Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qingprof/Archive

08 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Similar usernames for 清宫专家 and Qingprof. Actually they mean roughly the same, since the first username means "Qing palace expert" while the second is believed to be a short form of "Qing professor". There's a possibility that these accounts may be sockpuppets of the banned Yongle the Great. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 05:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Endorsing for a checkuser. If it is Yongle, we'll merge the cases together. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅ matches, although they do not appear to be Yongle.
 * TN X Man 13:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Master blocked 3 days for puppeting; the other accounts have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * TN X Man 13:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Master blocked 3 days for puppeting; the other accounts have been blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

21 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Using multiple IP addresses as WP:SPA, Qingprof added numerous copyvio images in Cheongsam, violating WP:SCRUTINY. Sock master's conduct has been previously admonished on ANI for exact same matter (scroll down further in that section of the link). The account went inactive soon after ANI to avoid further scrutiny but now it returns to active. I'm not seeking a checkuser, just need an uninvolved admin to do some blocking on IPs (and possibly on the account as well). OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I believe that all the images inserted on that page have been properly sourced and none is copyvio, because I have found their internet sources later on as well. The case you present here is out of date, as it does not reflect the changes that happened later on. So from now on stop vandalizing that page without an updated reason, Ohana United. Qingprof (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I think this is rather quite insidious and cowardly. In the future do notify me if accusations like this are made against me, otherwise it is very likely to rid me of a chance to defend myself.Qingprof (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I call your bluff. The fact is that you used multiple IP addresses which signaled that you're avoiding scrutiny tied back to your registered user account. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK you know what, I am not interested in "bluffing" you, what I said were merely the things you should have done by common sense. If giving me a notice about what you are doing here and providing an updated reason for your acclaimed "copyvio" sound like "bluffs" to you, then by all means quit Wikipedia! Qingprof (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are here to evoke a block of an account based on how you imagine the user thought then save it! I don't need to hear about these and I have no scrutiny to avoid as the images you referred to have been properly sourced by now. If you continue to eliminate my edits without an updated reason it's your account that should be blocked. Qingprof (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, you are confusing IPs with accounts. Qingprof (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. (Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny may also be considered a breach of this policy.) Qingprof (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I give you a chance to correct your statement. Scroll up the page, read the 3rd bullet point in lead section, then come back and try again. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, the edits have to be problematic. But they are not problematic nor copyvio as I stated their online sources later on. Qingprof (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * With an apparently obvious case of scrutiny evasion and no technical data to post, I think we can close. I will defer to OhanaUnited's judgement as to whether or not to block. AGK  [•] 00:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)