Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zimbazumba/Archive

21 March 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 " ~ "''

User:Zimbazumba was unblocked a week ago in good faith by JamesBWatson. However there remains a serious issue here. User:Tomtac was discovered to be a Zimbazumba sock and blocked by Alison in December 2010. Zimbazumba was also blocked at this time. In February 2011 I noticed User:Pancur (an account with 8 edits) making a strange point about WP:RS on Talk:Feminism one a new user just wouldn't make]. Zimbazumba was unblocked in early March and joined in a discussion started by Pancur directly supporting their points at Talk:Feminism. Pancur has not made another edit since. The Problem here is Pancur and Zimbazumba quack - they make the same kind of posts in the same topic areas using a similar writing style with similar misunderstandings of policy. Additionally Pancur disappeared the day before Zimbazumba returned. And most problematically Zimbazumba openly agreed with Pancur at Talk:Feminism, in a manner that could be vote-stacking. Zimbazumba has a history of sockpuppetry and has not explicitly agreed to abide by the project's policies. He has never been open about whether, and how many accounts, he used while blocked. Today Zimbazumba denied being Pancur and had claimed Tomtac was either his wife or his kids' account (see diffs below). However if one reviews the contribs of all 3 accounts the tone, style and content of their comments are a match for one another as are the topic areas. Indeed Zimbazumba responded to my question about the Pancur account by saying that he never editted Sexism (or Talk:Sexism). However when one reviews Tomtac's contribs it is plain that thta account did.


 * Timeline
 * Tomtac blocked 16 December 2010 and 'acknowledged' by Zimbazumba as "his wife's account":
 * Pancur account created: 1 March 2011
 * Pancur account first used: 22:16, '4 March 2011
 * Zimbazumba unblocked: 17:37, 5 March 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AZimbazumba&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=
 * Pancur's final edit: 7 March 2011 -
 * Zimbazumba's first edit after unblock: 8 March 2011 -
 * Zimbazumba "agrees with Pancur" on 11 March 2011 - vote stacking on talk:feminism
 * On March 14th James asked Zimbazumba for clarification re WP:Sock / WP:Meat. Zimbazumba replied saying the other accounts were his childrens'. Note his children's, not his wife's.
 * On March 21st, Zimbazumba denies using Pancur as an alt account:

Zimbazumba's comments about rape: Pancur's comments about rape: Zimbazumba's points about WP:RS Pancur makes a point about WP:RS Zimbazumba makes a point about "political" rhetoric on Talk:Antifeminism Tomtac makes a point about "political" rhetoric on -- Cailil  talk 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Diffs
 * Talk:Laws_regarding_rape -
 * Talk:Sexism -
 * Talk:Feminism -
 * Talk:Feminism - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=417206509
 * Talk:Laws_regarding_rape - (actual edit which removed material that used a secondary source )
 * Talk:Feminism -
 * 
 * Sexism -

After claiming to be oblivious to Talk:Sexism until this posting was made he made 18 edits to that page - one of them being this, which echoes very similar points to those of Pancur above. I reject out of hand the spurious accusation of bad faith levelled against me. (Which is itself a serious matter - WP:AGF.) I am not involved in a content dispute with Zimbazumba and he in fact supported the edits I made to Feminism becuase those edits contradicted the position of those Zimbazumba IS in a content dispute with. -- Cailil  talk 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * My unblocking of Zimbazumba was a mistake. However, when I realised my mistake I thought that rather than simply reblock I would give the user a chance to make an undertaking to edit in accordance with policies. Zimbazumba has stated that Tomtac is a member of Zimbazumba's family, though he seems to be in some confusion as to whether it is one of his "kids" or his wife. At one point he stated that it was his wife's account, and at another point he stated that all the other accounts from the same computer were his kids. It looks to me very much like a case of WP:BROTHER. On the other hand, Zimbazumba states that Pancur is "nothing to do with us". However, the degree of similarity is striking, even down to similar uses of words, such as this edit where Pancur describes him/herself as "speechless", and this one where Tomtac does so. There are other similarities, close to enough, in my opinion, for a block, but I would be happier if a checkuser could indicate whether or not there is technical evidence of a connection. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to add another account to the list of suspected sockpuppets: User:71.23.247.6


 * User:71.23.247.6 was editing while User:Zimbazumba was blocked. Zimbazumba argued in December that the term "antifeminist" is "pejorative" and that Michael Kimmel's definition of the term was "massive POV"  Then Zimbazumba was blocked. And along comes User:71.23.247.6 and continues where Zimbazumba left off, also arguing that the definition of antifeminism is "pejorative" , that the definition provided by Kimmel (and his organization NOMAS) is biased   etc etc.


