Ohconfucius[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk Filed: 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EgraS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Code letter: G

• Supporting evidence:

• Please see evidence documented here

Dilip rajeev (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My doubts were raised by this particular incident:

• On Talk:Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident I had asked user User:Ohconfucius for explanation for a few edits he had done.

My statement was:

"You still have not given your reasons for deleting, without giving any explanation, around 10 Paragraphs text ( and images in addition ) of well sourced content, from the Persecution page."

To this User:EgraS replied: "As I mentioned, the sources are not neutral, and indeed partisan."

(User:Ohconfucius who had made the changes I asked an explanation for, did not respond.)

I couldn't find anywhere on the talk pages where EgraS had said the sources are "partisan" - but User:Ohconfucius had made the statement in a previous talk page comment.

• Their style of writing in talk page, the kind of arguments they employ etc., in my opinion, carry a great degree of resemblance. Also, often, both seem to have the exact same POV on certain issues.

• I was also checking the time of their edits - a few of their recent edits are suspiciously close together and the edit motives are also very similar.

• There is a great degree of resemblance on the nature/pattern of Edits too. Moving pages, uploading images, deleting pages etc.

• EgraS carries some characteristics of a sock: an account used for doing the "dirty edits" - such as reverting without giving any reason, removing well sourced content, not bothering to give even an edit summary when doing reverts on good edits( even when repeatedly asked for) etc.

Also, a very minor thing, but somehow it did add to my doubts, yesterday( here ) Ohconfucious made a rather out-of-the-blue comment: "Now at least three editors have now come out against it being in a box. I think we'll start seeing sockpuppets very soon :-)". Which again added to my doubts( when i later thought about it ) since we've never had any sockpuppet problem on the page recently. Am very well aware that I could be wrong in doubting the user but thought my doubts were worth having clarified.

Since both users edit, revert etc as separate users - it certainly would be a violation of Wikipedia Policies if one user turned out to be a sock of another.

Sincerely apologizing to the users involved if my doubts happen to be out of place.

Dilip rajeev (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated. Thatcher 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]