNeck (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. What you call “admiration” is respect for Kauffner’s work resulting from some co-operation in writing the article Han-Nom the removal of which triggered Kauffner’s protest which led to his ban. 2. My account is definitely not a single-purpose account but has been used for years for quite unrelated edits on several Wikis and in several languages. My tip: Either keep silent or gather convincing evidence before you write, for making unfounded accusations makes people look silly instead of encyclopedists who write things they have proof for.LiliCharlie 09:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliCharlie (talk • contribs)
  • Not anyone's sockpuppet. Feel free to do whatever you need to do to verify this. Have fun with your witchhunt. WeldNeck (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - I don't know who this is, but it's someone's troll sockpuppet. Are there any sleepers? Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical evidence indicates that Kauffner (talk · contribs) and SpanishHarlem1 (talk · contribs) are Red X Unrelated. Otherwise, I didn't find any sleeper socks. PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Phil. We can expect that more will be created if they aren't hiding now. Kauffner pretty openly considers socking his "plan" for the future.[37]--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to checked. Rschen7754 09:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated, so closing. Rschen7754 20:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30 August 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK. Same method of preparing sleeper, then drawn back to same old subjects in same wording = This is a repeat by Antonio Hazard of the same claim several times above by Kauffner on the same page. Also compare Kauffner proposing "Peter" on Saint Peter RM4 and Antonio Hazard placing new RM5 to "Peter" on Saint Peter, also Antonio Hazard 2nd comment on Saint Peter RM5. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:00, 30 August 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 I've blocked the account. Elockid (Talk) 01:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
08 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK, as before couple of non-related edits then quickly to old grounds: verbatim earlier arguments on 2 RMs on same page. This diff indicates geographical location in Vietnam http://www.google.com.vn/search?tbm=bks&hl=en as Google Books.vn searches in many previous RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final footnote? Kauffner has previously said using VPN to edit: although using Google.vn NoTruthIsEverALie today claims to be editing from Dublin. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • It certainly looks like a sock to me - a new account going straight to the same old line of argument... bobrayner (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this why In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) is going around striking my comments:[38][39]. I linked to a Vietnamese website, and so what? Does anyone understand this complaint? NoTruthIsEverALie (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, it is because you have a community ban User:Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • information Administrator note blocked as a WP:DUCK. Favonian (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Likely related to newer Kauffner socks I checked on the 1 of September.  IP blocked NativeForeigner Talk 23:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


10 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK, same pattern every time, few edits via random article generator, then to WP:RM, then to old fighting ground vs Vietnamese diacritics, verbatim citing of Britannia as model-MOS against Vietnamese diacritics as many of Kauffner's in earlier RfC and RMs. Also this is a familiar Kauffner RM argument against the purpose of DAB pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:56, 10 September 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]

All listed accounts have been blocked. Elockid (Talk) 14:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


10 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Not even attempting to hide it. Ho Chi Minh IP only one posting, repeating argument of Kauffer from previous RM on same page. Also of previous sock putting in a Technical Move request on same article. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Clerk note - the pattern is there in previous RMs, since Kauffner is based in Ho Chi Minh (per his own User page pictures before self-deleted) and has used Ho Chi Minh IPs around RMs before. It seems unlikely that in a non-English speaking city where we can barely muster native Vietnamese editors a Ho Chi Minh IP would suddenly make one edit on a 1935 Japanese film article RM which is a previous Kauffner RM battleground repeating Kauffner's previous arguments. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.......although given that it's possibly an Internet Cafe can quite understand taking action on one edit isn't necessarily a good thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 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.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I'm sorry, but with only one edit (and a constructive-looking edit at that IMO), I don't see the pattern yet. Yes, I do realize this IP address is from Vietnam, but until/unless more activity shows up along the lines of the earlier sock edits, I can't support a block here. Putting the case on hold for a few days to see if any other evidence comes to light. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Closing without a block — no further activity from this IP address. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
16 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK. Logging for completeness, IP used is a VPN route in Canada so no point in taking action. 1st edit straight to old battleground Vietnamese diacritics, yet again. 1st edit follows last sock SpeedDreamer to same RfC, citation of National Geographic verbatim per Kauffner on previous Vietnamese diacritics RfC last year. 2nd edit also to RM, another Kauffner RM interest area WikiProject Conservatism, support move of right wing commentator over Aussie cricketer. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per comment of User:Colonies Chris under 1st edit also.
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 the entire range for 1 year as a VPN. Rschen7754 20:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


19 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual pattern - run of random article suggested edits to establish history on 9 Sept. Then into expert RM mode on 19 Sept. Distinctive arguments Warum? "The readers who are not satisfied with our article on the film can be handled with a hatnote. None of them are looking for a DAB" compare Kauffner "It's safe to say that very few of the readers who type in this term are looking for a DAB", interest in Gibraltar again, view on "educational value". In ictu oculi (talk) 09:05, 19 September 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]

Obvious enough, so blocked this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Using a VPN for 2 IPs through the Netherlands here quoting highbeam - as common in Kauffner RM comments in support of same position on Madonna as previous RM. Two IPs continue each others comments and use of Amazon In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

added IP via Ireland 217.78.0.210 repeating edits of last puppet Warum? reverted by User:MSGJ In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 24 September 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 All IPs rangeblocked. Elockid (Talk) 22:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

29 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


14.161.35.137 no attempt to hide, same old argument, same old Vietnam diacritics ground, using Ho Chi Minh City IP not VPN. 41.181.202.213 using VPN via South Africa, 2 edits. Similar argument to past Chinese song names RMs - familiar phrasing "Pretty much any phrase can be translated in more than one way" "Who benefits from a title no one can read?" by Kauffner from past Japanese film names RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:50, 29 September 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 Blocked both ducks for a week. Favonian (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing left to be done, closing. Legoktm (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29 September 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Usual pattern, random article generator to establish history on 5 articles 24 Sep, User page 25 Sep (edit summary I bark at Wikipedia's ruling trollocratic clique!), then 28 Sep back to Collaborationist Chinese Army toput back 3rd time same edits as 2 previous blocked socks User:Warum? and User:217.78.0.210 ---- then five IP sockfarm against WP:PDAB again atTalk:Thriller (Michael Jackson album). + 6th VPN 78.46.149.86 correcting for 4th VPN 118.68.75.228 and signing here. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 29 September 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]
  • With IP's all over the place and the target being a talk page, there's nothing really we could do. I'm sure the closing admin of the RM will take this into account. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


02 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit [41] by Greatness Bites is very similar in style and content to this edit [42] by Antonio Hazard, previously blocked as a sock of Kauffner. Both use wording which is almost identical (the sentence beginning "despite all the gender-bending excitement") and both offer the same Google analytics link as evidence. Formerip (talk) 13:39, 2 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]
  • Feel free to administrate my results but keep it open, this is going to take me quite a lot of time to wrap up. NativeForeigner Talk 18:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensively  IP blocked. Tons of webhosts and proxies nabbed in the process. NativeForeigner Talk 18:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
06 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual MO: after a brief "ramp-up" he's off to RM, homing in on a couple of Vietnam-related articles and quoting Britannica. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 6 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 Obvious sock. Blocked. Elockid(Boo!) 23:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This edit to a talk page that has been protected because of an infestation of his IP socks constitutes quacking so obvious that I blocked him myself. This entry is just for the record. Favonian (talk) 06:17, 7 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]


