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

2 April 2015

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Zhanzhao (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 72.196.235.154 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 124.41.243.167 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 49.244.254.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 49.244.255.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Before starting, keep this self agreed topic ban in mind,[1] exemptions include SPIs, maybe because they believe that my accusations might be correct.

First we have to know the background. Some history of sock puppetry by Zhanzhao is preserved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zhanzhao/Archive, 2 sock waves have been reported. 1st one is from 5 March, 2nd one is from 22-23 March. This is the 3rd one, from 29 March and it is still going on. Despite this article never had a edit war since its birth, dating back to 2012, it is only having edit since 5 March over same POV.

A few hours later, when Zhanzhao took wikibreak,[2] sock-wave took place on this article, Rape in India.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Despite Zhanzhao had claimed to have taken wikibreak, he continued to participate on the talk page and seeking protection of his preferred version,[9] that he never objected and before an editor would online and remove the specific content.[10]

After the protection was made against that version, an account, Bargolus, that had only 2 edits, and both from September 2007,[11] turned it into autoconfirmed user and resumed the previous[12] edit war with this account.[13][14]

Bargolus claimed that he was 49.244.254.146,[15] he edited the comment of 49.244... as well, and soon he edited own comment with 124.41.243.167.[16] 49.244 is a highly abused extension by multiple sockmasters, as per the complaints that have been made at User talk:Ponyo#49.244.239.31

I understand that DoRD had said last time that he wants to see edits and not just edit summary. We will start with the edits.

Zhanzhao, always rigid about giving undue weight to "unreported rapes", himself said stuff like, "I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though."[17] These edits[18][19][20] clearly fulfills that criteria. They largely replicate previous scenario of sock puppetry [21][22][[23][24] Zhanzhao had also said "already one section dedicated to the issue of unreported rape.(doh). We could just take that whole para in the lead out."[25]

• In his comments, he directly states his opposition towards these limited phrases and sentences that are found on this article.

• Both accounts specifically objected the sentence, "reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world"[26][27]

• Zhanzhao had said "it would be necessary to add a disclaimer there too to justify its ranking among the lowest", with this contribution Bargolus wrote: "and India has been characterized by some as one of the countries with the lowest per capita rates for rape", "Criminologists have warned that comparing reported rape rates across countries can be highly misleading due to the significance of underreporting, and the fact that the rate of underreporting can be vastly different between countries."

Now that's clear attempt to fulfill the said criteria and marginalization of a international fact. 72.196.235.154 also attempted to remove[28] it before.

• per 100,000[29][30]
• Zhanzhao pushes an "article from WSJ"[31]

• Bargolus pushes "link to a WSJ article"[32]

• Bargolus says "the article is about Rape in India".[33]

• TCKTKtool says "This article is about Rape in India".[34](last suspect)
• Zhanzhao says "it is about rape in india".[35]
• 72.196.235.154 says "This article is about Rape in India",[36]

• This one might be little hard, though still workable.

• An IP came out from nowhere, and made these 2 edits[37][38] Soon, this statement was straightened by Zhanzhao[39](no summary though he usually provides, similar referencing style)[40]
• This statement happened to have been removed by somebody during some edit. After page was protected, Bargolus would claim the "lack of criminalization of marital rape",[41] and " Finally, marital rape is not a crime in India and so marital rapes are not even registered in the crime statistics of India". Thus promoting the above edit of Zhanzhao,[42] that read "Marital rape, which accounts for 94% of all rape committed in India is also not considered a criminal act there."

• Uselessly provokes the "tourism" matter.

• "whole rape debate on the image of India and its tourist industry"[43]

"the drop in tourism, at least it can then be balanced off by the writeup about what The Indian government is doing to protect and warn tourists"[44]

Some of the uncommon similarities counts:

• "fleshed out",[45][46]
• "eye to eye"[47] "eye-to-eye",[48]
• Attempt to create wikilink([[ ]]) of URLs.([[http://www.example.com/example]])[49] like Zhanzhao.[50][51][52][53]
• Starting messages with "Hi there,"[54][55][56]
• "the implications of"[57][58]
• Ordering viewpoints in the following order;[59][60][[61]

1)

2)

3)

