Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive


14.0.180.170

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

22 December 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 118.140.95.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 218.255.111.214 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 124.217.189.46 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 219.76.15.143 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 219.76.24.215 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 210.0.147.24 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP keeps hopping to a new IP to make another !vote at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and other Hong Kong-related articles. Same arguments, same hostility, all geolocate to Hong Kong. —valereee (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (Valereee's comment was edited at 18:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC) with no new timestamp.[1] 219.76.24.202 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by other users

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

  • 219.76.15.143 - contribs, geolocates to same area. Atsme 💬 📧 18:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • —Valereee 15:32, 22 December 2020 and Atsme 18:49, 22 December 2020 above: This nomination to undo a non-discussed, POV blanking and merge deals with a Hong Kong-related list, and "same area" here means the same country Hong Kong. The same would likely happen if a France- or Canada- or Denmark- list is nominated. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • —Valereee 19:05, 22 December 2020 below: What do you expect from a territory where the like of martial law has been imposed for months by an occupying power from across their borders? What's the point of aligning yourself with an evil power? Or perhaps you're new to this planet? Administrators got the duty to study the circumstances before they act to freeze the pages with any particular versions. 219.76.24.215 (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As suggested by Jokulhlaup the Hong Kong and the Macau lists were separate lists[2][3] until Atsme and Valereee forced it through and freezed it against the rule they claimed that discussions are required to blank a page or section and to merge or split.[4] 1.36.63.82 (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert them to their original states. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They belong in the article List of lighthouses in China, and the redirects are the correct procedure because neither standalone passes GNG. We have already explained what procedures you need to take and all we're getting from you is WP:NOTTHERE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You have also been advised that WP is WP:NOTSOAPBOX or WP:NOTADVOCACY. We have done all we possibly do to help you, so if you continue on this same disruptive path, don't be surprised if you find yourself in a rangeblock. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (In response to Atsme's edit summary too[5]) No you didn't explain, did you? You only threw out all those policies with no explanation. And no they don't belong to List of lighthouses in China in the first place. Neither was that the status quo. You simply force your own way through without any discussion or community consensus. And you still aren't showing any sign of stopping. Please bear in mind that no one is wiser or more trustworthy just because he or she got an account or a dozen of barnstars – my two cents. 219.76.24.202 (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) IP 219.76.24.215, my personal empathies are not factored into my work as a WP editor. I am a pragmatist when it comes to editing WP, and that is not going to change. I have patiently tried to explain to you how to potentially achieve your goals, but it must be done in a collegial manner that is compliant with WP:PAG. Edit warring and WP:PA against other editors neither helps your situation nor does it encourage others to work with you. I suggest that you stop the advocacy-like behavior, read WP:RS & WP:NPOV and find the independent sources that support splitting those sections into standalone articles. I am certainly open-minded and willing to be convinced if you change your behavior and provide the proper sources that support a spin-off of those sections, but make no promises in advance. It must be a decision based on WP:CONSENSUS. I also recommend that you register your account as it will further substantiate that you are not block evading or sock puppeting, and actually are here to help build an encyclopedia. Atsme 💬 📧 13:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our fellow Wikipedians from Hong Kong have kept everyone (including you and Valeree) informed of the fact that there's an established convention on Wikipedia and elsewhere to list each dependent territory (not just limited to Hong Kong and Macau, but more than a dozen of these entities) separately with their own lists and categories, and their own entries on lists.[6] I notice you are relatively new to Wikipedia but you certainly aren't new to this world. All you got to do is to get around Wikipedia and to have a quick look at some other reputable sources. This is all about (Wikipedia:)common sense. Yet you resorted to argueing that you kickstarted the discussion here (hours) earlier than other people did and you got the right to choose where and what to discuss. And you and Valeree resorted to kill the arguments other Wikipedians have put forward there. Then you two simply disregarded the very fundamental fact that the Hong Kong list was merged without any discussion, and you even acted to fold the Macau list. You don't even dare to admit you forum-shopped while other Wikipedians are already working to launch a talk page discussion. You simply went head and accused us for not doing so. What's the point of playing all these? And you even went so far to accuse others for PA, while that's exactly what you've been doing (perhaps unintendedly and unawarely). Could you please take a step back and stay cool and study how things should be before coming up with all these? On a side note for apparent reasons Hong Kong Wikipedians have tended not to stick with permanent accounts and access Wikipedia through dynamic (i.e. non-static) IPs especially since few months ago. There's no point to hunt for sockpuppets (out of a multi-million people territory dominated by less than a handful of ISPs). Doing so only reveals how ignorant and disconnected from the rest of the world you have been. 218.189.215.212 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me for asking this, but (since you made laughable, disruptive edits like these,[7][8]) are you actually fit to edit entries in this area? Or do you actually know that any editor got the duty to familiarise him/herself with the subject matters he/she works on? It's an attitude issue I'm afraid. Do you know Hong Kong have sent their own teams to the Olympics since the 50s and entered into bilateral and multilateral treaties on their own, and that Hong Kong and Macau have their own currencies, football World Cup teams, and so on and so forth? And do you know what "50 cent party" members have been doing all around the internet? Meanwhile are you able to demonstrate why so many other dependent territories have their own lists and categories on virtually all topics on Wikipedia, and why they appear alongside other countries on lists compiled by, say, the Economist, had it not been a matter of common sense? You (and Valeree) may be good faith editors and have always been acting in good faith but what ended up were indeed misfortune to the Wikipedia community, especially to Wikipedians from Hong Kong and Macau (and perhaps some other dependent territories). 218.189.215.212 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have tried to explain? You haven't actually explained have you? 219.76.24.202 (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valereee @19:33, 22 December 2020 - Cabayi, if they don't CU an IP to a registered user, what's the purpose in having CU? Atsme 💬 📧 13:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk note: Valereee, in these circumstances, with throwaway SPA IPs I'd normally opt for semi protection of the talk page but you've already semi-protected the article to encourage the IPs onto the talk page. Blocking the abandoned IPs isn't going to prevent anything. Was there anything in particular you were hoping for as an outcome here? Cabayi (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi, I was wondering if these IPs could maybe be connected back to a sockmaster at some point, maybe several iterations in the past. I didn't think it was likely. :) I was just like...wtf do I do in this case? I really don't know and was just hoping someone would go, "Eureka! The missing link we've been looking for!" :) —valereee (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CU's won't connect IPs to named users, Valereee. And we poor clerks get told off if we ask. Maybe a strategic pause for a passing CU to notice the case and act on their own volition is the way to go? ;-) Cabayi (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do they complain if we just sort of loiter here waiting for them to happen by? —valereee (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21 January 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 203.145.95.250 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 219.76.24.202 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 124.217.189.34 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 124.217.189.123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 219.73.73.176 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 223.197.192.15 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 219.73.73.107 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • 220.246.55.231 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