08 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

İn ictu ocli is an evident attempt to duplicate my own user name - as whistleblower on most of the previous SPIs. Usual pattern of random-article-generator edits, but then experienced contribution to an AfD rather than an RM. The others are evident experienced users among various socks participating in the Talk:The Downfall of Osen. Not always easy to identify which sock is User:Kauffner (though "I doubt etc." indicates 211.20.73.13 Kauffner), and which User:JoshuSasori (Japanese = woman prisoner Scorpion) Papasrune is probably the latter. User:Ich weiß dass nicht has already been blocked as an obvious sock by admin Favonian supporting 37.9.56.220 and 192.154.137.143. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added 103.250.234.97, "new" experienced User active in RMs and fighting Vietnamese alphabet. Predictable. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Hmm, I was just about to come here to suggest that User:İn ictu ocli might be Kauffner and then I saw that this report was already open. This looks to be an impersonation account. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]


12 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This is mind-numbingly repetitive. Some small, desultory edits, a little AfD, and then off to the fray of RM, specifically those related to Vietnam. Already blocked, but I guess we need to maintain a paper trail. Favonian (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added six-pack. Same o', same o'. Favonian (talk) 15:14, 12 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]
15 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre was among User:Kauffner's pages of highest activity, arguing with User:Cjhanley effectively to diminish the massacre, now a new editor WeldNeck is arguing with User:Cjhanley denying the same thing. Kauffner and WeldNeck on Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre. From other edits User:WeldNeck appears to be the dedicated US politics account of User:Kauffner. WeldNeck's first edit was 15:54, 28 June 2013 only 17 min after Kauffner's last logged-in edit the same day 15:37, 28 June 2013. Kauffner and WeldNeck share editing interests in 3 areas (1) Korean War, (2) Viet Cong, (3) conservative US politics. (also adding on for housekeeping a couple of blatant IPs 115.85.18.206 and 115.85.18.218 repeating interest in obvious RMs) In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner and Weldneck contribs open in different windows to compare - it's quite striking, Talk against Cjhanley takes off on the Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre page - which Kauffner would have watchlisted - but not a peep to agree with WeldNeck. The only logical explanation is that Kauffner is WeldNeck. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or the other explanation is coincidence and Kauffner's silence on the Talk page was for other reasons. I'm glad to see from the Checkuser below that it turns out to be the latter. My apologies to User:WeldNeck for having brought the SPI, but given the giant sockfarm it's better to clear it up. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Let me state categorically that I am my own man and I have never edited under another username. I assumed I was all ready cleared in the 16 August 2013 investigation, but so be it. While commenting on my lack of literacy, Cjhanley didnt think we were the same users, I am not sure of the technical means to determine Sockpuppets, but does it seem plausible that I could have operated all this time as sock of Kauffner given that there have been 19 checkuser investigations of him since I first began editing here? WeldNeck (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the older checkuser cases against Kauffner and it appears that the evidence is split between behavioral, geographic and technical (IP's I assume).

Now, I share exactly one behavioral trait with Kauffner, we both edit the No Gun Ri article and both have had difficult interactions with the AP representative. Based on Kauffner’s SE Asian location (or at least where the IP’s have edited from) and my geographic location I can guarantee you there is no overlap here. Am I to be blocked based on one small piece of circumstantial evidence when a great deal of other evidence indicates I am not Kauffner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I come across as wordy here, but I get the impression I am being railroaded.

Looking at the article history, the separation of time between my participation and Kauffner's participation is 8 months!!!! Its not like Kauffner was indefinitely blocked and I just showed up. I was editing at least 6 weeks before he was blocked. WeldNeck (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
Both WeldNeck[47] and Kauffner[48][49][50] have also edited articles on Barack Obama, his family, and his autobiography.--Cúchullain t/c 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it wasnt the same article and had nothing to do with the president. WeldNeck (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was enough evidence for a check, although I had some doubts as to whether it truly was the same user. Nonetheless Kauffner has at times been evasive. That being said the user is definitively Red X Unrelated in my opinion, and I advise that no further charges of sockpuppetry be brought against them. NativeForeigner Talk 02:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Here we go again. Some AfD work, a dispute over an Asian topic (Xiao (mythology)), and of course requested move discussions like this one where he agrees with his previous incarnation Epaminondas of Thebes. I've blocked the new one, but if some more proxies etc. could also be blocked that would be ever so nice. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 22 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]


23 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


evident from first 4 edits from random article generator, then straight to the fray at Talk:No Gun Ri massacre In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 23 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 Looks like he received a lovely bunch of blocks by me and Favonian. Elockid(Boo!) 04:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Kauffner Classic: Vietnamese focus, pointless edits to expand the revision history of a redirect with diacritics, thus preventing a renaming of the target article. Already blocked; just leaving a paper trail. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 26 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]
29 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The usual, random edit to Finland, then off to contest revert of undiscussed Vietnamese-name stripping moves at RM In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 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]


29 October 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Only edit to make a comment on a Vietnamese RM repeating incorrect dictionary statement made earlier on same Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 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 Blocked. The IP has also been rangeblocked by DoRD. Elockid(Boo!) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

01 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Ho Chi Minh-based IP, interest in South Korean singers and RMs, citing and supporting own earlier RM vote by 77.86.214.46 (proxy geolocates to Finland) ...used the same Finnish proxy service in an earlier SPI 77.86.214.25 before heading off to Vietnamese RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to add User:Finland Station, but see that Elockid below got there first, thank you, sigh. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:40, 1 November 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 Obvious sock is obvious. The 113 IP is blocked by me. The other IP is rangeblocked. I blocked some other Kauffner socks editing through webhosts. Elockid (Talk) 15:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Another jokey name, more edits related to Chinese in Vietnam [51], Vietnam related articles [52], and a diacritic-driven page move: [53] JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:28, 3 November 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]
08 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Sacastic, my ass! has the usual Kauffner-style user name, user page and focus.

Proud Henry was created a little over an hour after Dieuhuyen (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) was checkuser-blocked by Elockid. The account did the usual random edits and then took up where Dieuhuyen left off on Sino-Vietnamese characters, a re-creation of Han-Nom, which was merged into Chữ nôm over Kauffner's protests. Kanguole 15:28, 8 November 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]
16 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Blanking of a Vietnamese bio and recreation at the Vietnamese-less name. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:56, 16 November 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 Sufficiently WP:DUCKy – named account blocked indefinitely; someone knowledgeable in the art of proxy detection should decide the fate of the IPs. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added 61.228.228.253 to the list. Favonian (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspected sock blocked indef per duck test. IPs blocked temporarily to prevent block evasion. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


17 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual requested moved discussions regarding Asian topics, with the occasional foray into Germany. "Down with" is vintage Kauffner, compare for instance this old contribution. I have blocked Holy Four per WP:DUCK, so this is just for the record. Favonian (talk) 13:54, 17 November 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]
  • Suspected sock blocked indef per duck test. Closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
23 November 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

After the usual, tactical ramp-up, he went for No Gun Ri Massacre, one of his favorite haunts. Got into bit of a scrap with Cjhanley, compare this comment by Beta Quadrant with this edit by Kauffner. The Trekkie user name is also kind of a giveaway. I have blocked the account as a duck, leaving this entry in the ever-growing case file, just in case someone with the relevant tools wants to block whatever proxy he's using. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back as an IP, added above.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:13, 24 November 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]
  • Blocked the entire range as a webhost (not with CU data). Rschen7754 10:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


It's been a while, but here is another classic sock, flying under the radar for a couple of weeks and then returning to the old Hán Nôm battleground with this edit, reverting to a previous sock's preferred version. Blocked as per usual and keeping the case file up to date. Favonian (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And in case anyone doubts it, have a look at this contribution to Wikidata. Favonian (talk) 11:53, 14 December 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]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention - Sleeper check, even if it only bags a bunch of webhosts. Rschen7754 11:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did what I could to help. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
19 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


