Destinyseeker89

Destinyseeker89 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

05 December 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

See below. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2021 (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]

18 December 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

As the editor interaction page shows, both the editors are obsessed with China's Debt-trap diplomacy issues and the related pages: Belt and Road Initiative and Hambantota International Port. The arguments being made are pretty much the same, as is the content being added/deleted.

For example,

The same obsessive zeal from both the editors: Nvtuil made 12 edits to Debt-trap diplomacy on 23 July 2021. Oppo48 made 15 edits (and counting) to the same page today! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't notice that Nvtuil was already identified as a sock of MangoTareeface9.
@Drmies and TonyBallioni: I hope one of you can take a look at this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2021 (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]

05 February 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both users

a) consistently structure their edit summaries in the same idiosyncratic way - MangoTareeface9 ([1], [2], [3]) and WesternChristianitytestballi ([4], [5], [6])

b) repeatedly use the phrase “neutral language” in their edit summaries - MangoTareeface9 ([7],[8]) and WesternChristianitytestballi ([9], [10], [11])

c) share interests in certain topics or topic areas (example China and its athletes’s participation in the Olympics)

d) share the same pro PRC bias

e) demonstrate the same pattern and style of edit warring

f) appear to be from Australia - MangoTareeface9 ([12]) and WesternChristianitytestballi ([13]) Estnot (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2022 (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]
-- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18 December 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I believe that the two accounts in question are being used as sockpuppet accounts based on my interpretation of the existing facts. My suspicions were first raised when my removal of content [15] that was written by Simpleshooter99 [16] was immediately reverted by Dragonkingluv23 [17] on an article that had until our exchange very little edits to it. Further investigations revealed more oddities. These included heavy involvement in disputes by both users concerning User:FobTown, shared orthography and use of syntax (example set one: [18] and [19]) (example set two: [20] and [21]) (example set three: [22] and [23]) and a shared modus operandi which has included: an intense focus and aggressive patrolling on a small number of articles, all edits being made on a mobile device and consistent use of paragraph-long edit sumaries. My deepest apologies to all if the accounts do not turn out to be sockpuppets but there are simply too many similarities here for them to be dismissed simply as “coincidences.” Stormandfury (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It should first be emphasized that Dragonkingluv23 doesn't truly edit the same articles as mine. So there's no deliberate socking.[24] I created Dragonkingluv and only edited like 3 articles. Then I stopped completely.

Then many months later I created Simpleshooter99 without thinking too much. I started editing from that account however I Noticed on October that a sock of Fobtown was undoing my edits on an article that Dragonkingluv had edited on.

And if I edit that same article that Dragonkingluv had edited on using Simpleshooter99. Then that would be against the rules.

I also knew that Fobtown is obsessive and hounds my edits so I also didn't want him to get Simpleshooter99 back to his attention. I don't want to waste my time edit warring with him so I didn't disclose that Dragonkingluv was also my account because I didn't think I needed to disclose it. And also felt he had forgotten about Simpleshooter99. Clearly he hasn't.

But please take a look at the edit history. Dragonkingluv and Dragonkingluv23 don't edit the same articles as Simpleshooter99, with only one exception. That was just a mistake as I deliberately try to never edit the same articles using both Simpleshooter99 and Dragonkingluv23.

To be honest, I didn't want to use Dragonkingluv anymore and forgot the password, and the only reason why I created a new account Dragonkingluv23 is to edit articles that Dragonkingluv had edited on. And so I can avoid socking. If I Instead deliberately used Simpleshooter99 to Edit articles that Dragonkingluv had also edited on (Which is only a few articles), then that would be wrong.

Simpleshooter99 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“The editors” have edited the same page, that’s what triggered this investigation in the first place. You used your Simpleshooter99 account to upload information onto the Shanghai communique article [25] which I removed [26] and you through your sockpuppet Dragonluv23 account immediately reverted [27]. All this on an article that had until our exchange very little edits to it. Do you have anything to say about the other oddities and the supporting evidence that I’ve raised? Like your peculiar use of syntax and spelling on both accounts? Your consistent use of paragraph-long edit summaries? Your constant use of a mobile device to make your edits? Or are you going to continue to deflect by sticking to your unconvincing “happenstance” alibi? Stormandfury (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Secondly it's been a long day and and mistakes happen. I am typing on a tablet which is very difficult to open links, and why i didn;t even bother to double check that shanghai communique was edited by dragonkingluv23

I didn;t think i needed to disclose this and had my hands full all day and only made just one mistake, which was completely accidental. but with the one off exception of shanghai communique. Where did I sock? socking is when you deliberatly edit the same page with two accounts.

It's very important to note that the last time dragonkingluv edited was back in March 2022. and that acccount only edited like 3 to 4 articles maximum. i stopped editing not because it got blocked but because i forgot my password.

Then many months later I created simpleshooter99 but not with any intention to sock. I didn't edit any articles that dragonking edited on for most of the time.

