Username: Chzz
User groups: abusefilter, accountcreator, autoreviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Apr 29, 2008 03:15:39
Unique articles edited: 15,932
Average edits per page: 2.20
Total edits (including deleted): 35,046
Deleted edits: 3,059
Live edits: 31,987

Namespace totals
Article 9620 30.07% 
Talk 1037 3.24% 
User 2622 8.20% 
User talk 16344 51.10% 
Wikipedia 1589 4.97% 
Wikipedia talk 478 1.49% 
File 107 0.33% 
File talk 2 0.01% 
Template 85 0.27% 
Template talk 92 0.29% 
Help 1 0.00% 
Help talk 1 0.00% 
Category 1 0.00% 
Portal 5 0.02% 
Portal talk 3 0.01% 

Month counts
2008/04 5  
2008/05 1200  
2008/06 653  
2008/07 0  
2008/08 0  
2008/09 0  
2008/10 0  
2008/11 0  
2008/12 0  
2009/01 2  
2009/02 388  
2009/03 2657  
2009/04 2949  
2009/05 7387  
2009/06 2267  
2009/07 1818  
2009/08 4354  
2009/09 3537  
2009/10 4770  

Logs
Accounts created: 78
Pages moved: 237
Pages patrolled: 1992
Files uploaded: 81

Top edited articles
Article
•765 - George_Bacchus_&_Sons
•147 - Marco_Polo
•120 - Bloomsbury_Set_(band)
•104 - Dagenham_Roundhouse
•97 - Dry_ice
•93 - Arthur_Adams_(singer)
•86 - Fuckin'_'Ell_It's_Fred_Titmus
•79 - Adrian_Brett
•74 - Eastwood,_Nottinghamshire
•70 - Sol_B_River


Talk
•51 - List_of_best-selling_music_artists
•31 - Marco_Polo
•27 - First-person_shooter/GA1
•26 - 2008_Sichuan_earthquake
•23 - Marco_Polo/GA1
•22 - Oxygen_toxicity
•17 - Fountain_of_Time/GA1
•16 - Virgin_Killer
•14 - William_Windsor_(goat)
•13 - The_Epstein_School


User
•177 - Chzz/upside_down_sig_things
•170 - Chzz/note
•144 - Chzz/A
•116 - Chzz/Sandbox
•104 - Chzz/trans-test
•96 - Chzz/un
•74 - Chzz
•73 - Chzz/By_All_Means
•64 - Chzz/test2
•60 - Chzz/monobook.js


User talk
•1812 - Chzz
•47 - TonyTheTiger
•39 - Nortonius
•33 - Chzz/Archive_15
•32 - BasicallyGood
•32 - GandalftheWise
•31 - Trafford09
•29 - Chzz/testh
•27 - RevAntonio
•26 - Btilm/archive_3


Wikipedia
•103 - Sandbox
•73 - Help_desk
•68 - Articles_for_creation/Redirects
•49 - Spotlight
•35 - Spotlight/Newsletter/2009/October
•34 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
•31 - Requests_for_feedback
•28 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
•25 - Spotlight/Suggestions
•15 - Peer_review/Eastwood,_Nottinghamshire/archive1


Wikipedia talk
•21 - Did_you_know
•18 - Articles_for_creation/batch
•11 - Spotlight
•9 - Protection_policy
•8 - Edit_filter
•8 - WikiProject_Video_games
•6 - Good_article_nominations
•6 - Articles_for_creation/Tevita_Fifita
•5 - Articles_for_creation/Claire_Rourke
•5 - WikiProject_Chemicals


File
•5 - ArthurAdamsYouGotTheFloor.jpeg
•5 - TigerCub.jpg
•3 - FuckinEllItsFredTitmus.ogg
•3 - Iclaudius.jpg
•3 - Eastwood_urban_disctrict_shield.JPG
•3 - Dagenham_roundhouse_handbill.jpg
•3 - 326px-Wikipe-tan_dp.png
•2 - Pop_muzik_single_record_by_all_systems_go.jpg
•2 - Zcrop2.jpg
•2 - Cup-empty.jpg


