Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhanzhao/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Zhanzhao

Zhanzhao (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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.[1] Today he came to edit Rape in India[2] for restoring the edit of Zhanzhao.[3] Yes it is not enough. But what about both of them commenting/editing different articles and namespaces like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie,[4][5] ANI's "Alternative: Put disputed articles on 1RR",[6][7] New Creation Church,[8][9] Deletion review of File:Tin-Pei-Ling-Kate-Spade.jpg [10][11] Deletion of "Death of Wang Yue"[12][13]? 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.[14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Self admission of WP:MTPPT.[15] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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)[reply]
See statement by Zhanzhao [16] NE Ent 19:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a check for sleepers.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: What do you mean by meatpuppeting? There is no actual brother. VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: Zhanzhao only came up with the brother story, once this SPI was filed.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [[17]]. 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)[reply]


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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @VictoriaGrayson: Please, provide some evidence that there is no brother. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  • See both user talks. DanS76 is retiring, so retired+Shared IP boxes have been added to their userpage and Zhanzhao should be the only active account going forward. If DanS76 ever returns to editing (especially in the same topic area as Zhanzhao), both accounts will need Shared IP boxes on their userpages to comply with policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
23 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I don't think that anyone else other than Zhanzhao on this article(Rape in India) could ignore the guidelines like WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTABILITY and continuously edit war over undiscussed edits. I am sure that the sole purpose of this account as well as the IP is just to restore the edits of Zhanzhao, and lend support to the arguments of Zhanzhao.

One of the main evidence is that Zhanzhao was recently told to stop violating the WP:ILLEGIT. It was 14 March, and right after a few hours, this IP edit warred on this article. Another evidence is that the IP and the account have used edit summaries for discussion and ignored the ATP.

72 says "This article is about Rape in India",[18] TCKTKtool says "This article is about Rape in India".[19] Zhanzhao says "it IS about rape in india".[20]

Argument is not different, TCKTKtool says "major news",[21] and Zhanzhao says "significant news coverage".[22]

Considerably same edit warring over the ratio/percentage.[23][24] [25][26]

After two downed,[27][28][29] Zhanzhao came and restored it.[30] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCKTKtool says "major news around the world".[31] Zhanzhao says "news agencies around the world".[32] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added Resaltador, previously he was blocked for evading his block with 96.231.161.128, an IP that shows same geolocation as 72.196.235.154. Resaltador's edit summary also matches with TCKTKtool.

@Vanjagenije: Resaltador's previous block evasion matches with this IP address. Resaltador's mentions only usernames in the edit summaries and mentions the section title in edit summaries, similar to the IP and TCKTKtool. Check again, they are not automatically filled. The automatically filled ones reads differently. See the difference:-
(→‎Unproven/non-notable allegations)[43], by Padenton, it was automatically filled. Font was grey.
(Unproven/non-notable allegations)[44], [45] by TCKTKtool and Resaltador. Not automatically filled, and the font is black. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dord. Considering the match of the IP's location[46] with the IP with which Resaltador had evaded his block previously,[47][48] exactly same use of rare edit summaries, I believe that we should consider analyzing their behavior. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked elsewhere, Zhanzhao has claimed that he often use a "StrongVPN".[49] It is highly useful for fooling any IP match. Also given the confidence of Resaltador and Zhanzhao[50] that they haven't socked while carrying out the admin-shopping[51][52][53] just to target me(see the titles of those talk sections), I cannot believe that 2 unrelated persons would act same.
  • Also given Zhanzhao's previous history of abusing WP:ILLEGIT on this article, and clearly reverting to the version of the obvious sock, even using the similar words for his argument, I am certain that he has violated the above policy once again. Over the last 2 years, 132 edits of Resaltador are unrelated with this subject. Zhanzhao had recently added a header to Resaltador's comment,[54] on here, even after knowing that additional headers are removed.[55]
Who had even told Resaltador about this SPI? My contribution history is usually excessive, at least he wouldn't want to take stress of tracking my edits. I cannot find any notification on Resaltador's UTP, if he was notified about the SPI. Any 2 things are possible, #1. Resaltador checked every SPI. #2. He was notified off-wiki. #3. Zhanzhao just thought of extending the raid against this SPI.
^ Second and third point makes more sense.
Resaltador, TCKTKtool blanks their usertalk in same style.[56][57]
It was only Zhanzhao who took this DRN seriously, obviously because he had started it himself but with TCKTKtool. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Resaltador has only 132 edits and Zhanzhao has only 3470. Sorry but how many more similarities you would like to expect between these accounts? To continue, Zhanzhao made multiple edits on 28 May 2013, around 4:00, and he had no edits after that day until 30 May.[134] From 19:00 28 May to whole 29 May, Resaltador made highest amount of edits, about 13.[135] Also mind that Resaltador edited only in 19:00 in both of the days, Zhanzhao is usually active in this hour. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zhanzhao you should not count automatic summary and despite your misrepresentation of number of a diffs, you are only talking about the existence of these specific terms. Our concern is that why only you and Resaltador share so many exceptional similarities? While you have to cherry pick hundreds of editors for finding a single similarity with yourself. Still no one tells the obvious that "This is Wikipedia not"[136][137] or significantly types "talk" in upper-case,[138][139] [140][141] or creates 3 words userpage.[142][143] You really believe that this sandbox has 3 words? It is above 150. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

