Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zanzan1/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Zanzan1

Zanzan1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
17 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Cynwolfe

Please note: There is no allegation that this user's multiple accounts are intended to deceive. While the user's knowledge of his subject matter is deep and impressive, there are some issues of disruptive editing. The desired outcome of the SPI is thus twofold:

  • The user should post an Alternative account notification on each user page of the accounts he has operated or continues to operate.
  • The user should familiarize himself with WP policies and guidelines and follow them, as disruptive editing could be masked by the use of multiple accounts; since these are not the focus of this SPI, examples of DE will not be given here.

NOTE: The following evidence is now redundant, as the user has responded below and acknowledges that he operates all these accounts. The issue awaiting administrative action is the user's stated disinclination to post alternative account notifications because he wishes to use the accounts to express views at variance with each other; other aspects of the user's response may also merit attention.

There are two pairs of doppelgänger accounts:

  • ZanZan1 began editing 15 August 2009 and left off 4 September 2009 (user contributions here); ZanZan32 began editing 22 August 2010 and edits to the present (user contributions here).
  • Aldrasto began editing 31 October 2009 and stopped 3 April 2010 (user contributions here); Aldrasto11 began editing 3 May 2010 and edits to the present (user contributions here). Please note that the user acknowledges on an article talk page (see this diff) that Aldrasto11 is the new incarnation of Aldrasto; there's no intent to deceive.

Initial cause to identify the two doppelgangers. At Talk:Di indigetes, ZanZan32 edited comments by Aldrasto11 here and here. Since I didn't suspect a sockpuppet at this time, I left an etiquette reminder at ZanZan32's talk page. I noticed that ZanZan32 was a new user and checked his contributions to see how he came to such an obscure article. ZanZan32's interests were consonant with those of Aldrasto's, so I looked into the matter further.

Reasons to think the same user operates both doppelgangers and at least three IPs:

1. All seven entities have closely related areas of interest, and none edits outside these areas:

  • Ancient languages of the Italian peninsula;
  • Etruscan civilization and religion;
  • Archaic Roman religion.

2. There are three instances in which I've been able to link at least one of the named entities to an IP address. All three IPs have made edits to the same articles that the ZanZans and Aldrastos have edited, and to no other articles.

  • 220.163.11.117. The diff shown here indicates that Aldrasto11 edits from the IP 220.163.11.117, as it's a response to a question posed to Aldrasto11. As the table found here will demonstrate, this IP has contributed (as shown here) to other articles and talk pages to which Aldrasto11 has contributed, and to no other articles.
  • 220.163.8.110. The diff shown here indicates that ZanZan1 edited from the IP 220.163.8.110, at the end of a long series of edits by ZanZan1 (as shown here; see actual post autosigned here). This IP (contributions here) has posted anonymously not only to articles edited by the ZanZan doppelgangers, but also to articles edited by Aldrasto. The IP has not posted to articles other than those to which Aldrasto or one the ZanZans has contributed.
  • 220.163.7.98. The diff shown here indicates that Aldrasto has used the IP 220.163.7.98, as it occurs in the middle of a series of Aldrasto's edits and was an edit to his own comment. Aldrasto11 also uses this IP (see this diff and this one). As with the previous IP, 220.163.7.98 (contributions here) has edited articles or talk pages to which the Aldrasto doppelgangers have contributed, and also to those which the ZanZan doppelgangers have been regular contributors. The IP has not edited articles to which neither the Aldrastos nor the ZanZans have contributed (with the single exception of Saturn (mythology), an article entirely in keeping with the user's interests, but which has not been edited by one of the named entities).

3. Log-in sessions for ZanZan32 and Aldrasto 11 are often closely adjacent in time, but not overlapping; here are only a few of many possible examples:

  • October 6. Aldrasto11 edits from 05:08–05:21; ZanZan32 edits from 08:24–08:42; Aldrasto11 resumes 08:54–08:56.
  • September 30. Aldrasto11 edits from 05:00–08:40; ZanZan32 edits from 15:06–15:09; Aldrasto11 resumes 15:14–15:43;
  • September 29. Aldrasto11 edits from 03:30–04:46; ZanZan32 edits from 04:56–05:05; Aldrasto11 resumes from 08:49–12:54;
  • September 28. ZanZan edits 03:37–03:39; Aldrasto11 edits 04:01–04:52; ZanZan32 resumes at 05:05.