File talk
•2 - Brazilian_grasshopper.jpg


Template
•5 - Campaignbox_Arab-Israeli_conflict
•5 - Infobox_choir
•3 - Timeline_Soft_Machine_(band)
•3 - Navbox_quantum
•2 - Infobox_Golden_Raspberry_Awards
•2 - The_Goat_Star
•2 - Spotlight_working
•2 - 1982_Toronto_Blue_Jays_season_game_log
•2 - NL_Comeback_Players_of_the_Year
•2 - Infobox_Caliph


Template talk
•58 - Did_you_know
•3 - 2009_flu_pandemic
•3 - Infobox_UK_place/Archive_5
•3 - About
•2 - Under_construction
•2 - ARE
•2 - Please_leave_this_line_alone_(sandbox_talk_heading...
•2 - Unanswered
•2 - Christianity
•1 - Infobox_Golden_Raspberry_Awards


Help
•1 - Transwiki


Help talk
•1 - Special_page/Archive_1


Category
•1 - Application_software


Portal
•2 - Current_events/2009_March_15
•2 - Current_events/2009_August_20
•1 - History/Featured_article/April,_2009


Portal talk
•2 - History
•1 - Current_events

I have never had any 'sock puppets' or 'meat puppets'.

I will do my best to explain the queries here as clearly as possible.

Fish4Trees[edit]

This is a legitimate alternate account, created 21 October 2009, to investigate "Newbie treatment", per User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment.

I notified ArbCom of this account, via email.

Jdzooks[edit]

This is an associate of mine. It is not my sister.

In this edit, they wrote to me, "GET SOME FUCKING SLEEP. IT'S YOUR SISTER. IMPORTANT.". At that time, we were physically in the same location, it was late at night, and the next day I was supposed to be meeting with my Sister for a birthday celebration. What they meant by that statement was, "[You need to] GET SOME FUCKING SLEEP. [because, tomorrow, we have to get up early for the birthday party, ] IT'S YOUR SISTER['s birthday party, therefore it is] IMPORTANT". Obviously I understood what they meant by that, given the context.

On 24 March 2009, they were visiting me. We discussed various aspects of Wikipedia, including the RfA of Mentifisto. They chose to vote in that election; as previously stated, I did not ask them to do so, nor did I attempt to influence their decision - we simply discussed the matter, and they made a personal decision to participate.

龗[edit]

This user is also a person that I know (very little, to be honest) 'in real life', but I assure you that it is not a sock-puppet. I understand that user has used Wikipedia in the past, but I do not know of their account history.

The account was created on 15 June 2009, and as noted that is the time I chose to take a break from editing, so I understand why this is 'suspicious'. At that time, 15 June, 龗 became aware of my 'disillusionment' with Wikipedia, and created an account specifically to 'get involved' with the ongoing issue; I asked them not to get involved, due to the policies regarding WP:MEAT. They did not get involved with my editing issues, however, they did decide to vote in the RfA on Ched Davis (talk · contribs) here), which was one of the many things that we discussed at the time, with regards to the 'state of Wikipedia'. I did not want them to vote there.

Subsequently, there is one overlap in our contrib history; on 28 July 2009 they attempted to vote in the August 2009 'Checkuser' election here, supporting a candidate that I also supported. That was another Wikipedia matter that I mentioned to them, but again, no intention to persuade them to vote - quite the reverse, in fact.

龗 was aware of my own RfA, and I specifically asked them not to vote in it. Yesterday, due to our discussions, they logged in, read the current RfAs, and voted in some others. They left the computer logged in to Wikipedia, and thus when I saved the answer to Q15 here, it was recorded with their sig - I immediately rectified the error here.

Could you please comment on the oppose vote 45 by RexxS that "the two accounts [龗 and Chzz] never edited at the same time"? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions[edit]

• To my honest, best knowledge, I have not breached any Wikipedia policies here. No sock-puppetry, no meat-puppetry.
• I understand how the edits described may appear 'suspicious', but I do ask for the assumption of good faith. No proof of any of the allegations has been given, and I am dismayed by calls for a 'community ban' and to be labeled as a 'confirmed sock-puppeteer' etc.
• My hope is that the above explanation will clarify and clear my name. My fear is that the meer suspicion will lead to opposition in the RfA, and indeed will stay with me forever more.
• I welcome any comments, suggestions, as to how I should proceed. Thank you all for your time, and for the opportunity to present my side of things. Special thanks to those who have specifically considered the facts, formed their own opinion, and are prepared to listen - which includes Soap, Hiberniantears, Dank, Materialscientist, Durova, Bfigura, Anakin, Master&Expert, Cybercobra, AJCham, Hersfold, The Earwig, Cocytus, Chamal, Crafty, MBisanz (for extending the RfA) and probably others I've missed.  Chzz  ►  10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