IP socks with the same identical behavior, hopping about but has now also continued to make frivolous edit requests on talk pages, vote stacking, and removing those who are against such changes. Just as how Valereee had reported almost a month ago, they have the same arguments, same hostility, and all geolocate to Hong Kong. Not sure as to how IPs are supposed to be addressed. See here for one example.

Other examples:

Some IP ranges:

  • 203.145.95.0/23
  • 219.76.24.0/23
  • 124.217.189.0/23
  • 219.73.73.0/23 ShelteredCook (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I can't tell it is a sock or meatsock. And those kid and teen from lihkg has a track record of running offsite canvassing (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinazi (2nd nomination)) and has a telegram group. E.g. this thread and a screenshot of such group https://lihkg.com/thread/2373493/. Not sure should i join the cult and ask them nicely why they feel not registering is good as well as why not revive the dead project WP:WPHK. Matthew hk (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And i guess right after 124.217.189.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (from ISP HGC's non ISP subsidiary Domain Five Enterprises) and 219.76.24.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (PCCW's HKT Limited's Netvigator) were blocked, he (or another meat?) immediately hooped to 223.197.192.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (from ISP PCCW) and comment in Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong#Edit war. Matthew hk (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While 218.189.215.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (from ISP HGC) is still active (the ip was also reported , see the archive), but more likely a meatsock. Matthew hk (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See also my filing in Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests/Archives/38#124.217.128.0/18. Matthew hk (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the website that you had linked are pretty good evidence of a significant meatpuppet operation. It probably started as sockpuppetry, and was then supported by meatpuppetry after posts were made about them or shared. It kinda makes sense as to why they all geolocate to Hong Kong, despite being of different IPs and telcos. I doubt they are interested in making an account on here, as their behavior tends to imply making swift (usually POV) edits with little to no discussion over them as well as vote stacking with a subtle malicious intent. ShelteredCook (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They do have public thread to teach people to POV edit in zh-wiki on pro-Beijing politicians wiki article and those pro-democrat . https://lihkg.com/thread/2358050/ Not sure are they have any thread in telegram group about en-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence that the entries concerned were discussed on LiHKG or the Telegram channel? Or the English version of Wikipedia in general? If yes please quote the corresponding post IDs. 219.73.73.107 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You made yourself into the collateral damage zone. By not creating an account , and within January, likes the blocked sockmaster, edited Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong and Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong and especially emerged in the talk page after the ip are blocked. Matthew hk (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you are blaming the victims, the victims you made? 219.73.73.107 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with 219.73.73.107 above. Matthew hk would have to submit the relevant post IDs from LiHKG or the Telegram channel. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, meatsock keeps emerging.... Add 219.73.73.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (related to Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong and Country, where the blocked ip 124.217.189.34 also edited) Matthew hk (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add 220.246.55.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Related to List of lighthouses in China and Talk:Military of Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind your language Matthew. Many Hongkongers are editing without any account. They aren't meatsocks, nor do they recently "emerg[ed]". I just checked 220.246.55.231's contribution history and that can confirm that he or she has edited since quite some time ago. I myself edited the Holy Trinity Cathedral entry quite some time ago too and have been watching it. 219.73.73.107 (talk) 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why someone start a cult that not registering an account. But at least User:Citobun and User:Kdm852 seems came from HK. And lots of other retired user, likes User:Ricky@36. Admin can tells they are very very different editors by edit history and area of interest. But you guys that keep on editing a few articles within a month (week), setting a trap for mass blocking all of the ip. (Articles are Country, List of lighthouses in China, Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong, Military of Hong Kong, which all (but the lighthouse) of them is not appeared in WP:WPHK and high likely canvassed off-site (place other than wikipedia)). Matthew hk (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