4. The users exhibit a similarity of diction, syntax, citation style, and the types of sources used. These lend themselves to extensive analysis, but I'll list only a few:

  • Distinctive misspellings include "charachter", as by Aldrasto11 here and elsewhere, and by ZanZan32 here.
  • Avoidance of contractions.
  • Preference for Italian-language sources, sometimes to the point of denying the value of English-language sources en masse.
  • Very long posts to both articles and talk pages consisting of quotations from primary sources, often untranslated, and what User:Haploidavey has characterized as "notebook" jottings, that is, unorganized, undigested notes from secondary sources. These posts, even when made to articles, are often full of spelling and syntactical errors and untranslated passages, and without links to other WP articles, raising issues of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:OR.
  • Broad declarations of certainty in matters about which scholars disagree, sometimes to the point of WP:FRINGE (example here).

Here are a couple of sample passages for comparison of writing style:

The table on my user page shows articles and article talk pages edited by both ZanZans, both Aldrastos, and three IP addresses I believe to be affiliated with the user, in various combinations. It is intended to show overlapping interests and actions. (It can't be presented here because the formatting conflicts with the SPI form.) Cynwolfe (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims. I have been informed by user Cynwolf that somebody filed a SPI against me. It is she herself! I do not know how to comment what this awesome busibody, (who clearly has nothing better to do during her day than spying on me), says about my edits. I have my personal views and if somebody does not agree with them I cannot help about that. I have no difficulty in acknowledging I am using the two names Aldrasto and Zanzan: the reason is that I started editing the talk page on Etruscan language last year and I am known by other editors there with that last name. So when I write on Etruscan topics I use that name. I do not think this is to sockpuppet.

Besides it is frankly deplorable that here and in this context Cynwolf has the audacity to comment on the quality and supposed bias of my posts. I write quoting sources and nobody can accuse me of anything. Cynwolf once started talking of disrupting behaviour because I protested for the repeated deletion of my edits in Glossary of ancient Roman religion: of course now this person is judge and jury, she can do what she likes with other people's writing but she is impregnable about correcting the many wrong pieces of information or presentation of concepts she provides, even if proven so: please refer to the talk page of that article for e.g. fas, nefas, indigitamenta. It is not true I am against Anglophone scholarship, I just remarked that on the whole it lags back that of those other countries, a fact acknowledged by some American scholars as in the book by N. De Grummond 2006 on Etruscan religion. Moreover I urged Cynwolf lastly to use quality scholarship and not just the last book available on google books. I understand we are all editors and this is the easiest and most economic way but in this too one should do some picking.

The fact that an administrator decided to delete what I had been providing to readers as a very useful source review in a talk page (not in an article!) only speaks against the sensitivity of that person. The material was scholarly edited, highly informative and there was no question of POV as it was a careful collation of ancient sources. Unfortunately it is from a book preview in Italian anonymously published on the net. I pointed out on the relevant talk pages there are many articles, let alone talk pages, which are totally OR, e.g. Founding of Rome. I have to add that this person is probably mainly moved by envy since she after "having done doctoral work in Latin" still cannot correctly interpret simple Latin sentences (like those of Festus sv. Regalia exta). Me after studying these topics just for 9 months I can have much deeper insights as everybody can understand by reading what I write, no matter under which name.