龗 and Chzz[edit]

Can you provide evidence (in confidence) to a CU that you are not 龗? If you can would you be prepared to do that? The evidence against you has been described as "very convincing". Really I think the onus is on you now to demonstrate that you are not 龗 and that account is not being run by someone in support of you IRL. The explanations you offer here are, frankly, rather weak. Crafty (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I must agree with Crafty. Your story could be legitimate, but you will need to demonstrate its veracity in some way if you hope to turn the tide of opposition. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if your story is true, it'd still be a legitimate argument that you shouldn't be an admin because of your looseness with your account and your real-world handling of your editing. Admins need to be able to keep their account secure and inaccessible to others. Your story indicates you're not taking the necessary care. Please keep this in mind, no matter which way this RfA goes. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies if this has already been asked or answered, but you may have missed it in all that is going on. Could you answer the follow-up question in Q19 from SpinningSpark how this user was familiar with sophisticated Wikipedia tools from their first day of editing and in other way showed detailed awareness Wikipedia tools and techniques? Leaky Caldron 11:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Responding to the above;

• Crafty - yes, I can understand that, and I would be prepared to take any steps that would help in clearing it up; would it help if I reveal my own personal real-world identity to a 'crat or a CheckUser? I do want to remain anonymous, but I'm happy to reveal any info in confidence, if it will help. Anything else I could do?
• Anonymous Dissident, I do, actually, take every precaution in protecting my account, and have never permitted anyone else to use it, or anything like that. My account is, definitely, inaccessible to anyone else. I never leave it logged in, and there is nothing in my 'story' that says otherwise. I am fully aware of the precautions required in these areas; throughout my career, I have been entrusted with various computer privileges, and have worked in the computer security field.
• Leaky Caldron, the user is familiar because they have used Wikipedia in the past, as I stated above - and I am not privvy to the details of their 'past life' on Wikipedia, I just know that they had one. I could ask them if they would reveal details, but I'm not sure if they will be willing to do so; to be honest, I think that they chose to 'vanish' some years ago. I will ask, regardless.  Chzz  ►  11:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's really hard to buy that you've "worked in the computer security field" and you don't routinely log into and verify your account when you get on a computer. It's a routine that drilled into you, and someone mistakenly using your account is as unlikely as your mistakenly using someone else's account, but you're saying the one is secure for you (anyone using your account) but the other is not (your using another's account). I don't see it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chzz, you're in a difficult position and I don't envy you. I think there are three separate issues here:

1. Are these socks?
2. If so are they "abusive socks"? I've been going through the edits and I'm struggling to see more than one example of these accounts !voting in the same debate. Abusive sockpuppetry is defined as using multiple accounts to "avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (eg policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy." Whether these are socks or not so far I only see one instance of double !voting.
3. How secure is your account? Sharing a PC with others is a fact of life for many users, but has lead to compromised accounts in the past. If I forget to log in I wind up editing as an IP and if leave my account logged in only a burglar is likely to have access to my account. Thats why when I edit from Public computers I use a non admin account User:WereSpellCheckers. If you've accidentally edited under someone else's account that does raise concerns for me and I suspect others that you might not be as scrupulous about logging in and out as an admin needs to be when editing from public computers.

My advice to you would be to withdraw this RFA. If you and the people behind the other accounts can establish to a checkuser that you are different individuals then you could start a new RFA in the future. In any event please continue the good editing that you've been doing, though you might consider abstaining from !voting until you've suceeded in resolving the socking charges. ϢereSpielChequers 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not socks - thus, 2 becomes a moot point.

My account is completely secure. I always either log out or lock the computer with an appropriately difficult password, even if I step away for a moment. Thus far, I have not edited Wikipedia using a public computer; if that does become a necessity in the future, I would also create a legitimate alternate non-privileged account to do so. In the case of the 'fatal edit', I had used the computer earlier (composing the response to the q in notepad), I I logged out, and I left the computer. When I returned, it was logged in to Wikipedia as 龗, which I failed to notice. I continued to work on the reply in notepad, and when ready I went to the Wikipedia page. I did not notice that it declared "龗" at the top, and I thought I'd logged back in myself - because I would never have left it logged in. I only noticed the error when I hit 'save'. I hope that this explains what I stated above - my account is totally secure; unfortunately, 龗 did not take the same precautions and left it logged in.

The RfA has kindly been extended for a few days, so I will do everything that I can to 'prove' that we are, indeed, different individuals in any appropriate way, as I mentioned above. I will abstain from !voting and all other "significant edits" other than regarding the matter at hand, until this is sorted out.  Chzz  ►  11:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the concern about the security of Chzz's account, note there is evidence that 龗 is not always secure, but there has been no evidence that Chzz has failed to be secure. To be sure, that evidence isn't trivial to obtain, as it would have to be an edit signed by Chzz, but undeniably not made by Chzz. Not easy to prove.--SPhilbrickT 14:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this "I I logged out, and I left the computer. When I returned, it was logged in to Wikipedia as 龗, which I failed to notice." If you always logout, than you should be used to always logging in; otherwise you would frequently edit as an IP address. So where was the disconnect? When you went to login, how did you not notice you were already logged in?--TParis00ap (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also having a hard time with this. If your account is secure it's because you obsessively log in when you get on wikipedia. That's part of the security: knowing when you're logged in or not. You don't seem to see where your mistakes lead to problems. This, imo, is going to be more of a problem if you're an admin than the sock-puppetry: your failure to see your errors. You don't even seem to be pausing to examine them. Just asserting they're not your fault. This concerns me. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Chzz, whether you reveal your real-life identity in confidence to a CU or similarly trusted user is not the point. You need to establish your claim that you are not 龗 are true. If there is another way of clearing your name I'm all for it. Crafty (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input from CU[edit]

In a post above on this page, Chzz says there is only one overlap, but the wikistalker report, which I already linked in my SPI report, shows several overlaps and when you consider 龗 has only 145 edits and showed an immediate knowledge of wiki processes, that is not what one would normally expect from a new user. Also, as I mentioned in the SPI report, CU evidence ties the two accounts together in a way that is way way beyond chance level on many occassions. If this is indeed a different person from Chzz, the problem of accounts being left open is indeed concerning and if Chzz would like to explain this situation more offwiki, I'm willing to listen, but I have to again reiterate, without going into CU specific details, that based on technical evidence this is one of the most convincing CU cases I've ever seen. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, at the SPI you said that there are "several instances where the technical evidence has these accounts tied together". Are you talking about these overlaps, or do you mean that these accounts have edited from different locations/computers etc? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by overlap you editing the same articles, yes, see the wikistalker report and consider 龗 has only 145 edits. And I also meant that they are tied together by different locations/computers/IPs etc. So the answer is both. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Rlevse. Chzz, I think it'd be best if you could give an explanation on that (about the accounts sharing different computers etc.) either here or in whatever method you use to prove your identity. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now in comms with Chzz. Everyone please allow time for us to sort through the details. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, thanks for being so open for discussion and willing to listen to what chzz has to say throughout this ordeal.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like RexxS below, I've reviewed timing of their two edit histories. 龗 never has overlapping edits (clock timing wise) as Chzz. In fact, often Chzz stops, 龗 starts, 龗 stops, and then Chzz starts again, within minutes. This could be explained as friends but CU technical evidence does not show 龗 editing from anywhere else than where Chzz edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean (1) the private discussion is over, but you are unconvinced by Chzz's explanation, and still think that 龗 is a sock; or (2) you are still communicating via email or some other method? Tim Song (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still communicating. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 龗[edit]