With this edit he essentially reintroduced changes previously made by blocked sock KlingonHeaven (talk · contribs) here. Comparing this with this supports the claim. Sock already blocked – just maintaining the record. Favonian (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2014 (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]
29 January 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The first comment of Muslim Russia "The purpose of a title is to tell the reader the common name of a subject" here is cited also in Kauffner's wikipediocracy unblock appeal here Dec 2013. The second edit of Muslim Russia is the same old anti Vietnamese alphabet RM arguments. Other Kauffnerisms evident in these posts for those with the energy to follow up. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2014 (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]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention see archive: endorsed for confirmation, sleeper check and proxy/webhost check. Account blocked and tagged (with suspect tag) as a definitely not new duck. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that

match the latest blocked sock from the archive,

Range blocks seem impossible, spread over a number of reasonably active consumer ranges, I don't think the collateral damage is worth it.
Amalthea 16:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both confirmed socks tagged and blocked indef, closing now. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
14 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:DUCK case. Initial edits show the usual pattern of starting with a string of unrelated edits before delving into the old pet subjects or naming conventions mainly related to asian subjects and diacritics. In this case he also sought out his old supporters on the diacritic issue (to their credit they have been careful not to jump in headfirst). The contribution list is relativly short and will be obvious to any admin who previously dealt with the issue. Asking for checkuser due to the history of using open proxies and sleepers. Agathoclea (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Seems pretty clear cut to me as he went straight to the people who had supported him in the past to support the new RfC he created. Clearly not a new user who just happened to stumble upon those users. -DJSasso (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blocked per the distinctive QUACKing. I've left the investigation open for CU to catch other potential accounts.--Cúchullain t/c 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note All socks blocked and tagged. Closing. Favonian (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
28 April 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I am suspicious that the IP 12.177.80.66 is a sock of the banned/blocked user Kauffner. Kauffner has been indeffed for abusively using one or more accounts. On 31 March 2014 the above IP proposed a move at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton with the rationale "I know this has been discussed before, but she has been radically de-Rodhamizing to the point were it rarely even brings up one interest point."[54] After the request was deleted they posted it again, [55] whereupon it led to a full discussion. That unique word "de-Rodhamizing" was previously used by Kauffner in 2012: "She has been steadily de-Rodhamizing over the years, according to this ngram."[56] Quack, quack! MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • The IP could well be Kauffner, but blocking it is probably futile by now. On the other hand, I'll block
Where are you going? (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
as a very obvious sock of Kauffner. Trotted out his usual line of arguments in a discussion about one of his old favorites. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
02 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Some perfunctory edits followed by this !vote in an RM discussion. Usual style, and the target article is an old haunt of his. Compare also with the recently blocked Where are you going? (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I'll block this duck as well, but because of a well-established tradition for sleepers, I'm requesting CheckUser. Favonian (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we wait, I've added "It tastes bad". His message on my talk page is kind of a give-away. Favonian (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2014 (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]
07 May 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Familiar quacking. The pattern of edits and style should be immediately obvious to those who have handled previous. Requesting checkuser again (sorry) since last checkuser didn't pick up this sleeper along with 2 others. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's him alright, and so is "Cleanliness first", who I've added for (by now) obvious reasons. I'll block both of them and fully support the request for a CheckUser to root out more socks. Favonian (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2014 (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]
  •  Clerk endorsed - These weren't picked up in the last CU check so a deeper check might be needed this time. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let someone else take a look this time, but this guy's hopping IPs like there's no tomorrow, so don't get your hopes up... T. Canens (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What T. said. Not only that, but he's apparently using several different devices and browsers as well. Anyway, I found and blocked Captain Blowhard (talk · contribs) and The cheerful dwarf (talk · contribs). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all. Socks blocked and tagged – closing. Favonian (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
09 June 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual pattern: main interest Asian topics; an, in this case rather long, period of lurking around before initiating Talk:Yellow Emperor#Requested move with the customary reliance on Britannica; a user name which presumably passes for whimsical on Kauffner World. Finally, this use of the edit summary "wordsmith", previously used by his socks Greatness Bites and MergerDude (several times). Per SOP, I shall block this sock, but as several of the previous socks have originated from web hosts, proxies, etc., and there have been a number of sleepers, I request CU. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Kol hator" to the list. Created soon after Cheetah was blocked and homed in on Talk:List of Palestinians, pursuing the same agenda. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kol hator is not a sock of Kauffner, I didn't see another way to let en.wikipedia know this, I had too much wine a few nights ago and wasn't aware that someone with a similar ip to mine had just been banned and was talking about Jesus or whatever, I looked around to find why I had been suspected of being a sock. Please fix this, I have made several hundred beneficial edits to wikipedia but forgot the password, and forgot it again, and again, and so on. I was never perma-banned and if I recall correctly only vandalized a couple times in high school before constructive editing became more fun. Also, before last week, I hadn't edited since 2011. Thanks for your time, Adam of kilkenny (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum! Added to the list. If it isn't Kauffner, then it's one of our free-range trolls – either way, it gets blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

see above, sorry i wrote in the wrong section Adam of kilkenny (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Per evidence presented by Favonian. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed as each other and  Inconclusive to the rest of the socks in the archive.  IP blocked for engaging in other disruption. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now then. All blocked and tagged. Closing. Favonian (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
16 June 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:QUACK One dummy edit on an obscure Malta stub to displace the "Getting Started" Tag, then straight into battleground Vietnamese diacritics citing a favorite source. Given plentiful sleepers in past SPIs Checkuser requested. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DoRD User:King of Hearts, yes Bam Thwok is same, and reposting where User:Favonian deleted earlier contribs. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2014 (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 Bam as well. Guess there's nothing more to do her, so I'm closing the case. Favonian (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 June 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious continuation of thought of previous blocked sock @ User_talk:Blueboar#Recognizability and Naturalness. Registration follows block. Agathoclea (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2014 (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]
21 July 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This account (the current one admitted with its first edited to being the already-blocked one) appeared suddenly and reignited a recently-resolved content dispute on Emperor Jimmu, as well as canvassing one side of that dispute. There's no way it's a new user, and its user name and writing style are typical of Kauffner. But the kicker is this edit summary: Kauffner thinks I am the same person as User:Shahwould (even though User:Salvio Giuliano CUed me and blocked all my other accounts while Shahwould was already active), as he demonstrated from one of his IPs here. User:In ictu oculi agrees with this probability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, compare "I'm allowed engage in sockpuppetry because Hijiri88 has multiple accounts, and you are definitely one of them" with "I'm allowed engage in sockpuppetry because Hijiri88 has multiple accounts, and you appear to be one of them". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vietnam-focused Kauffner would use the "Encyclopedia of Modern Asia" to edit an article on Japan's first emperor. Also, despite this account's absolute focus on this one Japanese topic, it seems pretty clear that he/she can't read Japanese which is similar to Kauffner. Compare Kauffner citing a children's book in an article on ancient Japanese history. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Favonian also appears to have given a handy summary on June 9. For some reason I can't copy-paste it, but it's the first three lines down to "Kauffner World". 182.249.52.174 (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's mobile)[reply]

