Bargolus

Bargolus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

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 28-29 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 editwars since 5 March 2015 over same undue POV. There have been a number of sessions of apparent sock puppetry on this article, since last month. It means that enough sock puppetry was practiced before the sock abuse, described below.

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[9] and seeking protection of his preferred version,[10] or else other editor would online and remove the specific content like he had done recently.[11]

After the protection was made against that version from IPs, an account, Bargolus (talk · contribs), that had only 2 edits, and both from September 2007,[12] turned this account into autoconfirmed user and resumed the edit war[13] with this account.[14][15]

Bargolus claimed that he was 49.244.254.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),[16] he edited the comment of 49.244... as well, and soon he edited own comment with 124.41.243.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).[17] 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",[18] himself said stuff like, "I'll still add a one liner about many of the rape being unreported though."[19] These edits[20][21][22] clearly fulfills that criteria. They largely replicate previous scenario of sock puppetry [23][24][[25][26] 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."[27]

  • Both accounts specifically objected the sentence, "reported rapes in India are among the lowest in the world" in their own words.[28][29]
  • 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 had attempted to remove that part[30] before.
  • per 100,000[31][32]
  • Zhanzhao pushes an "article from WSJ"[33]replaced 05:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bargolus pushes "link to a WSJ article"[34]
  • Bargolus says "the article is about Rape in India".[35]
  • TCKTKtool says "This article is about Rape in India".[36](last suspect)
  • Zhanzhao says "it is about rape in india".[37]
  • 72.196.235.154 says "This article is about Rape in India",[38]
  • Zhanzhao acts same on other articles, check [39] "This article is about irreligion/non-religion".
  • This one might be little hard, though still workable re: view point that Marital rape is widespread and not prohibited.
  • An IP came out from nowhere, and made these 2 edits[40][41] Soon, this statement was straightened by Zhanzhao[42](no summary though he usually provides, similar referencing style)[43]
  • 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",[44] 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,[45] 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"[46]
  • "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"[47]


Some of the uncommon similarities counts:

1)
2)
3)

I agree that Bargolous has made really long messages,[100][101] but this same kind of WP:TLDR is also found in the messages of Zhanzhao.[102][103][104]

Check [105] he had bold the text "Or, we can just write that LKY is..(continued)", same way he bold "Argument for grammatical change" at [106]

Both have made those edits that required rev-del due to the exposure of personal information.[107][108] They may have differed, but still personal. Bargolus edited my sandbox,[109] that had been criticized by Zhanzhao.

On the same day, same sort of surprising sock wave and tag-team edit warring was also seen on Women in India, account[124], IP[125], another IP.[126]

Zhanzhao has edit warred on this article before with Darkness Shines.[127]

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]

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:

Such rigid edit wars only replicates the previous scenario of technically confirmed connection of other 2 accounts.(DanS76, Zhanzhao [147][148][[149][150]) As well as another one from 22-23 March[151][152][153][154] No one else ever edit warred on these articles ever before.

Currently many of the editors are having discussion at this policy page, that how easy it is for others to defeat CU results.[155][156] 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]

Edit warring

We have seen the sock-wave, edit warring with multiple accounts that match with the content and POV discussed above. Here's some diffs of individual edit warring. Usual pattern: (a) Add objectionable content without discussion. (b) After seeing it revert, start edit war.