Statements by related parties
Padenton

I've been wondering if I should comment here or not, but this seems to be getting pretty heated and I think this might help. I don't know about Resaltador, but I don't think Zhanzhao is a sockpuppet(eer). To add a bit of background, this all began as an edit war over the notability of individual cases in Rape in India (the edit warring has already been handled here followed by a granted appeal here). TCKTKtool and 72.196.235.154 were repeatedly undoing me (TCKTKtool is the account 72.196.235.154 created after making 3 reverts), another 2 users, and OccultZone. Towards the end of this, OccultZone did the final change. Then Zhanzhao came in and undid it [144] (this edit is already listed above) and at the same time, made this post on the talk page [145]. To me, the talk comment suggests that Zhanzhao did not look closely at the previous edits that had been going on, particularly this part "yet you're even removing pre-existing content not written by me wholesale". And while TCKTKtool comes off as a hothead in all of their comments, Zhanzhao came off a lot more reasonable, and looking to discuss the changes. I think this is all just one big coincidence and it's spiraled into this big thing when it shouldn't have. Sorry to interject. ― Padenton |☎   18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defendant's word in
Zhanzhao

I don't know if there's any relationship between TCKTKtool and the IP, but do go ahead to run a Checkuser on me against them. But since this SPI has been raised against me by OccultZone, can I at least expect the gentlemanly response of an apology from OccultZone after its been decisively proven that I'm not either one of them? Cos its unfair that he keeps firing popshots at me which leaves a record while he gets to keep his own record clean. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out about how frivolous some of the accusations are:

72 says "This article is about Rape in India",[146] TCKTKtool says "This article is about Rape in India".[147] Zhanzhao says "it IS about rape in india".[148] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

May I draw the attention of whoever is overlooking this case to the following edit summary of another editor who also used the exact same words This article is about Rape in India. There aren't that many ways to express a generic statement like this is about XX article. But I guess this escaped the accuser's notice just because that editor didn't happen to get into his bad books. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not move, because this is a direct reply to yet another ridiculous and easily refuted accusation.If you check StrongVPN's service, you will notice that StrongVPN does not have routers points at those areas that the IPs are located. Have you not caught on that whatever evidence you are trying to pull against me, just makes you look sillier? Have it never occured to you that my confidence stems from the very simple fact that I am innocent? Or are you so desparate to believe I am guilty that you have lost that capacity of thought? Stop grasping at straws. Its becoming pathetic. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


So a visiting Admin's comments got removed just cos OccultZone didn't agree with it.

I was fine to leave this alone and entrust the admins to make a fair judgement on this, DoRD weighed in and collapsed the list while pointing out they were really weak and circumstantial, only for OccultZone to blatantly removed the admin's evaluation and collapse.

And so, since OccultZone has gone so low as to do that, I spent a lot of time going through his list of accusations. Unfortunately, I'm unable to keep up with his fanaticism as he keeps adding more, but this is more than enough to whet the appetite of the next admin/clerk who's taking a look. Provided it does not get removed like DoRD's comments. Note I suck at formatting, the best I can do is block it out with dashes. The italics are OccultZone's accusations. The staggered normal text is my reply. Tried to keep it humorous, cos it starts to get repetitive.

___

*"forgot to sign"[149][150].

Yes, the problem is not common to me. Please don't accuse him next. He was already unlucky enough to get caught on your last block wave.

*"NPOV issues"[151][152]

Look who's using "NPOV issues" too....

*"to make it clear"[153][154], [155]

Is he a sock too?