@User:Bbb23:Sorry, I took this to be a "quack, quack" case. Googling my silly comment will indicate the relevance of the reference I was making. I thought it was funny. Anyway, In ictu oculi (who is much better at this than me) summed it up nicely. Here's another one though: Kauffner cited "Britannica, Columbia, Encarta and the Encyclopedia of Modern Asia", and Satanic Sheik later cited "Columbia, Encarta, the Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, Britannica and the Japan Encyclopedia". Also, note how unintuitive the use of an encyclopedia of modern Asia is in both an article on a medieval Vietnamese dynasty and an ancient Japanese emperor. An anachronism like this doesn't seem like it could be a simple coincidence. 182.249.240.9 (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, "Britannica, Columbia, Encarta" is a favourite phrase of Kauffner's: 1 in 4 of all instances of the phrase on English Wikipedia are associated with Kauffner, and all but three of the non-Kauffner uses are pre-2009. 182.249.240.9 (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]
  1. As I understand it from this page, Hijiri has 19 (!) "alternate accounts," not counting User:Shahwould. There is a blog that accuses Shahwould of being a Hijiri sockpuppet, so I thought I'd ask about it. At this point, I assume it's true. Otherwise, the story above doesn't make much sense.
  2. When I was blocked, a message was put on my talk page that said, "You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself." So I did.
  3. I did not actually write either of the things I am quoted to have said above, both of which are quite imaginative paraphrases. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you're saying is, you are the same Kauffner who has engaged in off-wiki communication with the (also banned) User:JoshuSasori and has commented on the blog he keeps on me? The blog where roughly 70% of the information is pulled completely out of his ass? Shahwould couldn't be me, because I was CUed and (on my request) all my alternate accounts were blocked, while Shahwould was already editing. I'm not the only one who thinks Wikipedia should conform to its own style guidelines: you yourself have agreed with me that we should have a consistent system and stick to it. The IP that JoshuSasori most recently accused me of being is yet another who agrees here. (And yes, I did technically violate WP:POINT by reverting said IP. Admins, please tell me off, and feel free to revert me.)
As for the paraphrases, they are just that: paraphrases. They don't claim to be anything else. The exact quotations are clearly visible, as I provided the diffs.
Admins: This user has already admitted to being a block-evading sockpuppet. There's probably no need for a CU, except to find more sleepers. Just block him now.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, this case is motivated Hijiri’s extreme sensitivity (or perhaps pride) in his numerous accounts. (For the record, I do not hold these against him at all. これが終わっ吹く後、私は神奈川県に来ると私たちは一緒に酒のボトルを持つことができます。) I note that Hijiri is more than up-to-speed regarding Shahwould-related issues, which is odd if in fact the account has nothing to do with him. The Estonian IP is playing a key role in this case, although there is no attempt to connect it either to me or to Kauffner. It's classified as a "sockpuppet of Einsteindonut.‎" The Satanic Sheik (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as I understand it Hijiri has been allowed to switch accounts as security from real life threats, and admins are aware of this. I'm not convinced this is Kauffner, but it is possible, alternatively this The Satanic Sheik sock is one of Woman Prisoner Scorpion User:JoshuSasori's many attack socks. In any case it's someone's sock, check user may shed light In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bbb23, Hijiri evidenltly hasn't filled out a SPI template before. However as you request here are diffs confirming it is Kauffner, check with User:Favonian:
(0) no evidence needed to show these two are same user/a name-change as the first edit of The Satanic Sheik admits it User:Bigger than Allah ‎ (I am now User:The Satanic Sheik.)
(1) The Satanic Sheik, first edit creates User page, second edit makes minor edit to an article from random article search as for example confirmed sock Super Licker
(2) Jokey (anti)Islamic name as per several previous socks Muslim Russia, Radical fundamentalist, Muhammad Ali Obama
(3) interest in moving Japanese/Chinese emperors confirmed sock The Smart Cheetah and others
(4) interest in South Korean girl bands Satanic Sheik vs confirmed sock Ten Muses and others
(5) Bigger than Allah first edit - removal of Japanese to language box same issue as confirmed sock Ten Muses same edit above
In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:

  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: There's no reason that this report is exempt from the usual requirements for cohesive, cogent evidence. The evidence provided assumes I know something about this master. I don't. Start at the beginning and explain things. The paraphrased links by the way are not helpful. I agree with Satanic Sheik that they are misleading, despite my ability to look at the diffs themselves. There was also no reason to hat the evidence (why would you do that?). It's the most important section in the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk endorsed. Thank you, @182.249.240.9, and @In ictu oculi for the added evidence. I'm now endorsing a CU based principally on #2, #4, and #5 of In ictu oculi's list and of the encyclopedia material from the IP. Along the lines of the latter, I've also looked at some of the blocked socks, and there is is an inordinate interest in standard reference works, like the Britannica, other enyclopedias (often unnamed), dictionaries, and atlases. There are also many dissimilarities between Satanic and the previous puppets (e.g., Satanic seems to be much more directly and aggressively attacking - others are more oblique and snarky), but I'm used to that at SPI, and I think there's enough to warrant a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not possible for CU to connect this back to Kauffner. Behavoir will have to do that.  No sleepers immediately visible though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk declined. I thought that because some of the blocked puppets were not stale, it was possible, but if not for whatever reason, I'm declining this report. My endorse was just barely above my threshold for endorsing a CU, and I don't think the behavioral evidence is strong enough to warrant a block without some technical evidence, even if not conclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Back with the same MO: opposing diacritics. Revisited an old RM target of Kauffner. Drive ahead linked to Kauffner's conservapedia webpage. TDL (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Yes that's 100% Kauffner, I asked him straight out on new User page and obliquely avoided it as previous, then left a message with another user that he was aware of this SPI. Suggest Checkuser for sleepers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    after this returns to the same page and continuing comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here King of all fruit identifies another account The great huha. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The great huha (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great huha is  Stale for CU purposes. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've indeffed and tagged the four accounts. I am taking no action against The great huha. As already noted, King of all fruit stated that he was previously The great huha but lost the password. I also checked all of the four accounts' contributions, and none of them starts earlier than the last edit by The great huha.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 October 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

First alerted to "new" experienced/active editor with Kauffner style activity in RMs by editor User:Richhoncho, and this edit citing Britannia in a Vietnam related RM was enough to ask the question "are you Kauffner" direct to Claimsworth on User talk page, user ignored and continued editing - a previous Kauffner behaviour. see also here citing Republic of Taiwan / Ireland names a former active area. Account has now stopped editing but expect there will be at least 1 or 2 sleepers concurrently active as in most previous SPIs so checkuser required. Should not be stale against two most recent cases. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a third. Unlike other two some edits of Bobby Martnen suggest Kauffner, some don't, if a Checkuser is done it will pick up sleepers so a separate check on Bobby Martnen may not be warranted. Leaving to Checkuser discretion. Many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC) See below:[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clued is almost certainly related. It looks like Kauffner is having trouble keeping track of his sockfarm. He forgot which account he had signed in with, replied to a discussion involving Clued with Claimsworth, and self-reverted when he realized he had used the wrong sock. Notice the identical edit summaries: [57]. TDL (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether Clued is a sock, but it does seem to be a SPA that was prepared in advance to argue various moves, etc. by proxy, at least it seems that way with respect to Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move. I say "seems" because this is just my opinion and not a statement of fact. Also, some of the arguments given by Clued showed a fairly detailed knowledge of Wikipedia and it's workings that one would not really expect from such a new account. This edit , in particular, shows a degree a familiarity with another editor's behavior and ANI that I would not be expect from an account only about 3 weeks old, especially an account with no history of interaction with the editor referred to in the post. I also saw the "Claimsworth" post referred to above and thought the self-revert was unusual, but didn't look any deeper. If this SPI is true, then it's really too bad because I think good-faith discussions are what help keep Wikipedia moving forward. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Kauffner and why am I being accused of Sock Puppetry? Bobby Martnen (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're evidently not, the fact that Kauffner's second sock above left you a message informing you of this SPI is characteristic behaviour demonstrating that Clued is a Kauffner sock and that you are not. Apologies, but some of your English-name edits at RMs were in the Kauffner area and there have been so many socks so frequently that it might have been relevant. But I have struck above. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
11 December 2014[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:QUACK the need to hunt for evidence is probably obviated by the most recent contuining RM votes ignoring "Sorry, but are you Kauffner?" on User Talk page, but if evidence is needed classic fixation on Merriam Webster and Britannica should be enough for any SPI admins who have already done Kauffner SPIs. Checkuser usually picks up 2 or 3 simultaneous socks. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

