| Revision as of 12:48, 7 March 2015 editOccultZone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits →05 March 2015: use your own section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:52, 16 March 2015 edit undoSalvidrim! (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors28,650 edits CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| *{{clerknote}} {{ping|OccultZone}} Why to use CheckUser when the user admits that two accounts are operated from the "same household". CheckUser is not needed if the editors admits. '''] ]''' 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | *{{clerknote}} {{ping|OccultZone}} Why to use CheckUser when the user admits that two accounts are operated from the "same household". CheckUser is not needed if the editors admits. '''] ]''' 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{ping|OccultZone}} He was abusing multiple accounts 6 years ago. That is not a reason to run a sleepers check now. '''] ]''' 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ::{{ping|OccultZone}} He was abusing multiple accounts 6 years ago. That is not a reason to run a sleepers check now. '''] ]''' 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| *{{clerknote}} Per our policy on ], "{{tq|When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.}}" -- I will post a message on both user's talk page indicating they need to add {{tl|User shared IP address}} to both of their user pages, '''OR''' stop editing the same topic areas altogether, otherwise both will be considered in violation of our policies on the use of accounts. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> | ||
Revision as of 18:52, 16 March 2015
Zhanzhao
Zhanzhao (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao/Archive.
05 March 2015
– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- DanS76 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
I might be wrong here, but there is too much evidence that cannot be ignored. DanS76 had made his 2nd last edit on 28 December 2014. Today he came to edit Rape in India for restoring the edit of Zhanzhao. Yes it is not enough. But what about both of them commenting/editing different articles and namespaces like Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie, ANI's "Alternative: Put disputed articles on 1RR", New Creation Church, Deletion review of File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg Deletion of "Death of Wang Yue"? These subjects are really different to each other. They have got over 92% usage of edit summaries. DanS76 had also accepted the submission of an AfC of Zhanzhao. That is too much for someone with only 191 edits and too less for somebody who is editing en.wiki for over 5 years. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Both of the accounts have eyed on Rape in India today and they haven't edited any other article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Self admission of WP:MTPPT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Vanjagenije: You don't get to decline CU when this is not even the first instance of the socking. Have you checked that block log of Zhanghao? Also this kind of meat puppetry is not allowed because he has already abused two different accounts for supporting his arguments. There is no reason to believe that they are actually "brothers". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: They are not brothers, because it is naturally impossible to have 2 editors who eyeing on Rape in India for nearly 24 hours or until they gets to know about this SPI. They weren't editing any other article. He had signed in and out with two different accounts. If they were different persons then why it took DanS76 over 58 days to return into en.wiki just for edit warring with Zhanzhao? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Its meatpuppetry if we believe they arent one and the same. A CU may confirm hey are linked but if they operate from the same location it wouldnt be supprising. Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- See statement by Zhanzhao NE Ent 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Requesting a check for sleepers.VictoriaGrayson 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: What do you mean by meatpuppeting? There is no actual brother. VictoriaGrayson 21:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Vanjagenije: Zhanzhao only came up with the brother story, once this SPI was filed.VictoriaGrayson 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The whole thing about being on the internet is about anonymity. Considering my brother is using part of his real name in his nick (something I warned him against), bringing attention to the fact that he has a brother raises the probability that he would be identified in real life. As you can probably tell from his earliest edits, he can be quite confrontational, so especially when dealing with other local editors who might want to identify him cos he was pissing them off online, giving clues to who he is, is the last thing I wanted happening. Hope that clarifies the situation enough. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- As ever, I am very transparent about this. That block was way back in 2009 when I was still figuring the in-and-outs of Wiki-editing. IIRC, at that point, I just started to use RSN. The situation was that there was an edit war on an article, and the discussion was moved from the article's talk to RSN to check the validity of a contested source. Then a blanket ban was suddenly imposed on all editors involved (could have included even talk privilages, since I was using the same IP logging even on my own talk page. Too long ago). Seeing how fast RSN topics get abandoned, I just continued the RSN discussion and even signed off on it with my editorname, clearly indicating my identity. ]. Once the situation was properly explained to me, I apologized and waited it out. (and the question never really got answered in the end either....) Zhanzhao (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about replying only now. You know it would have been really, really, REALLY helpful if someone had actually notified me about the SPI. The ANI notification directs me to the ANI where the status is listed as "closed". I only found out about this SPI after being told in person, so let me belatedly fill in some info which the posts above did not mention.
- About approving the article created, what wasn't mentioned was that I had been approving quite a number of articles back then, and that was just another one came across my table. Granted I might have passed it easier, but the Victoria seems to be implying that I only approved that one and only article. I only stopped revieing because during one of my breaks from wikipedia, a new rule came up where reviewer status are removed after periods of inactivity, and you need to have at least 500 edits before being allowed to apply, so no more reviewing for me.
- As for why I seem quite active on articles Zhanzhao has been involved in, thats because one of the first things I do after I log in is to be a busybody and check what he's been interested in via his contributions. I am barely active these days so topics we probably have in common in real life is more useful that a watchlist. Yes, I'm "stalking" him so to speak.
- If someone REALLY evidence we are brothers, I can actually send the admin a scan of me and my brother's identification which also shows our same address (He's abit finicky about identity theft but as long as he is sure its a high level admin seeing the info, it should be okay). I think we had to fill in our names when registering for an account? Just point me to whom I should contact.
- Finally, if the purpose of this SPI to ban me for allegedly being a sock, heck, let me save you guys the trouble, I give you the permission go ahead and just kill my account. Zhanzhao was defending me thinking I am still very active, but I am practically "retired" and come in so rarely that registered-editor status serves me little purpose. In fact, its one less log in and password to remember lol DanS76 (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Clerk declined - There is no need for the CheckUser. Users admit editing from the same place, and there is no reason to believe there might be more accounts. The only question here whether this kind of meatpuppetry is allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Clerk note: @VictoriaGrayson: Please, provide some evidence that there is no brother. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Clerk note: @OccultZone: Why to use CheckUser when the user admits that two accounts are operated from the "same household". CheckUser is not needed if the editors admits. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone: He was abusing multiple accounts 6 years ago. That is not a reason to run a sleepers check now. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Clerk note: Per our policy on WP:FAMILY, "
When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics.
" -- I will post a message on both user's talk page indicating they need to add {{User shared IP address}} to both of their user pages, OR stop editing the same topic areas altogether, otherwise both will be considered in violation of our policies on the use of accounts. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Categories: