Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ohconfucius


 * Yeah, rajeev forgot to mention that both Egra and I both stand up to piss, both wear black shoes, and type on the computer with a keyboard. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, ohconfucious, I think it would save us all a lot of trouble and unnecessary doubt if you or EgraS could clarify the first incident where user2 ( EgraS) is answering a question directed at user 1( Ohconfucuis) as if it were directed at him. Further, it was you, not EgraS, who had described certain sources as "partisan" before. Could you please clarify. Frankly speaking, I have rather strong doubts judging by the nature of arguments both of you employ (and your style of writing) on the Talk Pages.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed third parties often butt in and out of conversations on Usertalk pages. Get real! The conversations Rajeev described took place in an article talk page. This is how people talk to each other in wikiland. Also, either that's what wikipedia's policy say, or we happen to agree on their interpretation of same. Is the problem so serious to warrant me being accused of using sock-puppets? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am yet to see a user take responsibility for deletion of content by another and refer to to the other user's statement as if it were his own.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason behind my suspicion is how tightly bound the two user pages has been in advancing a certain point of view.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Li Hongzhi be my judge that my userpage has been substantially unchanged for a very great number of months. I hope paranoïa isn't contagious ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to certain recent edits by you on EgraS's talk. And also certain edits in relation to the recent request for protection. I am a little tight on time, but still, I'll try to point out a few edits below.


 * Could EgraS please take a minute off to comment on this?
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You can spend all your time trying to wiggle out or turn attention away from a content dispute. This is a form of disruption. Ohconfucius has actually reverted some of my changes or diasgreed with them. EgraS (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which content dispute am I so called "disrupting"? Please point out. How could a checkuser possibly disrupt a content dispute- I haven't even mentioned this checkuser to any other user - ohconfucius somehow got to know about it - thats all. Why don't you just take it calm and lightly and let the result speak for itself - if you two are really different? I never said you are the same - but just that I felt it was worth checking.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Context/Background
I had made some significant changes to the article titled Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident. The edits I had made were all well soured material, in most part from The Amnesty International, HRW, Kilgour-Matas Reports, Human Rights Reports Submitted at the U.N etc. My edits were positively commended on by other editors. The quality of may recent changes may be judged by analyzing the edits. The user User:Ohconfucius was somehow unsettled by the content I had added edits and wanted the page to be reverted on an older version and locked. The admin seeing no reason to revert to an older version locked it on the current version.

Set 1
Edits with strikingly similar motives

Reason for both Edits: asking for support from other users to advance their POV.

Please compare this Edit by User:EgraS on another user's page (asking for support to advance a POV),

to This Particular Edit made by User:Ohconfucius, with the exact same motive on another user's talk page.

( I also wish to point out that the accusations the user is making against me here are not true. My statements are being put out of context, also the page rename he is talking about, was done the other way round( from the vague "Falun Gong and Organ Harvesting" to the more objective "Reports of Organ Harvesting from Falun Gong Practitioners" ) and after mentioning it on the talk page and waiting for almost two weeks for any disagreement. Other users have commended very positively on the my recent changes. The changes I had made to that particular page are here. )

Not only are their motives strikingly similar, but closer examination of thirs edits on the topic reveal striking similarities in their style of writing too.


 * Rajeev's motives and those of Gail Raschen Gail Rachlin appear to be identical, in that both appear to be seeking to advance the Falun Gong cause. I suspect they may be the same person. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I donot even know who this person is- and I am completely open to a checkuser to prove my innocence.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Also compare the above edit to EgraS's edit here

Set 2

 * "Amnesty International itself is an advocacy group, as per their own mission statement. Hardly the independent third-party sources that is needed." - EgraS


 * "...assertions and allegations of Falun Gong and other advocacy groups, however marginal and insignificant, are totally legitimate and indeed necessary. He says "We are obliged to report here what Human Rights Organizations such as the Amnesty have said on the issue - whether you like it or not." -Ohconfucius

Am yet to see one more person who refers to Amnesty International as an "advocacy Group". This, by no means, is an isolated example. From minor things such as abbreviations they tend to use, how they link every use of WP:Soap to the Overall pov/purpose/goal - all seem to be similar.

There are many, but to delineate each here is hard. I will try to point out more when I can pull out some free time.

Also, what I found surprising were patterns in certain edits related to the recent page protection I mention above. Anyway I think we should wait till IP analysis is done.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dilip rajeev, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of your own making. You'll be accusing User:Antilived of being my sockpuppet next. Happy digging! Ohconfucius (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * User:antilived obviously has nothing to do with all of this - for what reason are you now pulling his name into this?


 * This is a mere user-check request - and let us please not make this any more complicated than that - if my doubts were unfounded, the results will say so.


 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly note this - rather Strong Evidence
Kindly Compare :A protect request by Ohconfucius to A protect request by EgraS.

" temporary full protection, 2 weeks if possible."... "A social sciences and society good article has been overrun by likely..." .. (the similarities continue)
 * Both start the exact same way:

"Therefore, I ask that the article.. be protected fully for 2 weeks until a consensus has been reached on the talk page, and new independent editors.." .."show up"\"have shown up"
 * Both end the exact same way:


 * Both employ similar attacks against me - pulling out my words and putting them out of context( Kindly see my response to the allegations made by the user(s))


 * Strikingly similar pattern and style of writing. Note patterns such as frequent, linked use of WP:NPOV etc..

Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I had as vivid an imagination as you, I would see ghosts under every shadow and would have very sleepless nights.
 * By that reckoning of similarity of styles, all fairy tales were probably written by the same person - they all start with "Once upon a time..." and end with "and they lived happily ever after" ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All protect page requests don't start and end the same way - I know that for sure. I find it hard to accept, by any stretch of imagination, that these two pieces were written by two different people. What we are talking about here is word-for-word similarity.
 * Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else that I find interesting is how the protect request here was initiated.

20:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC): EgraS asks for a protect on Requests for protection the pagehere.

02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC): After this edit protect request was made, Egras responding to an edit on Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident by Ohconfucius ( dated 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)) suggests that the page be reverted to a previous version and protected.

02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC): Ohconfucius "seconds" it.

(The admin apparently found no reason to revert. And since there was some edit warring going on, he enforced protect on the page)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)