However in conclusion as I have touched different themes and I have different opinions on many issues as I go on studying I do not think it is advisable for me to link the two accounts: I mean sometimes my opinions are different from the ones expressed under another name and this could be embarassing for me. This even though I am very careful about avoiding to mix the topic of the posts/edits under the two names.Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary desired outcome is for the user to post an alternative account notification on his user pages, in accordance with WP:SOCK. The user has now stated that he is disinclined to follow the policy, while acknowledging that he operates these accounts in order to disassociate the opinions of one entity from those of another. The secondary desired outcome was that he agree to familiarize himself with WP policies and guidelines in general and to follow them. He's been editing for more than a year, and several experienced editors on multiple occasions have attempted to point him toward the relevant statement pages, often with direct links. His response here includes personal attacks, and is indicative of the kind of disruptive behavior that can be masked by the use of multiple accounts. It was not my intention to deal with issues of WP:DE here, but I ask more strongly that appropriate action be taken. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is absolutely required by rules I agree that somebody from the wikipedia.en team do this job for me as I am unable to even start a userpage! I tried many times... It is not a great problem for me. I write (sometimes and only on the talk page) with the different names on different topics. Cynwolf is single eyed here and talks of personal attacks while all she has written above is just a string of ridicolous accusations that go far beyond personal attacks. She tries and depict me as a kind of monstre and seeks to put me under trial for I do not know what, frankly. I ask that it be other people here that take disciplinar action against Cynwolf as she has long been harassing me, please just read the talk pages of the articles I edited. It is unacceptable that a person be judge and jury. Cynwolf is clearly a WP legaliser that has experience at using rules to attack other editors. I hate legalising and frankly I do not feel particular need to go on editing. If this person is not restrained by somebody I do not think I shall be able to continue editing. Aldrasto11 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be ridicoulous Cynwolf. Everybody can read what I stated:

1. I started making posts on the Etruscan language talkpage using the name Zanzan1 and for this reason as I am known there with this name I continue using the name Zanzan32 when I write on Etruscan subjects. This one year or so later I forgot passwords and used no. 32. Please note that I never edited articles under the name Zanzan: I only took part in discussions.

2. There is a post on the wiki login page that says one can logout and then login with another username.

3. I acknowledge some of the views I held when editing under the names Aldrasto and Aldrasto11 may be different from those I express when using name Zanzan32: this is because I studied these subjects seriously only for one year and therefore my views on the relationship between Roman, Greek and Etruscan civilisations and religions have changed to a certain degree, however I do not think this is a too great a problem for anybody.

I hate legalising, however, as I said above Cynwolf's behaviour including this instance shows that she is trying to harass me in any possible way. I cannot help but making it known here that if there is somebody that is showing DE behaviour it is Cynwolf herself. I shall give some instances.

1. In glossary of ancient Roman religion entry indigitamenta I remarked there was in my view an error as the it stated Maia is an indigitation of Bona Dea while to my knowledge the opposite is true: both primary (Macrobius) and secondary sources (Wissowa in Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion) agree on this. After I had made my post on the talk page user Haploidavey wrote he read Macrobius and found I was right and could edit the entry accordingly. But Cynwolf intervened saying "this is not the way I read Macrobius" (???) and giving as her authority a work on Bona Dea by Brouwer, i.e. that according to this scholar the reverse were true. Now I read the relevant pages of this author and many other, as his is an exhaustive study. While Brouwer is unable to reach a conclusion on the question whether Bona Dea is just an epithet (of Maia or Terra) or an independent entity, actually nowhere does he state Maia might be an indigitation of Bona Dea. It is apparent Cynwolf cited as supporting her editing material that actually does not say what she implied it said, aiming to uphold her interpretation and avoid changing her editing. Note that my edits in this entry have been deleted thrice.

2. I remarked on the same talk page there are wrong presentations in the entries nefas and fas, the last one which had been previously agreed upon with other editors. Nefas is described as something "that can be nuanced as not a religious duty": now I remarked this absolutely wrong as nefas is a category that pertains to the sphere of absolute duties and values and is a 0-1, i.e. yes or not concept: it cannot therefore be described as something that "can be nuanced as not a religious duty": it is indeed "a religious duty not to do something". I also stated one can find some info on a catholic site by googling nefas.

3. I do not remember how many of my edits have deleted. Some instances may be understandable but other are not. Under Novensiles my edits were interesting and original in comparison to the previous state of the article: I am asked to incorporate the content, some of which has been already reused, into the article. Now this is almost impossible as my bit had nothing to do with the development of the original article. Thus now readers are deprived of interesting and relevant information, which by the way is accepted and expounded in a book on Etruscan religion by N. T. De Grummond (2006).

These are just few samples of Cynwolf's behaviour. Thus I do think she cannot certainly be in a position to accuse me of DE.

I wish to thank Ellen here for fixing that for me. I hate computers. I cannot use the two accounts Aldrasto and Zanzan1 as I forgot paswords, so I cannot acknowledge them.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you only have to log on as one of your other socks in order to edit the user pages of User:Aldrasto and User:Zanzan1. Just like any other page.
As for your comments above, yes, it's fine to use alternate identities to work in different subject areas. I said at the outset I didn't think there was deception involved. Hence the primary desired outcome was that you post alternative account notices. I assume here as with many other of our conflicts that you either don't understand WP policies and guidelines, or think they shouldn't apply to you. Here, for instance, you're discussing content matters, which is not what this page is for: the examples of your editing I gave were to establish that it was reasonable to think the Zanzan doppelgangers and the Aldrasto doppelgangers were operated by the same person. And 90 percent of the time, I don't disagree with your reading of the primary and secondary sources: the problems lie in presentation. I have often said, as I do here, that your knowledge of your subject area is deep and impressive. "Disruptive editing," however, is defined as "the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." I'm not alone in thinking that you need to become more aware of how your contributions should be integrated into the encyclopedia. In early March, a helpful editor posted these tips to your talk page. Months later, you were still doing many of the things he told you not to.
No matter how smart you are, the quality of the encyclopedia is degraded by text that's riddled with spelling and syntactical errors, obfuscating language, scattershot organization, abbreviations the general reader won't recognize, untranslated passages, and non-English secondary sources. It's detrimental to the collaborative spirit of WP for you to deposit large chunks of such material that other editors either have to overlook or spend great amounts of time editing. There are also issues of non-neutral POV. When your material is deleted (and not just by me), it's usually because it's far too long or detailed, or it's just too incomprehensible to rewrite without spending literally hours of research on the topic. Your lack of understanding of the WP project is demonstrated above when you say "my edits were intersting and original" — precisely. WP is not a showcase for your original research. All this is why I said that the secondary desired outcome of the SPI was that you become more familiar with WP expectations and agree to comply with them. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proceeded as requested under the directions provided by Ellen. I removed the sock tags too.

Cynwolf accused me of misbehaviour i.e. DE but as other editors may appreciate she is absolutely impregnable and unwilling to discuss her DE. As I said in the short passage she linked here above she is using a source that does not support her interpretations to uphold them at any cost. She also is unwilling to correct what is mistaken, as in the case of nefas etc. I asked in that post where I did not comply with DES advices and not only was she unable or unwilling to answer but goes on using what I wrote there to put me under trial. If one reads DES 's advices one can see that I complied: when I quote something in Latin I translate it. I give full quotations etc. etc. And please try not to be knowingly misleading: on the article Novensiles interesting and original (here above in my post) by no means can be understood as OR: what I wrote is taken from a published work by A. Grenier, who got this idea from Thulin. Grenier's views have recently been taken up by G. Capedeville 1992 and N. De Grummond 2006 as I wrote above.

If anybody looks at the talk page in question he shall see I signed immediately afterwards while Cynwolf handsomely avoids to tell this. Frankly the behaviour of this user is extremely unfair and uncorrect.

I do not think my edits and the material presented on the talk pages have been harmful. The info I provided, if it could be considered OR since from an anonymous source, was however highly informative and could have helped readers to gain further insights or start further reading. However I did not complain about the deletion as I understand administators must be strict in applying the rules.

As Haploidavey has showed up here and made some remarks I will add a few words. I used the name Zanzan1 first when posting on the talk page of the article then named Ancient Roman religion and some time later on the talk page of Etruscan language. Few months later I started another account under the name Aldrasto as I had forgot my password and later continued using it everywhere. When a few weeks ago I wished to write on the Etruscan language talk page again I created the account Zanzan32 to be recognised by some editors there.

Haploidavey's Latin may be bad as he acknowledges, though at least it was enough to understand what every reader (except Cynwolf) would understand from that passage of Macrobius's. But she prefers to be assertive and to put the correctness of the information behind personal reasons. I will not elaborate further on the use of wrong info from Burriss on the Flamen Martialis and indigitamenta, whom I shew did not read Ovid. As I noted on the talk page there I am very disappointed by this kind of behaviour of other editors since if there is no striving for knowledge then I do not understand what we are doing here. If I were a legaliser I would also file a Meatpuppet case against these two editors, but I do not like legalising.

It is absurd someone can file a case against me charging me with all sort of accusations: DE, POV, OR etc. and I should keep quiet on the behaviour of other editors.


Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldrasto11 (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I have created a userpage for Aldrasto Aldrasto11 and Zanzan1. I have no idea why Aldrasto was unable to do this. If Aldrasto11 would like to label all three acounts as legitimate alternatives, and try to stop editing while logged out, this could be closed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was User:Zanzan32 omitted or overlooked? That account is still active, and Zanzan1 not. My initial concerns were potential. It's Aldrasto11 himself who said he used separate accounts so he could make contradictory statements without embarrassment. I said at the beginning I didn't think there was any intent to deceive; I assumed it was lack of policy awareness, which is frequently on display. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overlooked. Should be fixed now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've also explained to Aldrasto that he can edit all four userpages using the Aldrasto11 account, to confirm their current status [1]. If he does that, it should resolve the socking issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the primary and secondary issues arise again today, I see, since after you've told the user point-blank to log in while editing, here he begins a series of several IP edits. There's a pattern of simply being unable or unwilling to follow procedures even when these have been explicitly pointed out to him. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Aldrasto invoked my divine name (above, in passing, but for reasons unclear to me in the context of an SpI) I feel obliged to comment. Wikepedia's rules on the use of multiple accounts are perfectly clear. Those rules exist for the good of the encyclopedia, its readers and all who edit here in good faith, including Aldrasto himself. The SpI's a constructive process. All that's being asked is that he accept it, then act on it. Simple accountability, and I don't think anyone's arguing the point. I guess Aldrasto never volunteered the existence of his multiple accounts because he had never read the relevant policy. Now he knows it, he can comply with it. So this SpI has been useful, productive and surely now is done. From here on, it's mere compliance. Or not.
I'll fess up; one of the earlier ZanZan incarnations posted comments at the talk-page of Religion in ancient Rome. That was a year back, probably more; then an Aldrasto took over; all of them seemed one and the same. Same writing style, spelling, topics, opinions, different sigs; and the latter was only a minor annoyance to me, 'cos I was ignorant of anything to do with the reason for policies on "socks", "socking" (oh, yuch) and the potentials therein. Anyone who brings up an SpI is obliged to justify it - and anyone could have brought it up, at any time. Cynwolfe illustrated her content concerns (which I share, by the way) as relevant to the accountability of editors. It's harder to hold editors to account when they operate several undisclosed accounts. She didn't express her concerns as personal accusations and attacks; I'm not sure why Aldrasto takes them as such. They're relevant to the SpI but they needn't be further elaborated or defended here. So please, Aldrast, taketh not my name in vain, nor shouldst appeal to my personal opinion, which is based on my own very limited reading and my very, very bad Latin. Haploidavey (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've been slightly involved, in particular I've been concerned about the editor's use of talk pages as forums. If Aldrasto wishes to continue to edit he needs to abide by our guidelines and policies. Dougweller (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aldrasto11, the most active of the accounts, has posted an Alternative account notification on each of the four user pages. This was the primary desired outcome, and I hope the SPI can be closed. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Cynwolfe asked for this to be closed, so I'll mark as such. TNXMan 16:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zanzan1/Archive&oldid=1044042280"