@DeltaQuad and Salvidrim: Kauffner is pretty prolific here. Is this something that would be suitable for a rangeblock, or filter that could preempt some of this? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed Mike V • Talk 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the very edge of the border of  Likely. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combined with the behavioral evidence that's good enough for me to call it: blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I stayed on the page too long and editconflicted with Favonian despite the 10 minute gap, but the action was the same. I'm kinda curious, DeltaQuad, how much difference there is between "on the very edge of the border of  Likely" and " Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)". ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gaijin42: Not too much that can be done. He's using webhosts at the moment, making it hard to pin down ranges. @Salvidrim!: it's a very very fine line. I would have said possilikely, but there was one very small piece of evidence which just inched it up. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
07 February 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


WP:QUACK. Asked if Kauffner on Talk page and as before account immediately ceased editing. Recent new account active interest in Japan Korea China, conservatism, moving after usual break into usual positions in variety of RMs. Probably familiar enough to those who have closed the preceding SPIs to dispense with blow by blow examples. But if new to this sock farm please ping me and I will illustrate. Usually one or two concurrent sleepers so checkuser needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2015 (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]
  • No clear sleepers. Although this is almost entirely on my experience with Kauffner and associated intuition I'd say it's technically  Possible to Kauffner. NativeForeigner Talk 21:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with the assessment, so off he goes. Closing. Favonian (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
27 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Asked if Kauffner on User Talk and account went dead. Starts with random token edits, moves to Asia, then to RMs as usual, should be familiar to SPI regulars by now. Checkuser usually picks up 1 or 2 other accounts. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2015 (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 Blocked as a duck; this edit being an example of a convincing quack. Support the request for CU. Favonian (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for CU this time around. The last few times came up negative for sleepers and there is only one account in the archive that isn't stale. Closing.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
29 April 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Usual random start, Asia Ireland and anti-muslim interest, funny German name editing with the wrong sock and then reverting and adding similar with the correct sock indicates Checkuser needed and possible In ictu oculi (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2015 (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]
  • As per usual, I have blocked the two ducks, and I (again) support the request for CU. Please notice that Kauffner is now opting for a longer gestation period with these two accounts both created in December and The initializer in January, so the likelihood of other sleepers seems high. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Endorsing sleepers check. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked, and, due to ridiculous IP hopping, it will be next to impossible to identify sleepers with all the unrelated users in his ranges. Closing, since there's nothing more that can be done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
02 June 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Quacking loudly. Usual first edits pattern. Responded to Talk page question "...Kauffner? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)" by going quiet for 27 days then coming back full throttle on the old diacritics hobby horse, citing Britannica etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2015 (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]
  • Yeah, that's him again. Blocked. Closing. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

06 September 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Quacking loudly, revisits old haunts, reopened RM Talk:Kinmen goes silent 3 days ago when asked on Talk page if Kauffner. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (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 Yep, same ol' same ol'. Blocked, closing. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 November 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Quack. Familiar Kauffner signs, if it's not him it's his twin brother. Account created with quirky name (see previous socks) with admission: (←Created page with 'I did my time on the edge, but from now on I'm staying on the safe side.'), and straight into a RM to remove a Japanese diacritic here. The rearguing old argument using Chicago Manual of Style here, and return to an old haunt a Serbian tennis player Kauffner succeeded in de-diacriticizing a few years back here. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:45, 22 November 2015 (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]

02 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets


Edit - withdrawn, couple of false positives, my apology to the user, this is the first time we've had a false positive in the long long list of socks. This can be closed and deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Since I was pingged on this, I'd like to say that i'm not seeing the diff suggesting that Wikimostafa is the same person as Kauffner. User:Wikimostafa is a new editor who is yet to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and I'm sure they will get it with time. Slamming such a new editor with allegations of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY with no clear evidence is not the best. In ictu oculi, please accept my apology if I got it all wrong. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, you'd have to scroll up to see previous cases. This one is in the envelope. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicology Thanks for your good faith, but I'm not a new user exactly (my first edit was in 2013 and I'm also a prolific user in persian wiki; because of somewhat poor english writing, i prefer to limit my edits in eng wiki to minor edits). The ridiculous note written above (about my username) by this user shows that he neither knows Muslims nor jokes:) Wikimostafa (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apology, the original editor, among other problems, has a history of anti-muslim edits, evidently that is not the case here, my complete apology again. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

01 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Same interests and preconceptions, and here expanding a comment by previous sock User:Fernando Safety, who then further edited it. Kanguole 13:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • Looks like Kauffner Jesus. This guy has shown up on like four separate articles to oppose my edits. It never even occurred to me that he might be Kauffner. I thought he was a meatpuppet of a completely separate banned user. But this makes sense. Virtually all of his edits so far have been to Chinese and Vietnamese topics, Kauffner's favourite area, but he also edited once or twice in Islam/IS articles, another place Kauffner likes editing. See also this overlap between Humbert and an earlier Kauffner sock. This is also rather suspicious: the Kauffner edit was right before his ban, and the only other edit to the page in between was a minor formatting one. Both users have also opposed moving the Genesis creation narrative article (I post the editor-interact link because Kauffner did so multiple times, and diffs are impractical). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nishidani and (the currently on a wiki-break) User:Curly Turkey received emails from me explaining whose meatpuppet I thought Humbert was. It's not really relevant here, though, as "dislikes Hijiri88, and frequently shows up to revert Hijiri88's edits" is actually another characteristic of Kauffner sockpuppets, and so my concerns were probably wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And as much as "opposes Hijiri" is decent evidence for a Kauffner sock, "opposes In ictu oculi" is QUACKing like hell. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that my recent ANI vote has sucked me into the Korea/Japan vortex. Various accounts were accused of being sockpuppets in that discussion, so the claims above can be seen as further recount activity. I must confess that I don’t actually follow Wikipedia’s Korea/Japan controversies very closely. User:TH1980 struck me as a decent guy under siege, so I threw in my two cents to help him out. I opened my Wikipedia account about fifteen months ago. Since then, I have written five articles that fulfill the requirements of Asian history month. In light of the comments above, I take that these questions were intended to test my dislike of Hijiri. The focus on this issue suggests that some narrowly self-centered thinking is going on. No, I didn't know you or feel anything about you at the time, but the questions did make me wonder if you had a hidden agenda of some kind. H. Humbert (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The instance I cited above of you showing up to revert my edits took place eight months before the incident you are talking about, on an article that had nothing to do with Korea. Also, I've corrected the URL you posted above. I'm not even going to comment on the gross AGF-violation at the bottom of your post. Whether or not you are Kauffner (and you almost certainly are), I would ask you to kindly buzz off and stop hounding me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong about one thing, it's not "somewhat" creepy ;). The name choice is pure Kauffner as well.--Cúchullain t/c 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FTR Gulangyu was quacking like crazy in some Talk:Baekje, WT:MOSKOREA and WT:MOS discussions in opposing diacritic usage and hounding me over the past few months, and it never even occurred to me that he was Kauffner. Just so no one ever accuses me of not taking AGF too far every single time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've blocked Gulangyu and Brother Twisted, their behavioral patterns being entirely convincing (this is a prime example). Notthebestusername needs more thought, if only because of the volume. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough there to make me swing the tool, though it is interesting that Notthebestusername was created in 2013, just when Kauffner really started circling the drain. Still, seems like a different person – good thing too. Favonian (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Favonian, it's good to know that my suspicions were confirmed by an expert. :-) Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. It's interesting that there are still so many of these multi-year socks out there.--Cúchullain t/c 19:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am notthebestusername. I am sorry, but I did not understand this message and notification that I have received. can you please clarify? I usually carry out edits (and make pages) of subjects that interest me, or that I learn something new of. and having been doing so since 2013. Am I doing somthign wrong / against Wikipedia guidelines? If so, please let me know as that is not my intent. Please do note that if there are ever any errors (for example: I had added maps with my own annotations), they have been inadvertent out of ignorance (I had removed those maps when someone pointed out to me that I must not take baidu or google maps screenshots and add my annotations to them)