*"wrong section"[156][157]

I guess DoRD (You know, the admin who's opinion and collapse you removed on your own initiative) must be my sock too? According to your flawed logic [158]

*Zhanzhao capitalises "talk", like Resaltador,[159][160] [161] and DanS76.[162]

I've used TALK, Talk and talk, basically every possible itteration. So..... everyone who's even used that word is my sock?

*Specific identification, "by IP". [163][164][165]

Oh dear. OccultZone's apparently my sock too, by his logic

*"formatting"[166][167][168]

Again another similarity. OccultZone looks very suspicious now, no? According to his logic.

*Capital t of "talk"[169][170][171][172]

Addressed earlier, I have used TALK, Talk and talk, basically every possible itteration. So..... everyone who's even used that word is my sock? And wait, Why is OccultZone capitalising his first "t" as well here?

*"headline"[173][174]

Even more suspicious? Anyway the term "headline" was used with different meanings anyways, not that it matters of course.

*"to match".[175][176][177]

Oh no, I'm a sock of Jimbo Wales... Or is it the other way? Either case, OccultZone is so screwed..... if his logic holds true.

*Edit summaries for discussion.[178][179][180][181]

No.... I don't see it. Is this some Rorschach diagram thing? This is totally off the rails now.

*3 words userpage.[182][183]

Milan Petrovic Quartet.... OccultZone had a 3 word userpage too! You're on a roll here, OccultZone.

*Misuse of the word, "boomerang".[184][185]

Considering all the points I just raised, does Boomerang apply correctly now? As in you throw something, and it ends up hitting you instead?

*"This is Wikipedia not.."[186][187] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Oh Lookie, what a coincidence, I joined back in 2007 too. Actually December, so rounded up its almost 2008.
  • Considers others to have been "stalking" him.[188][189]
Guess who said the same thing too

*"whitewashing",[190][191][192] doesn't even end here. Zhanzhao had considered the edits on this same section as "an attempt to whitewash"[193] similar to the IP.[194] Wonder if IP went to read a buried conversation just for picking up this word and regard same edits as "whitewashing" like Zhanzhao.

And here again

This is getting ridiculous. And seeing as OccultZone is even resorting to removing an Administrator's opinion on the matter, I somehow don't see an easy end to this. I had previously told OccultZone that I just wanted him to cool down, but at this rate, can someone tell him to stop with all these frivolous accusations? He's really scrapping the bottom of the barrel, if he hasn't already torn a whole through it. I do admire his "work-ethics". If he could lose his obsession with me, all this effort would have been better off channeled correctly into improving Wikipedia, which I shall now go back to. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: To the new allegation that I had to cherrypick from "hundreds of editors" to point out the flaws in his arguement; with the one exception of the "Wikipedia is not" point, most of the similarities identified were committed by OccultZone himself if he bothered to check/count, the rest from people who are already part of this discussion, and of course, a few from Jimbo Wales himself (no stranger I hope) just to prove a point. And I have no idea what "misrepresentation of number of diffs" he's talking about (must be seeing things). And that is indeed a 3-word page, the rest of the words were formed from a template box. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

___

Resaltador

I also have no relationship between TCKTKtool, 72.196.235.154, or Zhanzhao. I agree that OccultZone seems to attack anyone that disagrees with him. I try and stay neutral but he is going over board on this. I think a Admin should review his actions not only here but other edits and request as well. Resaltador (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • CheckUser requested - Self-endorsed by clerk for checkuser attention To compare Zhanzhao with TCKTKtool. I'm not so sure about Resaltador. OccultZone, can you find some stronger evidence against Resaltador? Diffs 16-19, those edit summaries are just section titles, automatically filled. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: @OccultZone: You are right, Resaltador is also suspicious. He should also be checked. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three accounts are Red X Unrelated. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OccultZone: Zhanzhao has claimed that he often use a "StrongVPN" - I was fully aware of that, and it had no bearing on my results. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't normally close a case I served as CU on, but this is getting out of hand. @Zhanzhao, TCKTKtool, and Resaltador: I'm closing this with no action taken, but I do know who was editing from 72.196.235.154, and if I see it being used to violate policy again, the account behind it is going to be blocked.[1] @OccultZone: Now that the case is closed, please don't edit it any further. If you find some convincing[2] evidence, you may file another case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ IP warned separately.
  2. ^ By that, I mean it better include unambiguous diffs showing that the editors are the same; diffs that most any reasonable party would agree with. Edits, not just edit summaries. Also see {{DiffsNeeded}}.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zhanzhao/Archive&oldid=1076217945"