I am sorry, but I am entirely usatisfied with Chzz'z explanations. Chzz claims not to know 龗 very well, but 龗 seems to have free access to Chzz's computer(s). Chzz and 龗 have had intimate conversations about Wikipedia issues which has resulted in 龗 !voting in debates Chzz has an interest in, but apparently the conversations did not extend to informing Chzz of the name of 龗's previous account. According to CU, 龗 has not edited from anywhere not associated with Chzz, if this is so, how is it that 龗 has not edited from locations visible to Chzz in their previous existence. If they had done this, there would not be any doubt in Chzz's mind that there was a previous account, and if they have not, Chzz needs to explain how it is they are now so closely associated when previously they were not. SpinningSpark 13:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least 龗's previous account needs to be revealed to a checkuser so that this situation can be investigated. SpinningSpark 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Durova³⁵¹ 14:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, SS. If 龗 is indeed a standalone user, he must have had a previous account (or IP) based on his obvious experience level when joining as 龗. If so, we need to know the details. JamieS93 15:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they did have another account before 龗 as Chzz hinted above, then a checkuser is very unlikely to do any good looking it up. Checkuser data goes stale after some time, and the registration date of 龗 is beyond that threshold. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account still needs to be revealed if Chzz is to plausibly maintain it is someone other than him/her. If it is not revealed, the suspicion will remain that there is no such person or account. SpinningSpark 18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question of judgement[edit]

When the possibility of socking was raised, I went through the contributions of both accounts. 龗 (talk · contribs) made 29 edits from 15:16 16 June 2009 to 18:20 5 July 2009. Chzz stopped editing on 05:54 15 June 2009 and restarted on 20:02 5 July 2009. After that, 龗 make a handful of edits on 4 further occasions: 28 July 2009; 10 September 2009; 29 October 2009; 31 October 2009. In each case (except for the last one) contained in a period of 10–20 minutes. On all 4 occasions, there was a corresponding gap in the editing contributions of Chzz. This led me to believe that the accounts were editing from the same computer - just as Chzz had earlier stated "The computer I am using was left logged on by that other user."

I am willing to accept Chzz's statement that he is not the same person as 龗. Supporting that, I notice that Chzz and 龗 have some dissimilarities in their editing style - for example 龗 forgets to add his signature; I've never seen Chzz do that.

But that leaves me with a troubling problem: Chzz is using a private computer which is also used by another Wikipedia editor with some overlap in interests (AfD, RfA) where !voting is involved. In those circumstances, Chzz has not foreseen the possibility that someone might have made a suggestion of socking. Administrators rely on the community's trust. Given the drama caused by admin socks from Matanmoreland Poetlister to Geogre, I am very disappointed that Chzz could not have seen this coming, and taken steps upfront to make clear that another user was editing Wikipedia from the same private computer. Admins not only need to avoid impropriety, but also need to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I am willing to accept that Chzz is not guilty of the former, but he has failed badly at the latter. I still think he has the potential to make a fine admin, but cannot support him while his judgement has this question mark over it. --RexxS (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy's sake, Mantanmoreland never had an admin account. But Poetlister did (Runcorn). Durova³⁵¹ 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're perfectly correct. I've struck the inaccuracy. Matanmoreland, of course, represents a classic case of the drama surrounding socking and the problems of identification - not to mention the pain it can cause others such as yourself when you put your trust in them. Please accept my apologies. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems with that whole scenario, why doesn't 龗 sign if they were indeed a former Wikipedia user? And why did 龗 just so happen to totally stop editing when Chzz started back up again? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RexxS. Yes, it's hard to balance too much v. too little trust. Durova³⁵¹ 18:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the second question, if they are indeed both using the same computer, I think it's safe to assume 龗 has to stop editing and log out in order for Chzz to log in and start editing again. -- œ^™ 19:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting at OS election[edit]

I'd just like to add a couple of observations regarding the appearance of double-voting at Keegan's oversight election. This incident is seen by many, understandably, as the most suspicious activity in this controversy. I feel however, that it may in fact indicate that while Chzz has not been entirely open (for which there may be valid reasons, primarily personal privacy) they have at least have been truthful.

• User:龗 was ineligible to vote in the election. I feel that Chzz is a knowledgeable and experienced enough editor to have been aware of this fact, which raises the question of why they would cast such a vote using an alternate account, knowing that it wouldn't be counted anyway.
• At the time of User:龗's vote, Keegan had unanimous support of 16 votes to 0. The election did not appear to be in any danger of failing, so I fail to see a plausible motive to stack votes at this time.

