Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zhand38/Archive

11 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Quacking is loud enough here for the first account that a checkuser may not be strictly necessary, but I think it may be important to check on the other one as well. Both are single purpose accounts with numbers in their names focusing on the article that seems to obsess User:Zhand38. I'm afraid that this may become an ongoing problem. User:Zhand38 was blocked for disruption and may not currently be able to work within Wikipedia norms. I have not blocked in spite of the strength of quacking. Given his history and my current contract, I should not. I may semiprotect the article, though, if this continues. :/ (Note: I am not informing the user, as I think it probably in our best interests not to do so.) Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Seems so. Blocked account is enthusiastic to a fault, and could someday be a valued contributor. For now article ownership and lack of willingness to work toward improving edits to meet encyclopedic guidelines remains problematic, a situation exacerbated by apparent use of multiple accounts. Page protection may well be the way to go. 99.184.129.216 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The first two are ✅ matches, along with the sleeper ., The third is enough to block with the behaviour.  I've semi'ed the article. Courcelles 16:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll call Okapi2196. Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Was User:Okapi2196 blocked only on behaviour or on a technical match? I ask mostly because Okapi was deleting and otherwise thwarting Zhand's edits. Zhand has also said many times that while he was indeed Hmilz and Natport, he was not Okapi. If there has been no technical checkuser run on Okapi, I ask that it be done now. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If I look just at the technical evidence, it is . Courcelles 22:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No meaningful worries here, then. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

25 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Despite warnings, blocked user is continuing to use IP address to edit. Calabe1992 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

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

I just needed to tell Gwen Gale that I wasn't Okapi, and I wanted to get unblocked and I needed another IP address to do that74.83.218.178 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I also want to know why I was blocked for no reason before my sockpuppets74.83.218.178 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -, to quote the IP, "I also want to know why I was blocked for no reason before my sockpuppets". CU unnecessary here. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's Zhand. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes it is. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  02:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Courcelles already blocked the IP, so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

02 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Already blocked per quacking: leaving this for the record. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2012 (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
Marking for close, then. TN X Man 14:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

10 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

See the history of Cincinnati Zoo. Protection ran out, and we're back with an article full of trivia. I'd like CU to confirm, if possible. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On second and third thought, my suspicion is completely unwarranted. Please nix the report. Thanks, and with apologies for wasting y'all's time. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2012 (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

 * Yeah, I don't think this is the same person either. Some things line up, but some don't. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're too kind. It was a bad call. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)