Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive

{{SPIcat}}

• {{checkuser|1=龗}}

An issue has been raised at User:Chzz's RfA that he may have been engaged in sockpuppetry. After reading this I became interested so decided to do a little investigating along with the help of other users. The following behavioral evidence indicates that there may be sockpuppetry happening, however after reviewing contributions I cannot find any indication of specifically abusive socking.

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz&diff=prev&oldid=323069656 This] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz&diff=next&oldid=323069656 this] are the reason the suspicions arose, 龗 answers and signs the question, and shortly after Chzz adjusts the signature on the page to his own. When asked about this, Chzz answers "The computer I am using was left logged on by that other user. Wonderfully ironic, given the subject matter!". See Q&A 19 on the RfA.

See Defending yourself against claims.

{{RFCU| C | F | Checked }}    Requested by GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

{{clerk-note}} Please see WP:BN#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz (Moved from Talk:RfA) where a CU confirms the connection. This case is still a work in process and decisions should probably not be made yet. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:As stated above, investigation is underway. Would a clerk mind closing this as redundant? It looks like Rlevse's handling this mostly off of BN. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

::If it's alright, I'd rather move the discussion here so that a proper archive can be kept. It's been determined there is indeed socking going on, it should need a record. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:::I tend to agree, it would be best to retain a summary of the investigation here, because otherwise you would have to search BN archives to find the case. JamieS93 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Agreed, in light of Rlevse's CU findings, and the need for the SPI process to work over the long term in case of a return to socking months or years down the road from the user in question. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:I've going to post the final wrap up here as this is a CU case. I'm recusing from crat actions in this instance since I ran the CU. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• If the CU findings extend beyond the single overlap explained by Chzz's comments, then the votes at the OS election for Keegan and the RfA for Ched Davis from both accounts constitute abusive socking. Overlap report found [http://toolserver.org/~eagle/spi/1257039283.html here]. Nathan ^T 01:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I initially learned of this because of the post at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FChzz_.28Moved_from_Talk:RfA.29. When I read Hiberniantears' post about 龗 being created the day Chzz went on wikibreak and then saw [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FChzz&action=historysubmit&diff=323069656&oldid=323062166 this edit] at 8:15 31 Oct, User:龗 posts an answer to a question at the RFA; in [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FChzz&action=historysubmit&diff=323069876&oldid=323069656 this edit] at 8:18 31 Oct, User:Chzz changes the sig on the response to his signature, but in the answer to question 5, he does not dislose the 龗 account; this is when I felt there was enough for a Checkuser. I actually started it before the SPI was filed as an RFA was ongoing. Having run the CU and also being a crat, I recuse from crat actions in this matter. In addition, Killiondude points out two occassions where double votes occurred, Ched's RFA and Keegan's OS election.

[http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=%E9%BE%97&user2=Chzz&user3=&user4=&user5=&user6=&user7=&user8=&user9=&user10= Wikistalker report], shows some odd overlaps too.

As for Chzz's "other account was loggged in" statement, let me just say that there are several instances where the technical evidence has these accounts tied together, that one post was not a coincidence. All available technical evidence is unusually strong in supporting the finding of sockpuppetry. Technically, it doesn't get any better. The new user test account is User:Fish4Trees. I have indef'd it and 龗. Given the nature of this case, I leave it to the community and other admins as to what to do with Chzz. I am leaving page tagging to others too. I do feel he should have a chance to defend himself first.

{{confirmed}} User:Chzz = User:Fish4Trees =User:龗

— Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:The decision of what actions, if any, should taken with regard to Chzz's main account should probably not be made by a single admin here, so I'll mark this as closed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:Just for the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that the 龗 and Chzz accounts (not the Fish4Trees account) are connected at several different instances? If that's the case, I would still like to hear from Chzz as well - its possible that he will argue that he regularly edits from a public net cafe or library where this other user may also frequent. The overlap on the two elections is definitely suspicious, though. Nathan ^T 01:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

::Rlevse has confirmed that the Chzz and 龗 accounts are linked at different points in time, beyond the single edit Chzz explained. Archiving this case. Nathan ^T 01:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

:::What I found on CU goes way, way beyond chance level. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

::More info on this unique case can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Chzz — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

{{spiclose|archive}}

----