Isuzu1001

Isuzu1001 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
01 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user seems obsessed with adding the WP:OR assertion that the Cantonese people are a different ethnic group than Han chinese, and adding original research claims that cantonese "usually" are different in appearance than other chinese and are of southeast asian appearance. Isuzu1001 and Zhongshuangyu have had a short history of adding totally unrefrenced claims on the cantonese to three articles, claiming cantonese are not chinese and are being oppressed by chinese.

All three users added the following original research claims to Ethnic issues in the People's Republic of China- none of the claims were sourced, nor did the users provide sources when I noted they did not have sources in edit summaries.

Isuzu1001 first added it here, Zhongshuangyu readded it here, Isuzu1001 readded it again, he made up an explanation but gave no source for his assertions ,and ip 27.33.126.254 readded it to the article again, with no source

The word "usually" in the information they added to the article just screams WP:OR to me.

In the following five edits, Zhongshuangyu adds the totally unreferenced, and original research claim that Cantonese people are a separate ethnic group from Han chinese and claims they are the "yue ethnic" group [1] [2] [3][4][5]

the edit said-

"People based in Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan, Hong Kong, Macau of southeast of asia which also called yue ethnic. Due to Han government’s policy some of them are living in USA, Australia and other countries sometimes would easily be confused with Han."

totally unreferenced, baseless WP:OR.

Isuzu1001 seems to be pushing the same agenda/theory that Cantonese are "oppressed" by the han government of China and are different from other chinese

Isuzu1001 created this page on his userspace proclaiming that-

"Cantonia independence (or Lingnam independence) is a political movement whose goal is primarily to create an independent and sovereign Republic of Cantonia out of the lands currently governed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and claimed by the Republic of China (ROC)."

He added this totally irrelevant article Controversy over use of Cantonese by Guangzhou Television to Ethnic issues in the People's Republic of China over here.

the "controversy over use of cantonese" article is about the suggestion that Standard Chinese replace Cantonese, which is just another Chinese language on a television station, nothing to do with "ethnic issues" since both languages are chinese languages.

This Youtube channel "ROCantonia" appears to be owned by this user, it spouts exactly the same "theory" (which is unreferenced), that Cantonese are members of the "yue" ethnic group, and are not Chinese. these specific edits by Zhongshuangyu and Isuzu1001 link them both to this account. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for you guy's benefit, I will post exactly what the Youtube channel ROCantonia said on here, it matches the content that Zhongshuangyu and Isuzu1001 added to the articles i mentioned above-

[http://www.youtube.com/user/ROCantonia Please help us to promote the Cantonian people to the world for our struggle for human rights, liberty, democracy and freedom from China and Han Chinese racists. Free Daai Yueh, free Cantonia! 自由大粵，自由康頓尼亞! The Great Cantonia also known as The Republic of Cantonia, locate between south of PR China and north of Vietnam, her territory include Eastern region (Canton), Western region and the largest island - Hoinam Island, which is recognized as Hainan by the Chinese, and also a group of small islands around Hoinam Island. The area is largely inhabited by diverse minorities inherited from ancient Yueh (Viet) peoples, and some Yueh-Han intermix known as Cantonese by the westerner. Famed missionary and explorer Gaspaar dda cruz crossed Cantonia in the year of 1556. To those Yueh haters: After barbarous Qin conquered Yueh, our people keep fighting for freedom during the following 200 years, and there were 6 large scale uprising against barbarous Qin. Within the history of East Asia, our land have successfully got away from China several times. To claim Cantonia is part of China is like to claim France is part of Germany because France was conquered by Germany in WWII, and like Qin Shi Huang, Hitler was also a tyrant!]

These three edits show almost the same info as the youtube channel-[6] [7][8]

and if the user removes the information from youtube before you guys get to see it, I will post screenshots i took on a flickr account.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a note regarding checkuser- I have just found out that the ip sock may be connecting via a proxy server- see User talk:27.33.126.254 where it was tagged as "through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy", so even though the person is the same the checkuser might say they are different peopleΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
25 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


John Cruel's Edits [9][10][11]

Isuzu1001's edits

[12][13][14][15][16]

They are adding the same, unreferenced racial slurs to the articles. Isuzu was even caught yout for socking before, because the header says "You are about to add a second or subsequent request to the previous existing cases on: Sockpuppet investigations/Isuzu1001" as I am filing this report. His other sock account was apparently blocked, but his main accout Isuzu1001 was not blocked

I recommend an indefinite block for both John Cruel and Isuzu1001 because he seems to think this is okay after he was let off easy the first time.

This was his previous sockpuppet case- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Isuzu1001/Archive. He was found guilty and the sock blockked as I mentioned above.

Beajhure (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I see no overlap in edits and no evidence of multiple account abuse. How do we know that the first account was not abandoned in favor of the second? TNXMan 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They both add the same non-verifiable, fictitious "ethnic slurs" and incite hatred between Cantonese and non-Cantonese through baiting. John Cruel has few other edits, and is likely a sleeper sock account made in advance to be used some day. The only other edits made are a few interwiki link inclusions, not much apart from that. These terms cannot be found anywhere else on the internet, apart from a handful of blogs that I suspect belong to Isuzu1001; the last Checkuser investigation involved a youtube account that claimed that there is a (fictitious) "Cantonian independence movement" going on, and this behaviour appears quite similar. Given that usage of these terms are not widespread, one can only assume that they're either the work of one person, or a close group of schoolfriends (which constitutes meatpuppetry anyway). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, I still don't see abuse of multiple accounts. It looks to me like one account was abandoned and the other started up. Perhaps they forgot their password, or wanted a new name. Absent any consensus stacking, etc. I don't there's any action to take here. TNXMan 18:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Escaping scrutiny"? I have Isuzu on my watchlist, meaning that if he did anything shady, I'd know immediately after someone posted warning templates on his talk page, plus I occasionally lurk user contributions of known users from time to time. I did not know that these edits, which occurred in December 2011, even happened until I was informed on my talk page. If I had known earlier, I would have reverted the controversial edits immediately. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tnxman307 is right. There is no abuse of multiple accounts going on here. If there is disruption, then there are other venues in which this can be addressed. Marking as closed. --MuZemike 23:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More