However it's ony later around 20 september, when i noticed an editor undoing all of dragonkingluv23 edits on huawei's page. his name was jadkrusade and a sock of fobtown. even though i was no longer editing with dragonkingluv for many monhths,I didn't think it was wise to edit the same page that dragonkingluv had edited before and using my account simpleshooter99, as that would be abusing multiple accounts. and hard to explain later because it;s against the rules.

So i DELIBERatlely logged out, and tried to log into dragonkingluv. but i just couldn;t remember the password.

So i created a new account called dragonkingluv23 and diclosed tha. tHis is because i didn;t want to edit the same pages using the same account. Later i recognised that jadekrusade was fobtown and then filed a sock report against him. and admins found out that he was indeed canada ontario based fobtown.

Then i logged out of dragonkingluv23 and continued to edit with simpleshooter99 and I made deliberate mindful decisons to never use simpleshooter to edit the same article as dragonkingluv23. that can be proven if you look at our edit history.


however just once only for today, i made JUST ONE mixup but that was accidental. i didn't double check and using a tablet to type and so couldn't be bothered to open multiple windows. but look at this edit i made today https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1128067400

I had wrote that i was very confident that stormandfury undid my edit on shanghai communique. why do i do that?

clearly that wasn;t accurate and i was mistaken and got the accounts mixed up and didn;t double check. but i can prove that in the past, i made deliberate effort to keep the two accounts of simpleshooter99 and dragonkingluv23 separate and not edit the same articles using the two accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonkingluv23 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are essentially saying is you admit that you’ve been sockpuppeting but nonetheless want a get-out-of-jail card even though you have no issues trying to lock me out of Wikipedia by baselessly accusing me of committing the very transgression that you’ve been guilty of. What mind numbing arrogance. Stormandfury (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if you are fobtown, then admins will know soon enough and i think fobtown will know by now why i was able to easily recognise he is socking and got 4 of his socks blocked. :)

And like i said before, mistakes can be made but I didn't intend to break any rules but i think I created dragonkingluv first almost a year ago. And edited a few articles and then stopped completely, Then many months later I created simpleshooter99 but not with any intention to sock. I didn't edit any articles that dragonking edited on, Also i stopped using dragonkingluv23 and was no longer active for so many months. but dragonkingluv wasn;t blocked, i just stopped using it.

dragonkingluv edit history [28]


but it;s because later i noticed an editor undoing all of dragonkingluv edits on huawei's page on october. his name was jadkrusade and a sock of fobtown. even though i was no longer editing with dragonkingluv for many months,I didn;t think it was wise to go edit the same page that dragonkingluv had edited before with my account simpleshooter99, as that would be abusing multiple accounts. and hard to explain because it;s against the rules. So i DELIBERatlely logged out, and tried to login to dragonkingluv but genuinely forgot my password. There is no way i could remember it. so i created a new account called dragonkingluv23 and edited that page just for those edits alone. This more than enough proves that i made serious efforts to not edit the same article using two different accounts. [29]

today was simply a one off and an accident that never happebned before, and i don;t usually edit woth dragonkingluv23 and forgot that shanghai communique was edited by simpleshooter99.

and look at this edit i made today https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1128067400

I had wrote that i was very confident that stormandfury undid my edit (dragonkinguv23) on shanghai communique. clearly i was very mistaken and got the accounts mixed up and didn;t double check.

but once is just an accident, many times is not an accident. and if i intended to sock using two different accounts, there should be a large number of articles that both accounts was editing together on. yet you can only see one that was accidental

i no longer even inteded to use dragonkingluv23 to edit new articles since october this year, because i knew that fobtown would be watching those edits. so unless i am editing high speed rail in china or huawei topics or economy of china, which is the only topics that dragonkingluv and dragongkingluv23 edited on or reporting on fobtown. i didn;t even plan to use dragonkingluv23 anymore. and that can also be easily be seen in my history log.

your defence does make sense.it does not explain why you used both of your accounts to engage User:FobTown. It does not explain all of your edits outside of the Huawei article that you made with your dragonkingluv23 account, including those made before October. I don’t believe that your identity mix-up on the Shanghai communique article could have been a genuine mistake when the page history and editing system writ large has made user-edit attribution a very simple task to undertake. And if you were sincere about legitimately using sockpuppet accounts, then one of the easiest things you could have done is declare right off the bat and at a place of prominence (like your homepage) that you were using an alternate account, including specifying what account that was. The fact that you didn’t do any of these things suggests to me that something much more untoward is going on and therefore punitive is warranted Stormandfury (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Simpleshooter99 please explain your relationship to User:Oppo48 and explain how both your and that account managed to produce an edit summary that cited the same website in the same place on articles that are in the same topic area. ([30] vs [31]) Because as far as I am concerned this is the smoking gun that you have been engaging in sockpuppetry. Stormandfury (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol You are Only reporting me after I can tell you are Fobtown and reported you already. You try to grasp on a weak case and accuse me of using Simpleshooter99 account to deliberately edit the same articles as Dragonkingluv23. If that was actually my intention and not a one off accident. Then there should be a consistent Pattern of both accounts editing the same articles. Except with the only exception today, they Never edited the same article before because I usually make sure of that. and this is why it's frustrating to deal with people like Fobtown. I gave a valid explanation yet you twist it and claim it doesn't Make sense, when you know it does.

