ScorchingPheonix ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

27 September 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Reconquista1492 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Phoenix7777 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 149.142.75.107 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• 169.232.190.64 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))
• 76.172.217.103 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

Evidence submitted by Дунгане

Similar usernames between ScorchingPheonix and Phoenix7777. The three ips have been traced to Los Angeles, They consistently push pro Japanese POV on Second Sino-Japanese War related articles. User:Phoenix7777 and ip 76.172.217.103 made exactly the same edits - [1] [2]

Several of the accounts are obsessed with pushing pro Japanese POV on Korea under Japanese rule. 76.172.217.103, User:ScorchingPheonix, and User:Reconquista1492 are all inserting "Japanese Victory" into 1939–1940 Winter Offensive [3] [4] [5] despite the fact that "Japanese Victory" is original research because none of the sources they brought up said "Japanese Victory".

Some of them are obsessed with University related articles. User:ScorchingPheonix created a section of a dispute on Keio University here, and 169.232.190.64 was edit warring on Keio university here User:Reconquista1492 made an edit on List of University of California, Los Angeles people 149.142.75.107 responded to a comment i made on a talk page to 169.232.190.64 Reconquista1492 made two more university related eidts- [6] [7]

Phoenix7777 made an edit to University of Tokyo These accounts are obsessed with pushing POV on university articles

ScorchingPheonix and Phoenix7777 are obsessed with the Senkaku Islands article, both edit warring- [8] [9]

ScorchingPheonix and Phoenix7777 are also pushing Pro Japanse POV on Talk:Senkaku Islands- [10] [11] [12]

They are also obsessed with Korean-Japanese relation articles, ScorchingPheonix, Phoenix7777, and 169.232.190.64 show this in these 3 eidts- [13] [14] [15]

Both Phoenix7777 and 169.232.190.64 repeatedly edited on List of war apology statements issued by Japan [16] [17]

Дунгане ( talk) 04:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Дунгане, thank you for nominating me for a sockpuppet. I may probably disappoint your expectations. I am not sure why you are so hostile to me without any of the past interaction with me and Admin Rjanag rejected the possibility. Probably you are the sockpuppet of ones I brought to be blocked indefinite. ―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 10:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Rjanag rejected that the possibilty that User:Ninthwhen was a sockpuppet of yours, he said NOTHING on whether you and User:ScorchingPheonix and User:Reconquista1492 and ips where sockpuppets. If you are trying to fool the admins that are going to check out this case, i suggest they look at what Rjanag actually said. What Rjanag actually said, that Ninthwhen was not one of phoenix's socks differs from the fantasy presented by User:Phoenix7777, and i didn't even submit Ninthwhen as a possible sock in this case. Дунгане ( talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Rjanag said - "I don't know about most of these guys, but Ninthwhen is not the same as Phoenix7777 at least (I haven't checked the others)"

User:Ninthwhen was not even submitted in this case. User:Phoenix7777 is using the Straw Man Fallacy. Дунгане ( talk) 19:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk declined   Looks like a duck to me. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 05:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC) reply

What does?
 Confirmed that

• ScorchingPheonix ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reconquista1492 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

belong to the same person. Quite likely that Reconquista1412 ( talk · contribs) also belongs to that person, but that's a very old account, the password may simply be lost, and with email disabled unrecoverably so. I note that there is no temporal overlap between the accounts, I don't know whether we need to assume bad faith. It certainly needs to be stressed that he should stick to one account.
No CU comment on the IPs.
I don't see a particularly strong case to suspect any multiple account abuse on part of Phoenix7777 ( talk · contribs), and actually, based on the edit timings alone, is very very unlikely that he is related to any of the accounts or IPs listed above.
Amalthea 10:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Amalthea, both ScorchingPheonix and Phoenix7777 have both been pushing Pro Japanese POV on Senkaku islands ( i have shown the links to his edits above in the evidence section). By the way, look for more edits to that article in their contributions, i did not list them all. the usernames are similar, and they are both obsessed with the same articles, Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598) [18] [19], Japanese universities, [20] [21]. I know that Wikipedia doesn't have any problem with people using multiple accounts if they are just editing facts and adding stuff, but he is not just doing that, he is using multiple accounts to push a pro Japanese POV on Senkaku islands to make it seem as though several people support his position. Дунгане ( talk) 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't have an interest in the Senkaku islands article, but the two confirmed socks have both pushed pro Japanese POV on Second Sino Japanese War Articles like 1939–1940 Winter Offensive, that is where i suspect bad faith, because by using multiple accounts, after a period of time he switches to another account, he would be able to avoid accusations of an edit war and make it seem as though i am fighting against the opinion of multiple users. Дунгане ( talk) 19:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hmm. You noticed that both accounts show the same POV. It's then not an independent variable whether they show interest in the same articles, it pretty much follows from that. The actual edits you list seem to only show a largely trivial overlap; the accounts may have touched the same articles, but the actual changes don't show any strong similarity in style or content (besides maybe a similar POV, but I can't judge that). There were I admit some oddities that now prompted me to take a deeper look, so that I can now say with conviction:
Phoenix7777 is  Unrelated.
Amalthea 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Reconquista1492 blocked indefinitely as the newer account, ScorchingPheonix blocked two weeks. No action on the unrelated account. TN X Man 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