high likely canvassed off-site

Is this wishful thinking or is it based on evidence which are capable to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

Not sure why someone start a cult that not registering an account.

Did you read the news about what'd happened?
(What'd been wrong with Country, by the way?) 219.73.73.107 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Filer of this SPI, ShelteredCook, determined that the ip 124.217.189.34, (now blocked), is edit warring at Country article and unfortunately , your (219.73.73.107) edit, Special:Diff/1000958824 is almost right after 124.217.189.34's edit. It is an unfortunate coincidence or off-site collaboration as meat. Matthew hk (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other "coincidence". You and the ip also edited Ma Tau Chung within 12 hours. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In specific, Category:Ma Tau Chung was requested to be create by 124.217.189.34 (see User talk:2pou or Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories) on 20 January but the cat was added to Ma Tau Chung by you (219.73.73.107) Special:Diff/1001336233 on 19 January. Matthew hk (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
People may just look at recent changes linked of the index on HK-related topics. And hold on was that you who depopulated Category:Ma Tau Chung while submitting it to CfD? 223.197.192.15 (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC) 13:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Special:RecentChangesLinked/Hong Kong are flooded with a lot of not related article so that it seems you and other people really did find a way to specific targeting Country, List of lighthouses in China, List of countries without armed forces, Military of Hong Kong and another subset Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong, Ma Tau Chung and the cat spamming . Matthew hk (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for chipping in, but what exactly is the problem with the edits to Country? Is there any edit to the List of countries without armed forces? 1.64.46.31 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I said the index on HK-related topics, not Hong Kong. The Index of articles related to Hong Kong.., to be precise. Please read carefully if you're indeed an English speaker from Hong Kong and not just somebody who pretends to be a Hongkonger. Thanks. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? Why? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add blocked 124.217.189.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) purely for documentation . It seems they are quite interested on POV edit on Country. Matthew hk (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew hk came to my user talk page to canvass and to ask me to join the discussion here. From what I read he has yet to submit any actual evidence and what he wrote above suggests that he seems to have confused the relations between HGC and HTHK vis-á-vis H3G, and so on. He's getting around to tag any Hong Kong IP address he's come across as meat-sock and open proxy. This is PA and abuse of Wikipedia redress mechanisms. Counter action may be needed towards this aggressive user (who appears to be struggling even to express himself in English, although he claimed he's been in Australia for too long and portrayed himself to be a Hongkonger). 223.197.192.15 (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 223.197.192.15 is replying my comment at User talk:219.73.73.107, not sure he/she/they/non-binary want to prove the ip hopping or just reply on behalf of other editors. Matthew hk (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i am trying to isolate the meatsock with ips that look like more clear cut ip hopping. 220.246.55.231 and 223.197.192.15 both have strange habit of using maintenance template (which should be used in main namespace only) in talk page. Such as edit my comment to add need translation tag Special:Diff/1002416079. add a cn tag to the Template:ISP the talk page header Special:Diff/1002413308.
More "loose" evidence is Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong that 223.197.192.15 think i am not Hongkonger enough when staying in Australia (you can check original wording there) or mentioning the 50 cent sarcasm, or edit summary personal attack (or just gossip) Special:Diff/1002416353, which the entry was at first added by the blocked ip 124.217.189.34 Special:Diff/1001777905. This kind of battleground behaviour seems quite unique and so far i can't find similar yet from the edits of the blocked range 219.76.16.0/20 and 124.217.188.0/23 but i haven't check all the edits.
And whatever it is offsite canvassing or just checking recent related edits of Hong Kong article , Talk:List of countries without armed forces became new vote stacking battleground anyway and a lot of dependent territories are flooded to the list (edit: vote stacking and revive the old threads to try to add to the list 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)) and seems related to previous battleground Talk:Military of Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an unusual proposal here. This rangeblock, and similar ones for other HK ISPs, is going to have massive collateral damage. But if one of the characteristics of this sockmaster / troop leader is that they refuse to register an account, then surely the appropriate solution here is to temporarily soft-block the IP range from editing without logging in but permit account creation? Deryck C. 13:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan, I didn't even know we could do that! How? —valereee (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Untick the "block account creation" checkbox. As an example, I've done that for one IP range where I've received a complaint about collateral damage. See Special:Log/114797907. Feel free to revert if there's any evidence anyone's been creating accounts from this IP range to stack votes with socks. Deryck C. 09:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting...that would be for the entire range, then? I've never dealt with ranges. I'm afraid you're talking to someone whose primary contribution to technical issues is to discover where the instructions aren't sufficient for idiots to be able to follow. :D —valereee (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The semi-protection policy does explicitly allow semi-protection on pages subject to vandalism or edit warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address-changing schemes. As a first measure, I have semi-protected Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong for 3 months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree FWIW, most of the disruptiveness has been on article talk pages. It's very strange. I kind of feel like the talk is what needs to be protected, but obviously it's also very weird to protect the talk unless the article is protected. I've been struggling with this lol... —valereee (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    🙂 I personally wouldn't protect the talk page per Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Article_talk_pages ("Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism."). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Quite the mess we have here. It looks like most of the disruption has been slowed through a few judicious rangeblocks (and at least one global block). Given the wide, wide range of IPs, rangeblocks and strategic page protection (even the talk page, if the disruption is overwhelming the legitimate discussion) are the best approach in case of future disruption. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 1.64.46.233 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