• Usage of {{ping|(username)}} template[62][63]
• "i.e."[64][65][66]
• "for the sake of"[67][68]
• "I am comfortable with"[69][70]
• Treats 'talk' as a proper noun.[71](twice)[72][73][74]
• Needlessly types particular word in upper case.[75](ALWAYS) [76](PLEASE) [77](ALL)
• "revert to old"[78][79]
• "lead paragraph"[80][81]
• "big problem"[82][83]
• "Wow"[84][85]
• Resume a point with "In addition"[86][87][88]
• edit summaries involve "clarification"[89][90][91][92][93]

I agree that Bargolous has made really long messages,[94][95] but this same kind of WP:TLDR is also found in the messages of Zhanzhao.[96][97][98]

Check [99] he had bold the text "Or, we can just write that LKY is..(continued)", same way he bold "Argument for grammatical change" at [100]

Both have made those edits that required rev-del due to the exposure of personal information.[101][102] They may have differed, but still personal. Bargolus edited my sandbox,[103] that had been criticized by Zhanzhao.

• • Editors who work on this article have figured that these accounts(Zhanzhao, Bargolus) are misrepresenting sources.[104][105]
  • Heavy use of edit summaries whenever he is editing the main article,[106][107][108][109][110][111][112] though no use of summaries when he is editing the ATP.[113][114][115][116][117]

Same sort of surprising but temporary IP switching and tag-team edit warring was also seen on Women in India, account[118], IP[119], another IP.[120]

I could not post about this all, anywhere else except this SPI per the restrictions. Problem is ongoing for nearly a month now. I am requesting RegentsPark, EdJohnston, Mike V, to share their views on this SPI, not only because we've worked on previous SPIs before, but also because we know that how much these areas are affected by socks.

Also consider declining the CU, because this sort of edit warring and IP switching on these articles and given mostly negative CU results from last time, CU is not going to be any help. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD, that's why I asked for CU decline because this IP hopping for edit warring in matter of minutes is not in the scope of CU. The only question is that why 72.196.235.154 only works on edit warring for Zhanzhao and these other accounts content whenever there is a sock wave? And the rest of the time, he never edits. Or why he tells the unnecessary "This article is about Rape in India"(pointed above)? Other similarities:

• represents removal of content violating WP:NLIST and WP:NNEWS as "whitewash"[121][122]
• "lead-in"[123][124](2 times in both diffs) [125], "lead in"[126]
• Claim that rapes are "rapes in India have been under reported by up to 90%"[127], like the previous "that only 1 in 10 rapes in India gets reported"[128][129](exactly equivalent to 10% reported)
• "fluffery",[130] "fluff",[131] Fluffed[132]
• Tag teaming with Zhanzhao for particular information.[133][134][135]
• Tag teaming with Bargolus and 124. over 2 words.[136][137][138][139]

Such rigid edit wars only replicates the previous scenario of technically confirmed connection of other 2 accounts.(DanS76, Zhanzhao [140][141][[142][143]) No one else ever edit warred on these articles ever before.

• "silencing"[144][145]

Currently many of the editors are having discussion at this policy page, that how easy it is for others to defeat CU results.[146][147] I had still found fair amount of technical connection in this case, if you check that Resaltador was blocked for evading with 96.231.161.128. This IP has same geolocation as 72.196.235.154. That all needs to be analyzed as well but first these, that are already placed on the table. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The timings are same. Yes we realize that sleeping disorder or severe tensions may change the timings and adopt the routines that are not intended. Thus we will have to take a look at latest and accurate example:

Bargolus made his last edit of 31 March at 15:42,[148] and started 1 April at 1:43.[149] Zhanzhao made his last edit on 2 April at 15:42[150] and started 3 April with this edit[151] at 1:49. Both have also edited during the hour of 16:00 sometimes and later. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao claims below[152] that he hasn't touched my UTP since this message[153] from 24 March? No, he did.[154] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Defense by Zhanzhao

Note I cannot comment on Bargolus's behaviour and IP switching, as that is up to he himself to defend. First off, I apologize for those who have read through this as you will see me repeating some of the very rebuttals I've made on the previous SPI filed by OccultZone. OccultZone has blamed me for being blocked twice for edit-warring, and has been on a misguided mission to prove that every one of those accounts he warred with and many appearing since are related to me. I am going to bake a point to point rebuttal, so I just ask that any who look at OccultZone's long and length "evidence" to be fair to me as I have to now make a long and length point-by-point rebuttal of his accusations.