Timings

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,[170] and started 1 April at 1:43.[171]
Zhanzhao made his last edit of 2 April at 15:42[172] and started 3 April at 1:49.[173]
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[174] that he hasn't touched my UTP since this message[175] from 24 March? No, he did.[176] (I saw [177] Zhanzhao attempt to WP:GAME 07:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Zhanzhao says Bargolus had replicated the article title in his talk section, though both "Argument for grammatical change"(in section) "Arguments for editing outlined more clearly"(section title) are very different.[178] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More misrepresentation comes from below where Zhanzhao provides only 1 sided diff, he cannot express whole thing.[179](person was invactive from 25-28) Providing a diff where I discussed a technical fault or block has to do nothing with you either.
Mike V
  • Given that how each of these accounts have made no edits, once they are brought here on SPI, that has happened to Bargolus as well now. Which is not a coincidence.
  • Also you talk about the page views of this article, I would like to point that the page views of this article were higher than 40,000 at once, sometimes there were over 78,000 views and on an average they were always higher than 25,000 - 30,000. But I never saw tireless edit warring over the same undue POV, and source misrepresentation. If we are saying that because it had 37,000 views last time, still there had to be at least one edit war in previous months, not 5 edit wars over same content all time.
  • Why they are particularly copying same argument of each other? And launching edit wars time to time? 72. edits when his area is asleep. That's how it is a sock, you may want to look carefully at the reply that I had made to DoRD. Another quick glance should be at the overall picture that how they back each other in content dispute and remain hostile towards others.
  • Saying that Bargolus mentioned that how he mentioned that he edited while logged out, that means that Zhanzhao was re-applying the pattern, when he was a newbie and he repeated the same episode here. When Zhanzhao had started to use talk pages, he also didn't used colons(::) he rather used dashes(---)[188][189], just like Bargolus.[190]
  • Zhanzhao had also edited while logged out.[191] Zhanzhao also made it clear like Bargolus that he did "without logging in".[192]
  • Zhanzhao[193] reverted other editors while logged out[194] and made it clear on talk, "PS thats me on the latest undo, I forgot to log in".[195] just like Bargolus "The IP above was me as well".[196]
Zhanzhao had made messages on other boards while logged out,[197] and he would then resume by signing himself.[198]
  • It is easier to think that Zhanzhao was doing the things that he previously did as a newbie since he had to make Bargolus look newbie as well. Even I remember my first day on en.wiki as well as first glance that I had on en.wiki. While this 'logging out logging in' was going on with Zhanzhao for first 2 years. What we know is that newbies usually vandalize, or engage in personal attacks, or they drop the stick quickly or they present good argument and improve things. They don't push the same undue POV of Zhanzhao and tirelessly edit war.
  • Timelines are usually judged between the accounts that are rather equivalent or even half, to each other in duration, not really with an account that has 50 edits in 4 days, and other having 3600 in last 7 years. That's why I had posted only those timings, when this account had joined. If there is a provision to compare the timings only from 29 March - now with Zhanzhao, then you have 99% exact match and in fact there is. It cannot be coincidence to share same timing on multiple days.
  • Problem is that this highly new account is exactly pushing the same POV as Zhanzhao, I am asking again, why he quit like every other suspected sock? You can see above that they are posting/objected exactly same sentences on the article talk page, and the edit warring pattern of these different accounts is highly similar to each other, something that no one else would do on an highly sensitive article and not over the same content. They all have individually edit warred in 2 different instances and since they share so many similarities with each other in edit summaries, and writing style, while being a throw away account/IP, it is concerning that how they cannot be same.
  • Also given the history of Zhanzhao edit warring and source misrepresentation on the same account with DanS76 that shared technical details. It is not hard to believe that these socks are his, since these socks are edit warring over the same undue content. Below bludgeoning along with massive misrepresentation of diffs is not even required if he is not a sock. I would like to know what you think, and keep this open for others such as RegentsPark, Edjohnston. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DoRD you had said that you found technical match between those two accounts on Callanecc's page? It is indeed an attempt to improve encyclopedia to point out throw-away sock accounts that quit after a while after going for at least 2 edit wars over same pointy POV. And my reply after Mike V must have answered his doubts. If you have any doubts you can tell. Though I don't see any at all, especially when 2 users are using dashes in place of colons for replying. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:01, 4 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. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zhanzhao%7C

OccultZone was blocked twice for edit-warring with people he assumes are my socks, 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've readily admitted that WP:FAMILY/possible WP:MEAT was an issue in the first SPI, so my brother retire his account to avoid any reoccurance. This was resolved way back in the 1st SPI. However OccultZone has become paranoid that every new account he encounters thats against him is my sock, from the 2nd SPI onwards, even though he's been repeatedly told that his evidence was weak. I am going to make comprehensive 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 lengthy point-by-point rebuttal of his accusations.

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 just want to distance myself away from OZ as possible, and just hope he does me the same courtesy and not wikihound me after this. For now I'll force myself to believe this is a coincidence. - I really don't want to have to reopen this wound by going after him. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
More