Seems to still be the person whose previous block at this address expired less than 24 hours ago--Chinese geography warring, based on edits at Wanzai, Small Hengqin and Great Hengqin islands. Largoplazo (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Already blocked for a month by Tamzin. Closing. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 203.80.252.238 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

1122028262, 1122210712, 1122025344, addition of obscure Hong Kong location names such as New Kowloon, Victoria City and Rennie's Mill, matching description of WP:HKGW. LuciferianThomas 03:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Re @ToBeFree: Special:Diff/1082290553/1114981417 made by one of the IPs you listed vs Special:Diff/1122028262 from the reported IP. --LuciferianThomas 13:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree side question: if I further find IPs or accounts related to this LTA, should I continue on submitting it to this exact case or another case would be better? LuciferianThomas 14:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Tough question, LuciferianThomas. I'm unsure. All I personally do in such cases is comparing blocked users' behavior to non-blocked users' behavior, and then copying the block (with its original duration) to the new IP address. That's what WP:BE allows me to do without even evaluating if the behavior was disruptive or the original block was justified. I have not compared 203.80.252.238 to 14.0.180.170 as this would not affect my decision anyway.
     Clerk assistance requested: Perhaps an SPI clerk could provide advice. I'm relatively sure all this is read before archival, but to make sure your question is heard, I'll mark this as a "clerk request". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following IP addresses and accounts listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior are currently directly blocked from editing: 42.200.166.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 210.3.168.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 219.76.24.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), KTKcreator (talk · contribs).
    The investigation request currently does not provide evidence that any of them, or any other blocked account/IP address, are used by the same person as 203.80.252.238. The "master" IP address this was filed for is currently not blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, oh well okay, I see it now. Thank you very much, LuciferianThomas. Blocked, closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as the current IP is blocked. To answer LuciferianThomas & ToBeFree's questions, we generally discourage IP-only SPIs but as this seems to be an ongoing LTA case, I think it's OK to keep reporting them here. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

28 November 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

  • 58.152.55.95/25 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

Edits involving "New Kowloon" again (1123748501), multiple IPs used in same range (58.152.55.95, 58.152.55.33). LuciferianThomas 14:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When clerks or sysops check on this case, please be noted to check on the history of this case page. IP was making moves that might confuse others. LuciferianThomas 05:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

HenryLi, WhisperToMe and Underwaterbuffalo are the contributors who write New Kowloon the most often. And this has been the case since almost two decades ago. 112.120.8.33 (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Looks like them to me, and if I'm reading things right they've been using this range a while. Range blocked three months. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/14.0.180.170/Archive&oldid=1125587239"