I would like to continue to edit wiki pages, hence please do let me know if / what I am doing due to which my name is on this page. thanks a lot Notthebestusername (talk) 04:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added note from notthebestusername - please note that I access the net often from China. Most citations that I wish to place are not accessible (due to the GFW and blocked pages in China) without a VPN, hence I end up logging into Wikipedia through a vpn which probably shows my location as various places in the world. I think I understand that a sock is one person who uses multiple ids? I can assure you that I have only one id :) Notthebestusername (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


25 August 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

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]

03 November 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


The account's most recent edit (its first in two weeks) claims to have clashed with me in the past. If this claim is true, then Tivanir2 is definitely someone's sock, because I've never interacted wih either Tivanir2 or Tivanir1 before. The account's mainspace edits have almost all been to our Muhammad article, and the only Islam-interested editor I can remember conflicting with in the past is Kauffner.

Requesting CU because if this is Kauffner it means the account has been a sleeper who has somehow avoided being blocked for years, but moreso because there's a distinct possibility that it's someone else. Kauffner has historically been fairly careful about logging in to the right account at the right time, and this account's most recent edit looks like an accident resulting from editing from a device that was already logged into an account that had never interacted with me before. (Note that it's also possible, because they directly stated as much, that Tivanir2 is one of the several dozen users whose edits are currently live on ANI.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also this edit -- Tivanir jumps in to make a "soft support" one that is unlikely to be counted) to an RM that Kauffner opposed, which looks like an attempt to create artificial plausible deniability without actually endangering the "oppose" position Kauffner took. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note On deeper consideration, it seems at least as probable that Tivanir2 is Mr rnddude (talk · contribs). I didn't consider the possibility at first, since as far as I remember all my interactions with Mr have been positive, and in that particular thread I didn't consider myself to be "clashing" with him. On the other hand, Mr is the only third-party to have commented in that thread before Tivanir2, so if we take Tivanir2's wording as accurate then he was directly claiming to be Mr rnddude (he claimed to have already posted in the thread and referred to both Snow Rise and myself in the third person). If they are the same, then I don't think both accounts should be indeffed: Mr has in my experience been a good, honest, and helpful editor, and maintaining an undeclared alternate account for edits related to the (obviously controversial/dangerous) GamerGate controversy and Jihad Watch, and inclusion of images of the prophet Muhammad, seems like it falls under WP:VALIDALT as long as he is not seeking adminship. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above diff of the most recent edit has been removed from the public logs for whatever reason. The permalink to the subthread they started is here. Posting this because, while I know admins have access to the earlier diff, I recently seem to have all sorts of non-admins crawling out from nowhere to comment on everything I do, so I wouldn't be suprised if someone else showed up and claimed the diff I provided was broken. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralizationsAreBad: Yes, I noticed that, and I am aware of the webhosts, proxies, IP-hopping and so on (hence "somehow avoided being blocked for years"). But this user is definitely somebody's sockpuppet, since they openly admitted to having interacted with me before. The last time I opened an SPI of an obvious sockpuppet of someone with fairly weak evidence specifically connecting them to the proposed sockmaster, CU went ahead anyway, and the sockmaster turned out to be someone completely unrelated. Is that going to happen here? Or should I open Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr rnddude? Or (since I actually think that if it was Mr rnddude it was just a good faith mistake) should I just ask Mr rnddude if he accidentally posted from the wrong account? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:57, 3 November 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]

  •  Clerk note: I can't see the first diff (oversighted). There have been (by my count, at least, please feel free to correct me) about 27 CUs run in the Kauffner case, and this particular account has not come up. That being said, there is a history of webhosts, IP-hopping, and proxies here. GABgab 23:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...Myself and Hijiri have clashed on several instances in the past between this ANI thread and the one lower on the page." What exactly do you believe this means/refers to? I think the evidence tying this account to Mr rnddude is weak, but the bolded portion strongly suggests that the linked account (if any) was involved in a recent ANI dispute with you. GABgab 00:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fish CheckUser is not for fishing. This entire SPI is a fishing expedition. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

30 December 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Jokey name and returning to various Kauffner obsessions, eg the dating of Christmas ([64] vs. [65]), surreptitious removal of Vietnamese diacritics[66][67],[68][69], advocating removal of non-English names,[70], and participation in WP:RM.[71] Recently, the editor suggested moving Republic of the Congo to a name[72] similar to the one long advocated by Kauffner (see here). Requesting check user for reasons that should be obvious by now. Cúchullain t/c 16:18, 30 December 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]

Thanks, Bbb23. I'd regard the behavioral evidence as persuasive, especially as the account hasn't edited since this SPI was opened. However, I'll defer to other admins on what to do.--Cúchullain t/c 01:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'd agree that on behavioral evidence, The light bringer is also Kauffner. These edits are vintage Kauffner: arguing over the date of Christmas, arguing for English titles of articles, appeals to other encyclopedias and the Chicago style guide in RM. [73][74][75][76]--Cúchullain t/c 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed their contributions and based on these I have blocked both accounts as Kauffner socks. Closing. Favonian (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


  1. "10W40" opened an account on 7 January 2017. Their purpose seems to have been to take part in the WikiCup, as they immediately signed up for the WikiCup.[77]
  2. Their very next edit was to take up a GA review, presumably for the purpose of scoring points for the WikiCup.[78]
  3. On 28 April 2017, Round 2 of the WikiCup was about to end, and the number of points scored by "10W40" were insufficient to proceed to the next round. They nominated Proconsul for GA at 13.28.[79]
  4. With Round 2 of the WikiCup due to finish at 23.59 that day, new editor "Suspicious eyes" took up the review of Proconsul at 21.41.[80] "Suspicious eyes" account had been set up two days earlier, and this was their second edit. The GA pass of Proconsul was synchronous with taking up the review.
  5. At 21.50 on 28 April 2017, some 8 minutes later, "10W40" added Proconsul as a GA on their GA WikiCup submissions page.[81]
  6. After being told the next day that, as a WikiCup judge, I had removed the GA submission as ineligible,[82] some edits occurred on the WikiCup log page some twenty minutes later, which had the effect of reversing my rejection of the submission.[83] These were made, at 8.42 and 8.43, by new user "JAH0200", an account set up the previous day.
  7. I suspect that "10W40" is a banned editor operating multiple accounts. When they joined, they seemed familiar with Wikipedia editing and did not behave like a newbie. They seemed keen to progress in the WikiCup. New user "Suspicious eyes" took up the GA review of "10W40"'s GA nomination in the nick of time when "10W40" was about to be eliminated from the WikiCup. The review provided by "Suspicious eyes" was instantaneous and inadequate.[84] When I rejected the WikiCup submission, new user "JAH0200" was used in an attempt to try to reverse the decision. I believe that these three accounts are operated by the same person and are being used deceptively. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2017 (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]

Red X Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to disagree with @Bbb23: and call 10W40 and Suspicious eyes highly  Likely, despite the extensive proxy use by these socks. JAH still shows up as unrelated. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock indeffed. Master blocked for 7 days. Case closed. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Says in userpage ALPHA BOB (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