Both these observations, to me, suggest veracity in Chzz's claims of innocence, and that he his not in control of the other account. I don't feel we have the full story of Chzz's relationship with 龗, and it is possible that, publicly, we never will. I eagerly await the outcome of Chzz's confidential communication with Rlevse, in the hope that their name can be cleared.

Unfortunately, I feel compelled to remain neutral in the RFA (although that would appear to be moot at this point), but would like to register my moral support for Chzz and sincere hope that things work out. Whatever has happened here, Chzz is a valuable contributor to the encyclopedia and I would hate for us to lose them. AJCham 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation Chzz gives just doesn't fit well for me. How do you claim to not know 龗 very well IRL, yet you both use the same computer to make edits? Oh yeah that's what I like to do... find people that edit Wikipedia, and tell them they can come on over an edit using my PC. </sarcasm> That explanation is quite disturbing. In your reply to Leaky Caldron the tone used is rather odd; the way you say it is as if you can't just call 龗 up... Hell if it were me I would have called 龗 immediately and asked them what their previous account was. I wouldn't let anyone edit using my computer if I didn't even have their number. Of course even the very idea that they didn't tell you who they used to be, yet you know them and you edit using the same equipment, is extremely unbelievable.

You were in computer security jobs, and you're telling me that you don't lock your computer out (not just talking about your Wiki account)? Hell I have to lock my work computer out every time I walk away from it, per regulation, and I've always done it even with my personal computer, there's too much information on it, maybe it's not the case with you.

So this isn't a public computer... who's is it then? It's either 龗's or yours, please be so kind as to tell us who owns it, and how it is that if you don't know this person that well, that you, or they let each other access the internet on it, without knowing each other that well. Until you can answer that logically, there's no way you'll pass this RFA or another RFA in the future. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these explanations don't fit. All you have to do is log out of your user interface and require the guest who is using the same private shared computer as you to log into a guest user interface. That you sit at computer, leave your user interface open, and allow people you don't know to use it, or that you use a shared private computer and don't log out on your user interface and log back into it every time is a HUGE and unbelievable lapse in security.

This isn't credible, Chzz. Not at all. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrib links: 龗, Chzz

Hi. Chzz, I'm attempting to assume good faith, but I'm not yet satisfied with these explanations (and nor are others) and will not retract my oppose !vote on your RfA. There's more to this than merely using the same computer.

• As revealed by the wikistalker report, there are instances of double/same !voting. How would the two of you even come across the same pages?
  1. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ched Davis: [1] [2]
  2. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/August 2009 election/Oversight/Keegan: [3] [4]
• You both use Twinkle and use it for CSD tagging.
• You both use Friendly and use it for tagging articles with maintenance templates.
• You both participate in AfD discussions.
• You both respond to {{helpme}} requests. Just as some examples:
  • Chzz: [5] [6] [7]
  • 龗: [8] [9] [10]
• You've both handled requests at Wikipedia:Articles for creation (at one point both handling the same request):
  • Chzz: [11] [12]
  • 龗: [13] [14]
• I noticed also, Chzz, you use the somewhat less common term "lede" a lot, such as: [15]. In its mere 145 edits, so did 龗: [16].

Obviously, all of those things, in isolation, are not even remotely suspicious, especially as they are all absolutely good and legitimate edits. But taken altogether, what are the chances of two such similar editors who edit such similar areas of Wikipedia, amazingly being on the same computer (out of every computer in the World!), and not being the same person?

Further, 龗 is obviously somebody's additional account, as evidenced by its total lack of learning curve, though it could possibly be someone's legitimate alt.