• When I said took a wikibreak, I meant I didn't want do any direct editing on articles. I don't want to be accused of edit warring anymore. I just wanted to help give advice to my editors from the background. Which can be easily verified from every edit non-related to ANI/SPI since all this started.
• I requested Bgwhite protect the page [155], because he was the last admin who protected the page, and was already helping out there as a non-involved party. And I also pointed out to him that the behaviour looked too blatantly like what I would do if I was indeed socking, and I just wanted to avoid being further linked to the case. I was proven correct in this.
• For the point about using "reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world", we were both quoting the exact same chunk of text from the article. Of course it would be word for word. And about me giving undue weight to unreported rape, as seen from my edit history on the article from this diff on, I've already lost interest in that point and never broached that since on the article or talk, and moved on to other parts of the article (tourism) before that "wave of socks" appeared.
• For the point about the disclaimer about lowest reported rapes in the world, I was clearly making a rhetorical statement that adding a disclaimer in that part of the article would affect other parts of the article, as part of the discussion. OZ's diff about Bargolus shows him explicitey asking add that point in.
• "per 100,000", word for word, was referencing a phrase in the article. OZ himself saw this phrase being used by another editor was having a conversation with [156]
• About the WSJ article connection, I just see 2 same diffs by Bargolus. Don't see what you're trying to get at. But I do note in the diff you provided that Bargolus was wrongly copying the link placeholder (i.e. [8],[9],[10] etc) rather than a correctly formatted link, a mistake I don't commit.
• the article is about Rape in India: There's only so many ways one can say "This is about XX article". And I've repeatedly pointed out to OZ that even another editor who later argued on his side, used the exact same phrase [157]
• I don't have a fixed referencing style. I usually just cut/paste verbatim from the last instance I see if its a revert, or use a totally different style depending on what I can cut and paste from the edited article. Here's me "using" a totally different editing style, on the very same day and article as the diffs he pointed out.
• For the point about marital rape, as mentioned above, if you look at the history of the article, its clear from my editing history that I already moved on to focus on other parts of the article (the tourism bits), that one line wasn't even in my mind anymore. I can't help it that Bargolus saw that part of the discussion on the talk page and carried on the conversation.
• For the tourism point, I was editing extensively on tourism, while Bargolus only made a fleeting mention of tourism to support his arguments about was on women's rights. Clear from the diffs.

Note that many of the points raised are just commonly used words, so I can't imagine how I could possibly raise a defense against that that except that its just english, and considering I have 3000+ edits, the sample size is really beg enough that you can find almost any type of writing similarity with me against anyone else. But let me point out some obvious ones:

• I haven't used "Hi There" in years, only did that when I was lazy. These days, I try to add the editor's name whom I'm addressing [158].
• For the ping template, you'll notice from the diffs that I was merely copying the earlier 2 ping text right above me. So I'd assume that Bargolus copied the (now 3) ping templates right above him.
• For the "too long to read" edits, considering I was addressing complicated questions raised to me, I don't see how I could have avoided it.
• About editing OccultZone's Sandbox, ever since OZ undid my reply to him [159], I haven't even touched his page (I think), much less want to argue with him on his sandbox. I've made my own defense on my own page rather than engage him. So he's talking about 2 people arguing a same point, but using totally different behaviors. That one time I stepped in, as clear from the post, was not about me, but in defense of the admin who was being wronged by OccultZone's vendetta.
• For the bolding of text, I used the bold to emphasize a point I was making. Bargolus was practically using it as a subject header (even though he already had one). Totally different usage.
• As for my editing times, check my history, which will clearly show that I edit at ALL sort of hours.

More to follow Zhanzhao (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• From a technical standpoint, there are some serious problems with this case:
  • First off, Zhanzhao and Bargolus are completely  Unrelated.
  • I've seen where Bargolus has linked themselves to some edits from 49.244.*, e.g. here, and since 124.41.243.167 is in the same country, one might assume that they are the same, but I have not run any checks to confirm that assumption.
  • 72.196.235.154 is a residential cable connection on the other side of the planet from the other IPs, so there's no way that they're related to the other IPs.
• Since I closed the previous case over the objections of OccultZone, I'm not going to take any action here. N.b. the revdel'd edits OZ mentions above are actually suppressed. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]