I am following proper procedure as outlined in WP:DG: "Compromised accounts: If you are unable to access your account because you have lost the password or because someone has obtained or guessed your password, you may create a new account with a clean password. In such a case, you should post a note on the user page of each account indicating that they are alternative accounts for the same person." 10W41 (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 40 minutes, ALPHA BOB has posted three messages about this matter on my talk page and another one on my user page. This is a harassment account that was created less than a week ago. 10W41 (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've indefinitely blocked 10W40 so the person cannot return to that account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Jokey name, same classic areas of interest : Korea, Chinese dynasties, alt-right topics, anti-diacritics, - and more importantly what used to happen, asked "Kauffner?" and stopped editing. Can expand if needed but SPI staff will probably recognise in a quick click through. Be worth doing a user check to see what other socks simultaneously active. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • @Sro23: sorry by requesting checkuser I meant a check for concurrent socks now, I realize that the old socks are all stale.As far as diffs admin Cuchullain just picked up a whole list I hadn't even spotted, which means that they are plentiful, ones I spotted included grumbling about titling of Zurich [85] and New York [86], old Kauffner bones. The edits on Gook, Christmas, almost every article the sock has touched really. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  •  Clerk declined - To the best of my knowledge all Kauffner socks have gone stale, so this will have to be evaluated behaviorally. @In ictu oculi: I'm not very familiar with this sockmaster, but I think I can understand where your suspicions are coming from. Could you provide some diffs that link Whiff of greatness to Kauffner? Sro23 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Kauffner to me. For a few recent examples, Whiff of greatness moved Insular Government of the Philippine Islands away from a title that Kauffner found issue with.[87] Also displays Kauffner's traditional interest in RM discussions, making effectively the same vote that Kauffner made in a previous RM at The Pentagon. I'm certain there are more socks out there, that's how Kauffner operates.--Cúchullain t/c 21:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The WP:DUCK is quacking very loudly. (Subject fields/NGrams/RM opinions) Recommend checkuser for sleeper socks. Agathoclea (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely need a sock check for anything Kauffner related.--Cúchullain t/c 13:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged Based on the statements from expert witnesses and my own experience with this editor, I'm calling it. Regarding a CU check for sleepers, I defer to the clerks. Favonian (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Tiresome. Having at first misread the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen sock Academicoffee71 as a Kauffner sock, today the still unblocked Academicoffee71 and an unnoticed Kauffner sock Great scott are apparently working together; including Great scott supporting Academicoffee71's RM at Talk:Điện Biên Phủ. I didn't notice Great scott, another editor Hzh did challenged Great scott about relation to Whiff of greatness (an already blocked Kauffner sock) here in relation to Whiff of greatness etymology edits to the main China article here partially reverted then partially repeated by the Great scott account, Great scott responded by blanking editor Hzh's enquiry. Also interact tool suggests Hzh's suspicion correct given small amount of edits of both new accounts and overlap on several unrelated articles. Note in particular Great scott switching to Whiff of greatness account Insular Government (Philippines) and Talk page of Insular Government (Philippines) featuring all three: Kauffner, Great scott, Whiff of greatness culminating in repeating an article move done by Kauffner in 2013. And again all three accounts (Kauffner, Whiff of greatness and Great scott) making similar etymology and name related edits on both the all 3 accounts in edit history of Gook article and edit all 3 accounts in history of Viet Cong article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added SillyBear based on this edit to an RM at former Kauffner target My Tam. Kauffner had moved the article to remove diacritics in 2011 based on a list of sources.[88][89] SillyBear's list includes a source mentioned by Kauffner as well as encyclopedias Britannica and Columbia, favorites of Kauffner's. The account is clearly not a new user, as evinced not only by their familiarity with RM but by their second edit where they jump in the middle of a user talk discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • This account has been flying under the radar for some time, so useful to check for sleeper socks. Agathoclea (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • DeltaQuad, you ran CU on Great scott a while ago--anything to report that you recall? Drmies (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK--Great scott = 10W41 = Whiff of greatness. 10W41 was blocked pertaining to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/10W40/Archive; this may well be too complicated for me and someone please follow up to see what all I'm missing as I'm going through like an elephant in a porcelain shop. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU and Kauffner experts, please look at User:Whatever forever! and User:SillyBear.--I hadn't seen that SillyBear was listed here; their style and idiosyncrasies are those of Great scott and I'll block (CU revealed a few more proxies, that's all--BTW admins can see that SillyBear was doing a really creepy thing with someone's user page). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: I agree that Great scott, 10W41, and Whiff of greatness are  Confirmed. I find SillyBear  Likely. The days of 10W40 are blurry, but it's seemingly familiar. I've seen too many joe jobs just to take someone admitting to being a sock at their word, even with a similiar username. Those familiar with behaviors should review the connection of 10W41 to 10W40 before a merge is done. Whatever forever! has way too little for me to be running checks without a clear connection. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavior matches.  Clerk assistance requested: Merge with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/10W40. ~ Rob13Talk 00:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, no thanks to a couple database errors. It looks like nothing more to do here, so I've marked closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Jokey name and many common edits on several disparate Kauffner fixations, including Chinese history and dynastics, List of pretenders, Christmas, WP:DAB, and WP:RM as can be seen in the editor interaction utility. Same appeals to Britannica and Columbia on titling matters.[90][91][92] Quacking especially loudly is this RM, the same move and arguments made by Kauffner 6(!) years earlier here. Also compare these arguments[93][94] to Kauffner's here. Requesting CU as is necessary for all Kauffner SPIs due to likelihood of sleepers. Cúchullain t/c 20:11, 20 September 2018 (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]

  • Definitely Kauffner and blocked as such. Support request for sleeper sweep. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sleeper check not necessary, and this case is stale anyway. Closing. Sro23 (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sro23, why isn’t it necessary? The account was editing as of September 20, and he usually has sleepers.Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the archive, more often than not he doesn't have sleepers, and there are no non-stale accounts to compare to, so CU is declined. Sro23 (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

01 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


FineStructure137 is classic Kauffner. It displays many of Kauffner's fixations, including Christmas and its dating,[95] requested moves (including to remove Vietnamese diacritics),[96] the Chicago Manual of Style,[97] and general Asian topics.[98] The lazy mouse is stale, but needs to be blocked as it's also obviously Kauffner. The jokey name is vintage Kauffner, as are the focus on pretenders,[99] in particular Chinese pretenders,[100] requested moves. Flagging for CheckUser but the CheckUsers can make the call whether to do that. Cúchullain t/c 13:09, 1 May 2019 (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]

FineStructure137 is  Likely, blocked and tagged. Slithytoad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a slightly better technical match but  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. @Cuchullain: I don't see the point in blocking The lazy mouse as it hasn't edited in almost a year, but you're free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23. Slithytoad hasn't edited pages Kauffner has hit before, but edits like these[101][102] show his same interest in conservative American politics. Edits like these[103][104] share his interest in RM as well as a knowledge of relevant practices that seem unlikely for a new account; it's notable that the second one advocates using an English title over a foreign one, which is of course vintage Kauffner. Here, Slithytoad suggests using Merriam-Webster to determine an article title, something Kauffner does frequently.[105][106] I wouldn't say it's a lock, so I wouldn't want to rush to judgment, but consider this along with the technical evidence.--Cúchullain t/c 13:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cúchullain, do the further edits help you form an opinion on this? I usually prefer admins who are familiar with cases action them. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni: Sorry for missing this. I'm still not comfortable saying this is Kauffner based on behavioral evidence. I'll keep an eye on it if it returns to edit in the future.--Cúchullain t/c 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This user has been participating in RMs since they started editing Wikipedia. I don't know if this is the right master, but the behavior seems to be similar. They use the arguments for Britannica and Columbia [107]. Interstellarity (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a similar user page to another sock. See [108] Interstellarity (talk) 12:18, 1 July 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]