 * As for similarities between Zimbazumba/Tomtac and Pancur, in addition to the similarities in content (i.e. same arguments used, the same things being lamented, very similar things proposed etc.) there are even similarities in style between User:Zimbazumba/User:Tomtac and User:Pancur despite the fact that Pancur made only 8 edits. Small things like the fact that Zimbazumba and Pancur have the same style of leaving maybe two paragraphs space before their signature  or that they both write WP:RS in small lettering  . Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Response by Zimbazumba

Firstly

(1) I thought the previous case concerning family was sorted. There were multiple users involving me, my wife and children I had no idea what they were doing or exactly whose account was whose. We were new to Wikipedia. And the fact we hold similar opinions and use similar langauge? Well thats unusual.

(2) Pancer is nothing to do with me. It looks to me if he joined got pissed and left with a final one word post. People with similar views tend to mix together in forums were they develop similar argumentative styles and language. Frankly the left wing pro-feminist crowd here sound all the same to me as well. The term "speechless" is a common term of exhasperation in the circles I mix in. Concerning the very few similarities between me and Pancer, well I had just been reading his posts and they are also common amongst others, perhaps?.

The points brought up here can be bent to fit any story you want.

Secondly

I feel this complaint has been made in bad faith.

(1) The case made against me is absurdly thin.

(2) This complaint has come at the end of a very contentious debate on feminism and NOPVN, where I was very vocal and held very different views to just about everyone else including Cailil the complainant.

This is an attempt at a Wiki lynching of someone who holds views at odds with the majority on a set of contentious topics. I have nothing more to say on this matter.

Zimbazumba (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to the above comment. In the light of what I have seen, the accusation that Cailil has started this investigation as an attempt at "lynching" seems improbable. As for myself, I do not recommend making assumptions about my political views. As far as Zimbazumba/Tomtac is concerned, despite my doubts I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and unblocked Zimbazumba. The reason I regard that unblock as a mistake is that I had somehow failed to notice that Zimbazumba had said that several different users would make use of the same account. However, he has now stated that that will not happen, and I am willing to regard that issue as closed. On the other hand, I do not know whether Pancur is, as Zimbazumba says, an unrelated person or, as others have suspected, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. If I thought there was enough evidence to decide it was a sockpuppet then I would have closed this investigation and blocked both Pancur and Zimbazumba. However, enough genuine concerns have been expressed by several editors to raise doubts, and it is because of those doubts that I have asked for a checkuser. In order to clarify for Zimbazumba, let me emphasise that that request was not made in order to be able to reblock, which I could have done without any investigation. It was done in order to help settle the matter one way or the other. If a checkuser gives a negative result I will be perfectly happy. I certainly have no desire to suppress Zimbazumba because of disagreeing with his political stance: if I took that approach to Wikipedia then it would be difficult to see why I unblocked him in the first place, or why, when I decided I had made a mistake, I did not simply reblock, rather than giving him another chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Question for Zimbazumba

Zimbazumba, I see that you don't deny that you used IP User:71.23.247.6 while Zimbazumba/Tomtac was blocked. Question: Did you or did you not use IP 71.23.247.6 to evade your block? The edits made by said IP are so similar to Zimbazumba's (belief that term "antifeminist" was "pejorative," that certain sources are "obviously biased," making the same comparisons to the definitions used by conservatives to describe liberals, even the same style/layout/organization of paragraphs) that I just assumed that you forgot to log in and didn't pay much attention until I noticed yesterday that Zimbazumba/Tomtac was blocked at the time. The behavioral evidence in this case seems so strong that I think there is no need for technical evidence (although it would be nice to see if Zimbazumba used more accounts than are mentioned above). Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sure, let's find out what's going on here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote my comment above, further evidence has been brought to my attention which has indicated unambiguously that there has been meat puppetry, and very probably sockpuppetry as well. I have therefore reblocked Zimbazumba. It may still be worth seeing whether a checkuser will indicate a connection to Pancur and the IP or not, though a suggestion has been made that editing has taken place via a proxy, in which case the result may be inconclusive. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Tomtac is stale. Zimbazumba is technically ❌ to Pancur. Zimbazumba edits are solely from an easily identifiable locale; Pancur edits are from nowhere near there -- rather, they're from airports or hotel rooms or something like that (Wayport connections) or from a major convention center far away from Zimbazumba's locale. The IP is ❌ to any of this. Thus, Checkuser results will not be useful in resolving this case. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Zimba and Tomtac have been indef blocked by other admins. Pancur hasn't been used in nearly three weeks, and the IP even longer. There isn't much else to do here, so I'm closing for now. Relist if there are further developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)