Chzz, can you give some possible explanation / insight for the double voting and/or other similarities? Did you leave the Ched Davis RfA and Keegan oversight pages open or in the history or something? • Anakin ^(talk) 16:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There really aren't any coincidences in this case since 龗 appears to lack any real world existence beyond Chzz's private computer. Most importantly, anyone running for admin who has been asked in the RfA (Q5) to disclose alternate accounts would realize that 龗 is an account that should be disclosed since a CU would turn it up as an obvious alternate. The only reason not to disclose the 龗 account would be due to the double voting over the summer, and the realization that this would sink the RfA. Better to take your chances that you won't have a CU run on you during the RfA, and simply disclose a few innocuous alternate accounts. Perhaps it was this RfA and Q5 which led Chzz to use the 龗 account yesterday after a period of inactivity. It looks to me as if the 龗 was suddenly active yesterday to make claims that it was a credible user unique from Chzz more believable. However, in seeking to bolster 龗's individuality, Chzz forgot to logout of 龗 before responding to a question in the RfA. Realizing the error, he quickly fixed the mistake and hoped it would fly under the radar. Chzz did not bring the error to anyone's attention because he knew that there wasn't a believable explanation other than sockpuppetry. In fact, if you had not attempted to bolster the contribution history of 龗 yesterday, you probably would not have been caught, and you would currently be well on your way to passing the RfA. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both of you, great points. There are too many things that they did alike and it does seem as if the recent edits by 龗 were just to make the account seem more believable. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know Chzz, you might as well admit it. Obviously, no one is buying it and every time you lie, you just ruin your hard-earned reputation even more. Admitting your mistakes and apologizing might be a better alternative to lying, Chzz. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 18:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few rebuttles to the above (I did !vote oppose). Lede could just be commonly used in the region that Chzz is from. Also, please keep in mind that Chzz is not a vandal or a bad faith contributor, please remain friendly with him. His story could still be 100% true (I doubt it), and we need to continue to assume good faith at least as far as our attitude toward him. Although I am curious, that 1 month period where Chzz stopped editting and 龗 was editting; was he over at Chzz's house during all of those edits? At one point, 龗 editted 5 consecutive days. For someone Chzz doesn't know, it's odd he would invite someone over 5 days in a row. Also curious, did 龗 edit from any other IP Addresses or only from Chzz's account?--TParis00ap (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about lede. I feel a bit mean having swooped in from the RfA shadows unintroduced and started scouting for incriminating edits. Anyway, whoever owns 龗, they didn't create it to break rules, as at least all but 2 of its edits were healthy and legitimate. Whatever the truth, this RfA collapse is altogether a bit tragic. My sympathies, Chzz. • Anakin ^(talk) 22:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as a note, it's not impossible that Chzz is living in a coop of some sort with a single computer. Likely to explain all these issues? No. But it would explain a lot. Just saying we should all AGF and wait to see what comes of the various discussions. At the very least Chzz should have explained all this at the start, so I can't imagine a situation under which this RfA is successful. Hobit (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in extensive comms with Chzz today. He assures me that he's been as honest as possible in this and that 龗 is someone he knows that edits at his house. He said he didn't mention 龗 in his answer to question 5 because 龗 had so few edits. Chzz admits the CU evidence is very damaging and rock solid. The problem, technical evidence-wise, is that there is nothing in CU evidence that can support Chzz's claims as 龗 has not ever (based on CU evidence) edited from somewhere other that Chzz's house. Couple this with the double votes, fact that their edits never overlap timewise, etc and he understands the community's suspicions but he strongly asserts 龗 is not him. As for the CU evidence, as I said, it doesn't get any better. So what we are left with here is an AGF question -- do we accept Chzz at his word or not? Hindsight is 20/20, we can all find errors in the system and this RFA if we want, but the fact is Chzz has withdrawn and he's taking a quite understandable breathing time about continuing. While I agree with those that something is odd here, I'm not sure what it is. Did 龗 set Chzz up or use him to hide because 龗 is a former editor not in good standing? All sorts of things are possible. I encourage Chzz to continue editing and the community allow him a chance to redeem his name. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice assessment. I think all we can do now is assume the faith that is good and let Chzz return to editing. The RfA has ended, Chzz doesn't have the tools and the evidence is what it is. Crafty (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks are due to Rlevse for the time he's invested in this, and for keeping such an open mind. For what it's worth, I'd echo his sentiments exactly. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+1 with the thanks, Rlevse. -- Avi (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable assessment. Durova³⁵¹ 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the RFA is closed, but I still want to get my word in. This is not the kind of drama I expected at this RfA, and I think Chzz taking some time off is a good thing. I do not think that he will be able to run for admin anytime in the foreseeable future. Even with the facts presented, I don't think that anybody can doubt that Chzz's work and knowledge is very valuable, and it would be a shame to lose it. I hope that Chzz will recover from this, and I really really hope that he will be back to assist me when I have troubles, and when all editors have troubles, sometime soon.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think very few would have predicted this ahead of time. Yes, it'd be good if he can recover. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]