  • information Administrator note Since the last report on file is a year old, I suspect that CU data is stale. I have decided to block the account based on behavioral evidence (in addition to the above, his interest in Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy is one obvious clue, but there are others). I'll leave the report open, in case CheckUsers want to chip in. Favonian (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for us, esp since it's all stale. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This user just registered a month ago. Makes same arguments as other socks. Diffs: [109], [110]. Interstellarity (talk) 15:09, 12 October 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]

  •  Clerk declined - as noted in the archives, the CU data for this case is stale. Furthermore, the account reported at the time is now also stale for CU. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note: Based on years of experience with this person, I have blocked the account on behavioral evidence. Closing. Favonian (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Seems to be advertising that he is Kauffner as a plea for attention:

both rescuscitating an otherwise-forgotten pseudo-controversy of his from 2013. Kanguole 09:45, 3 November 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]

08 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

All contributions revolve around administrative areas worldwide (as with Kauffner). Many of those in Vietnam [111] (as Kauffner). Hangs around Requested Moves for administrative units [112][113]. Belligerent [114]; all of Talk:Allan_Mustard. Changed "Rayon" to "District" in their virtually second edit [115]. The two IPs have similar features, and have supported the RM initiated by TerraCyprus at Talk:Comune and Talk:Gmina. No such user (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm an experienced sleuth, but my gut feeling is pretty strong here. I'm aware that IPs technically ought not be connected with named accounts, but... may I suggest at least that those two are the same as TerraCyprus, and violating WP:SOCK – they support TC and vice versa in those recent discussions? No such user (talk) 23:04, 8 December 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]

  • In previous CU requests, they were declined for accounts being stale. This applies to this case as well. No useful data will show up. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sro23! I thought that it wouldn't be worth it, since there would be nothing to compare. However, I see that I can use the data from those checks to compare to this account. So, yes I absolutely can. Sorry, I'm still a new Checkuser. Be easy on me, maybe only five lashings? ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X Unrelated/ Inconclusive. Different countries, same user agent - but a very common one. I'd rely on behavioral evidence with this case. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I'm just not seeing enough to call TerraCyprus a sock based on behavior alone, certainly not given the CU result. I've dropped {{uw-login}} on their talk page, but that's as far as I think this can go. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Identical topic focus at Talk:Anne, Queen of Great Britain with known sock puppet Whiff of greatness (talk · contribs) DrKay (talk) 22:33, 29 December 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]

  • Jasp7676 and Whiff have very different editing patterns in terms of how many edits per month. Jasp is into TikTok, Whiff isn't. Two editors agreeing that a page should not be moved is hardly reason to suspect socking. Closing with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


-- GreenC 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I began to suspect as much myself after Johnbod mentioned the 2006 discussion in which the article (then at Dark Ages and now at Dark Ages (historiography)) was delisted as a good article and Kauffner made similar arguments as ThuDauMot. I'm not sure it is conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry, but it is ironic that ThuDauMot is making such a big deal that SDZeroBot gave a GA rating to the new article. older ≠ wiser 18:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bkonrad good find, added to the evidence section A.6. -- GreenC 22:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that Kauffner's arguments in the archives tend in the same direction as ThuDauMot, who seems to have a straightforward "EMA=Dark Ages" position. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod: apples and oranges because both Kauffner and ThuDauMot actually agree historians use the term. ThuDauMot is arguing for a new article with a "subject viewpoint" (a POV article) that emphasizes the collapse aspect, which is a new idea, it never came up 12 years ago. A user can return later with a new organization idea. -- GreenC 22:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tamzin thank you for the analysis and finding the IP6, which looks like the same behavior wise IMO. Kauffner has a deep interest in this topic, he even wrote an entire article in draft User:Kauffner/Europe_in_the_Dark_Ages where again we see Henry Hallam. Notably, Henry Hallam is not in User:Crotalus horridus/Dark Ages which ThuDauMot claims he based Dark Ages (Europe) on. Likewise, dark earth can be found in both the Kauffner and ThuDauMot version, but not the Crotalus version. There are likely other overlaps. It seems ThuDauMot based the article on the Kauffner version, but misdirected attention away from Kauffner by saying it was based on Crotalus. -- GreenC 18:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This is a very well put-together set of evidence. The degree to which Kauffner and TDM agree on the "Dark Ages" issue cuts both ways: It provides significant behavioral evidence, but also means we have to find evidence distinguishing this from two people who share a niche POV. No matter how obscure a POV, there's probably more than one person who has it. With that in mind, the two most compelling similarities vis-à-vis "Dark Ages" are points A2 and A3. The similarity of checking the OED to see if the term has a Latin origin is definitely suspect. As to A4, it's not quite true that no one else has mentioned Hallam in this context on enwiki: 2601:189:8200:CFF0::/64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), here. I'm not sure if that's a plausible geolocation (Framingham, MA, U.S.; at least currently is not a known proxy), but this edit by that /64 at least matches Kauffner's known POV on GENSEX. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive § 15 October 2013; I could also point to some choice words he had about my sexual orientation after I voted to CBAN him.) Trying to gauge the popularity of this in off-wiki contexts, [116] suggests it's indeed a niche view, but I'm still hesitant to conclude that no two people could share it. Likewise, using "essay" as an insult for writing one finds non-factual is definitely relevant, but far from unique. Finding an old Dark Ages draft that Kauffner interacted with is definitely suspicious.
    The burderns of proof for a behavioral sockblock are always 1) to show why the user could plausibly be a sock and 2) to show why the user could not plausibly not be a sock. The first is definitely accomplished here, so let's move to the second. The big thing that jumps out is the username. It suggests that TDM shares Kauffner's view in Vietnamese diacritics in English, which was one of the things Kauffner got banned for refusing to drop the stick over. They also exhibit strong feelings on romanization in their edits [117] [118] [119]—not Vietnamese diacritics this time, but pinyin; see 3K008P9. So instead of one coincidence to buy, that'd be two.
    Based on all this, I tend to agree that this is Kauffner, but I was hoping for some third point of similarity and don't see one yet. So I'd appreciate another clerk or admin's input. Favonian, I see your name all over the archive here. Do you have any thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tamzin! I hoped to have seen the last of this one, but I'll try to study the meticulously prepared case for the prosecution later this evening. Favonian (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are way too many similarities for this to be a coincidence, so I've blocked ThuDauMot and will close this case. Thanks to everyone contributing, especially GreenC! Favonian (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that TDM is CU-confirmed to 99to99, who was blocked earlier by Favonian. Zzuuzz of Ponyo, if you're around, would you mind having a look as well at ThuDauMot, the IP with the many accounts on it? You'll see why I don't get it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Agree about those two accounts. Hopefully the CU log now shows some helpful information about the other thing. I'd class it as no concern. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 August 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

After making 10 edits to enable editing, this account immediately moves into Kauffner's area of interest - Vietnamese names and spellings: [120]. After a short break they move into Kauffner's particular speciality - removal of diacritics: [121]. They then get back to slow-mo edit warring their earlier changes: [122] [123] [124] [125]. More focus on Vietnamese names: [126] [127]. Note the Viet Cong article was a particular focus of Kauffner: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] (later sock [135]). Here they are making very similar edits with very similar edit summaries 14 years earlier: [136] [137].  Looks like a duck to me Cambial — foliar❧ 10:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging veteran Kauffner sock-spotter @Favonian: who can probably spot other behavioural similarities. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:26, 22 August 2023 (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]

  • "veteran Kauffner sock-spotter" – that one definitely goes on my LinkedIn profile. All 72trombones blocked for having produced a tuneful and loud quacking. Favonian (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kauffner/Archive&oldid=1172201355"