29 November 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Binesi ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Reconquista1492 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 208.64.63.176 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Abuse Evidence

A sockmaster, User:ScorchingPheonix and his sock Reconquista1492 were originally banned for puppetry in this investigation- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScorchingPheonix/Archive

I believe that he has come back as the ip 208.64.63.176 and the User:Binesi, since his provacative language and his POV against me is nearly exactly the same as the original Reconquista1492 and ScorchingPheonix accounts

he goaded and provoked me in the same way, saying to the effect (not exactly, but conveying the meaning) of- "I don't want to edit war with you but you are an obnoxious dick" "i don't want to be enemies, Дунгане but your chinese education is inferior to western education" "I'm sorry that you see it this way but your view sucks"

His messages to me may seem concilliatory and neutral, but are extremely sarcastic in nature, claiming that he is "sorry" that we are arguing and have different views, but using insulting terms to describe me and my edits. take a look at his edits here, in which he makes thinly veiled insults veiled and disguised as friendly overtures and compliments

Binesi admitted to being 208.64.63.176- "As you saw fit to abuse the administrative process to claim my edits where "vandalism" I have registered an account and made myself fully accountable."

208.64.63.176 was given the highest level severe warning by an admin for deliberately misrepresenting sources

When it appeared that Binesi realized his mistake, i even tried to pull back my complaint about his copyvio to an admin, but i was forced to retract it after Binesi was uncooperative

Among other edits, one of the things he did on the talk page was to falsely claim that i accused him of legal threats, and that I claimed slander was a legal threat. He provided no such diffs or evidence that I ever said such a thing. I invite him to provide evidence that i did so. Дунгане ( talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppetry evidence

In this section, evidence that Binesi and Reconquista1492 are the same account is listed.

Now down here, i list the similaries in Reconquista1492 and Binesi's personal attacks.

Mr. Reconquista1492 and ScorchingPheonix- Also, Дунгане, let's not get into any edit wars here. I would like us to both respect our positions, even if they differ. I think it would be interesting if somebody with a Western education can discuss differences in historiography with somebody with a Chinese education. Let's take the time to hear each others' opinions and provide criticisms. I just want you to realize that what you may have been taught in Taiwan can be significantly different from what is taught in the US. Notice that I haven't used any Japanese sources, so not everything you disagree with is Japanese propaganda.

Please don't start an edit war, and provide reliable sources so that we can compare the two.

alk about the Suiyuan and Ningxia campaign, a seemingly insignificant campaign that I believe you've blown way out of proportion to create the image that the campaign was a tie. Nice independent research, though! Maybe someday you can change how history is written and write your own book and argue that the Winter Offensive was a tie (笑)

(Note: 笑 means a form of snickering, an extremely insulting gesture by phoenix which was directed at me. Use google translate to confirm this)

Mr. Binesi Yes, I know you will also not understand what I just wrote. I'm wasting my time. Take care Дунгане. I'm tired of trying to empathize with you. Please have the Boxer article fixed up yourself over the next few days. I have no interest in edit wars. You will find that I can also play the rules and procedures game with you. Picking apart every paragraph in that article and comparing it to the Wikipedia rules and standards would become an article in itself.

I'm not against you and I am quite willing to both try to understand your point of view and help you improve your articles to reflect a neutral point of view. Your viewpoint is as valid as anyone else and my only goal is to try to find the neutral ground so we can get the articles you have contributed to out of contention. If you find any errors that I have made, I only ask you help me fix them or at least point them out specifically without turning to diatribes and personal attacks.