And read the explanation given here. It more than reasonably explains everything. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragonkingluv23

I dealt with the (Didn't hear it) behaviour of Fobtown and now am even more convinced you are him. You even bring up Hambantota port again and continue to claim that it's a Debt Trap. Fobtown got banned because he kept pushing that the Chinese seized the port when they defaulted after being overwhelmed by Chinese loans. I don't want to repeat it again but lilahok and myself back in June and july 2022 constantly gave you sources that shows it is a myth. [32]

And it seems you are familiar with the enemies of Fobtown. Lilahok as well as me, Simpleshooter99 kept telling you back them that Sri Lanka Hambantota port is not a debt Trap. And gave you multiple sources. [33] How about you go accuse me of being lilahok or floydian or quifacheng? Please also do that too Those users are not me but back then in July 2022 they had issues with Fobtown and reported him too and he got blocked. I very much welcome and encourage a checkdisk to see if they are me as I know they are not. I also welcome a checkdisk to see if you are Fobtown and also from Ontario Canada. I know you are him . Because your account was created only just 5 days after Fobtown was blocked, and you have his very same behavioral patterns and you also undo the edits of Simpleshooter99 who recently edited on Shanghai Communiqué. It fits you to a t.

As you know, I already know Fobtown has socks and was able to detect them successfully twice. And have 4 of his socks blocked.;) And I am more sure than ever that you are Fobtown sock. Simpleshooter99 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you didn’t respond to my demand so I’ll make it again. Please explain your relationship to User:Oppo48 and explain how both your and that account managed to produce an edit summary that cited the same website in the same place on articles that are in the same topic area. ([34] vs [35]) Because as far as I am concerned this is the smoking gun that you have been engaging in sockpuppetry and with every non-response from you, the smoke only grows thicker. Stormandfury (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just using Google and I recall me and lilahok showing you so many same links like Chatham House articles. [36] Does that now also make me lilahok because we both show you strong sources proving debt trap diplomacy is a myth? Why would Chatham House say all that? Simply myself giving a link that shows real information, is not a smoking gun. But your agressiveness towards such links of real information, shows a pattern and smoking gun where you like (Fobtown) kept having issues with real information and any research paper that properly explains why Sri Lanka Hambantota port is not a debt Trap, because it's not.[37]

And btw when I edited Sri Lankan articles, I never used Dragonkingluv23 ever to edit there. In June and July 2022, I only edited Sri Lankan article using Simpleshooter99. The other editors lilahok and others, genuinely had issues with you and they reported you. If you think I am them, I welcome you to go and add them to a checkdisk on me as I know they are not me. There are many editors and real experts who are able to actually research and know that Debt Trap diplomacy is a myth. You just couldn't hack that. [38]

Simpleshooter99 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 January 2023

[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]

15 October 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This three-week-old account displays the same behavior as Destinyseeker89 and socks: a single-issue focus on Debt-trap diplomacy, with KirklandWayne's only other article contributions made to the related articles Sri Lankan economic crisis (2019–present) and International Monetary Fund, accompanied by a pro-China stance and something of a particular axe to grind against Brahma Chellaney. For instance, User:Nvtuil wrote:

Article has to make it fairly clear that Chellaney's claims were debunked as disinformation. And to stop promoting him as if he is an expert. He is either a liar or a dishonest scholar who makes claims that have been LONG debunked by many credible scholars...Institutions like Chatham House and Rhodium Group have shown there is no hard evidence that indicates China seizes assets after a country defaults. (Debt-trap diplomacy talk page post)

From a recent edit to Debt-trap diplomacy by KirklandWayne:

But [Chellaney's] assertions were found to be not factual on multiple levels, as Chatham House notes that there was no debt to equity swap, and chinese loans were not the major cause of Sri Lanka's debt distress, and the payment for the port's lease were not used to cancel chinese debts, but instead to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. (Debt-trap diplomacy edit)

KirklandWayne's only other activity to date, aside from work on the three aforementioned articles, has been to speak up in their defense after being informally referred-to in a comment on a sockpuppet investigation regarding FobTown, and file a sockpuppet investigation regarding Lau Cheng in response, showing a familiarity with socking if nothing else. It might be worth noting that Destinyseeker89 + socks have a history with FobTown, as documented here and attested-to here (e.g. "a sock of Fobtown was undoing my edits" and "Fobtown is obsessive and hounds my edits" from User:Simpleshooter99). Also, on a minor-yet-corroborating level, all of KirklandWayne's edits are made on mobile, which appears to be true of nearly all the edits made by Destinyseeker89 + socks. I could imagine how this could all be coincidental, and I'm sorry to KirklandWayne if so, but the patterns seem strong enough to be worth noting. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 06:26, 15 October 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]

27 December 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Both the accounts removed content from Zepter International and gave the same reason in edit summary Jelenaporosica and Truth721 Randompersoneditingalt (talk) 15:18, 27 December 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]
More