By the way Дунгане, I'm not your enemy and you don't need to spend so much effort denouncing me. I am only here to try to help bring this article out of contention and fix the numerous errors that plague it. If, as you hinted you did these edits to fix a distorted anti-Chinese viewpoint that originally existed than I applaud your efforts. However I think you have gone a bit too far and focused too much and we need to bring this back to the middle and reflect each viewpoint as valid. The last editor can be the left, and you can be the right - and I will try to be the middle. Binesi ( talk) 21:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

You continue to make serious accusations against me which I continue to shoot down and then you come back with minor accusations. I see you are really on a mission. I have an alternate idea - let's try to cooperate - what do you think about this? Maybe you can make constructive criticisms on issues you feel are important and I will continue to edit areas in this article which are poorly presented and overly colored? How's that? Or would you like to make the changes yourself and "we" can all come back and revisit this in a few day? Binesi ( talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry you feel this way Дунгане. I really am. However, honestly - I've stopped taking your personal attacks seriously and now find this whole thing to be more amusing than concerning. I don't mean this to belittle you, but I am not going to reply to your claims here as I already have on the Boxer Rebellion talk page and I don't want to clutter up your personal space (as I don't want you to clutter mine). But please, do give it a rest with the slander. It reads as transparently as your attempts at slanting Wikipedia articles do. It's more juvenile than effective.

both of them display a knowledge of chinese language- [22] [23]

Binesi has claimed that Binesi is his first account, but i seriously doubt that given the language he is using, and his threats to use the "administrative process", its safe to say he has had prior experience editing wikipedia.

I tried being nice, and explained to him exactly what was wrong with his edits, in these two comments- [24] [25], but i only receieved insulting responses

It appears that Binesi did not even read references when he deleted content look at his comment, in which he - enters into an off topic monologue about original research, in which he totally ignores the fact that the content he deleted was referenced and not original research These were the edits in which he removed referenced information- [26] [27] These were the references- [28] [29] Дунгане ( talk) 22:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Binesi's ip 208.64.63.176 and ScorchingPheonix introduced themselves in exactly the same way, by saying that the article was seriously "Distorded" on the talk page, in favor of alleged Chinese POV and that he was going to fix it.

ScorchingPheonix 's "introduction" "This article is a serious distortion of the battle's history, and I'm surprised nobody has caught this until now. The battle is considered a Japanese victory by Western historians, and Nationalist soldiers only retook the city in January 1944, a month after the battle had ended and when Japanese soldiers chose to withdraw from the city. I will be fixing this article with the appropriate sources.-- ScorchingPheonix ( talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)" reply

208.64.63.176's "introduction" "I'm reading a significant pro Chinese, anti "foreign" slant in this article. It is to the point that this article has become useless as a reference. There is a lot of effort expended in this article to prove how many foreigners where killed and how great various Chines forces where. There is also an assertion that the foreign forces only survived because of intervention by a Chinese general (whether this is true or not I won't comment - the point being this article has a very significant neutrality problem). Also there is a number of classic English grammar errors usually made by mainland Chinese which has me suspecting - has this article been hijacked and corrupted by 五毛党(wu mao dang)?"

Binesi's first reactions to being accused of sockpuppetry, was to deny that ScorchingPheonix and Reconquista1492 were sockpuppets of each other, accusing me of "engineering", the sockpuppet incident, when checkuser admins clearly stated on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScorchingPheonix/Archive that the two were indeed sockpuppets. His denial here and here This is extremely suspicious for him, claiming that he didn't have anything to do with these accounts, yet he is asserting that they are not socks of each other? not only that, his claim that i "engineered" the whole incident is extremely obnoxious, since checkuser proved that the two accounts ScorchingPheonix and Reconquista1492 were beyond doubt the same person. Дунгане ( talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

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

 Clerk note: Moved from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Binesi by request due to suspected connection to ScorchingPheonix -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 05:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Reconquista1492 ( talk · contribs) blocked by Tnxman307 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), still investigating the other accounts. Nakon 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Closing, no obvious connection between accounts. Nakon 06:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply

•  Clerk note: As an additional note, there are indicators that ScorchingPheonix and Binesi are not related, so this is not simply a case of "lack of evidence". Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 06:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply