Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit/Archive: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:28, 19 November 2024

Velebit

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Requests for checkuser/Case/Velebit

Report date October 3 2009, 19:09 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

Historian35 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
208.103.155.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by S-J-S-F-M-W

The I.P address listed above made a talk page edit to Jimbo Wales talk page with two links and one of them being a user name of an suspected sock puppet to Velebit. I am requesting a quick look at the two listed puppets and a comparision to any relation to the main. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status –

Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The IP admits to being the account and isn't really doing anything worth taking action over. Brandon (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

Administrator note IP blocked 55 hours as an IP sock. User:Historian35 is already blocked. MuZemike 03:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

02 November 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Kennechten

Per WP:DUCK both users edit the same articles. Same anti-Croatian POV Kennechten (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially visible in articles like Ante Starčević and Ante Pavelić--Kennechten (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The same attitude inserting the same section names referring th same sources. Per WP:DUCK it is quite clear.[reply]

also here are the others:

also the other IP user with same arogant rhetorics:

article Ante Starčević has been indefinitely semi-protected by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise on March 6 2009.[1]

Prior to that it has been protected the several times [2] for more-less same reasons : POV pushing by vandal User:Velebit.

Considering the fact that both user are doing the same thing on the same articles it is clear that they are his sockpuppets.--Kennechten (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some other IPs.

--Kennechten (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserting identical article subsections "racism and antisemtitism" in the Ante Starčević

Historian35 (talk · contribs) [3][4] (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)
MagnumCrimen (talk · contribs) [5][6][7]
Remind me never (talk · contribs)[8]
Don Luca Brazzi (talk · contribs)[9] (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

My first note: I'd like to ask Kennechten what crime I have committed?

As to the Magnum Crimen article

I added biographical note about the book author;
prof O. Neuman was a Swede, not an American (which I corrected);
I removed word 'alleged' in a sentence talking about the racist attitude and behavior of the catholic clergy in Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later in Independent State of Croatia.

All the text changes I did, are purely academic and supported by references and quotes. I never ever said anything about Croats or Croatia, here or elsewhere.

As to the Magnum Crimen user, I noticed that this user added information about Vatican's ban of the Magnum Crimen book.

May I learn which way my article text improvements broke any of Wikipedia Five Pillars? Based on the contributions of two of us, which way my contributions are of the puppeteering type?

--Remind me never (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My second note: User Kennechten throws accusation after accusation proving nothing. This user avoids facing the facts (see my previous note) and keep ignoring mandatory assumption, the assumption of good faith. All my work here is transparent, purely academic, and altruistic.

I can only assume that behind this personal attack on me is former user Rjecina, permanently blocked for his activity of calling other users puppets, reverting previously their changes, and attacking them the same way as Kennechten attacked me now. This suspicion is based on reading and investigating the Magnum Crimen article talk page and long, long history of former user Rjecina attacks on other Wikipedia users.

The other suspect might be Farsight001 who kept reversing any of my changes of the Catholic sex abuse cases article and deleting all my discussions on the same article talk page. When I abandoned fight there and started improving the De Administrando Imperio article, the same user attacked me again which prompted administrator Adam Bishop to intervene and protect my work on that article. See Farsight.

My disappointment with Wikipedia really runs high. At this point I am resting my case, not contributing anything further to Wikipedia (money, knowledge), and waiting the outcome of this baseless assault on me here.--Remind me never (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

___

If two people did the some changes on the same article, are they one person?!? Also, the 'identical' changes mentioned are obviously quite different in their size and content. As to the 'racism and anti-semitism', what else shall be the name of this section?? Controversies?? Where the information about 'confirmed' sockpuppets came from?? I see only one where the admin who blocked Historian 35 says that he believes the blocked user is a sockpuppet. This man Kennechten is apparently infamous Rjecina.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I did not notice earlier that I have to DEFEND myself. Against what? I do not see what shall be my guilt. If there is any, let it be visible and proven.--96.231.71.176 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Everyone is Stale except Remind_me_never (talk · contribs). You'll need to use behavior to draw any conclusions. TN X Man 20:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Remind_me_never (talk · contribs) based on identical editing at [10]. Nakon 20:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 January 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

User:MagnumCrimen is probably sock of User:Velebit- Serbian anti-Croatian SPA warrior

His fixation is Ante Starčević, Ante Pavelić and some other Croatian people from history.--Kennechten (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from time to time he registers new[11] and does the same thing. Some examples to be done

Reinserting identical article subsections "racism and antisemtitism" in the Ante Starčević

Historian35 (talk · contribs) [12][13] (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)
MagnumCrimen (talk · contribs) [14][15][16]
Remind me never (talk · contribs)[17] (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)
Don Luca Brazzi (talk · contribs)[18] (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)

also others with similar pattern

Purger (talk · contribs) (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)
IvoJovo (talk · contribs) (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)
BarryMar (talk · contribs) (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)
NovaNova (talk · contribs) (confirmed sock of User:Velebit)

Kennechten (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Giorgio_da_Sebenico-removing sentences that refer him as Croat:

Article Ante Pavelić-removing section about his wife:

to be continued .... (this will be very long!!) note that Magnum Crimen soon after registration started to edit precisely the same articles that were matter of dispute with the same methods as previusly banned sockpuppets. not some randoma articles.--Kennechten (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This case against me is already rejected. See here. It is obvious that User:Don Luca Brazzi is not confirmed puppet of User:Velebit. See the reasons for blocking him here and here which are the blocking administrator's explanations. Neither of the "confirmed" sockpuppets is confirmed. See here. This User:Rjecina = User:Kennechten slipped into primitive and transparent lies.

This is a desperate attempt of User:Rjecina = User:Kennechten to counter my case against him here.

--MagnumCrimen (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Don Luca Brazzi is banned for vandalism... doing the same things as you.--Kennechten (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is blocked, not banned. Just a FYI.. --Bsa dow ski1 10:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous SPI about Magnum Crimen was stale!

And we can just wait a little to see how he starts the show.--Kennechten (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rjecina, I'm not 'stale'. I'm surprised that you omitted me from this SPI. I'd like to comment just this fragment from Ante Pavelić removed by both Remind me never and MagnumCrimen
He married Marija Lovrenčević – who through her mother's family was part Jewish – on August 12, 1922 in St. Mark's Church in Zagreb.^[1]
The inserted text is really out of context (which is all about Pavelic's political career) of the Early life section. Written in an obituary manner, completely un-encyclopedic, and taken from a blog.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Nikad viđeni predmeti Ante Pavelića, Jutarnji List

Purger, your criteria is not wiki criteria. Therefore -you removal is vandalism (like many others)--Kennechten (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I think think are all Sockpuppets of Velebit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.99.93 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Screw it. Adding a CU to check MagnumCrimen against Remind me never (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain exactly what reasons lead you to accept this case for a check? "Screw it" isn't very helpful to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. I endorsed the CU based on behavioral evidence; in particular these two edits, and the Racism and antisemitism section on these two. Seems a little fishy, I think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - MagnumCrimen (talk · contribs) and Remind me never (talk · contribs) are Likely. I'd appreciate another CU's opinion, though. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur. TN X Man 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Thanks, guys. I've blocked and tagged MagnumCrimen. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 January 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

71.178.115.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
71.163.229.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
71.191.19.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
71.163.236.199 (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 hour.

I've observed a pattern of edits from these users and IP addresses, basically the bulk of their contributions match the same topic areas - fascism, Nazism, Italian irredentism, etc. They push their POV and have a lack of understanding of the verifiability policies, too. They engage in revert wars and also seem to have a propensity of censoring talk pages. As far as I can tell, they've abused pretty much all other editors they came in contact with - I now skimmed their contributions in the user talk namespace and they're all fraught with incivility.

There are now too many of them for me to just discard the IP address changes as a result of a standard ISP IP randomization policy. They keep making the same kinds of edits (reverts) and these IP address changes split the edit history so their now long-term disruption becomes less obvious.

Obviously I could be wrong about all this, but by now it's wasted enough of my time for me to request this kind of an investigation.

The general usage timestamps seem to match:

the named account was active from March 2011 to May 2011, when they "resigned"
71.178.115.169 was active in April 2011
71.163.229.6 was active in May 2011 (except for one vandal edit in April whose revert pattern links them to 71.178.115.169)
71.191.19.40 was active from October 2011 to late December 2011
71.163.236.199 became active in late December 2011

There are some obvious clues such as this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Luciano_di_Martino&diff=430341548&oldid=430276023

Or this indicative response:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giorgio_da_Sebenico&diff=462794047&oldid=462739154

Either way, whatever their IP address, from the content I've seen, there is little doubt in my mind that this is indeed the same person. Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

There is no evidence of sock puppetry, try dispute resolution. A request for comment may be the most suitable option as the main problem identified is civility and not avoidance of scrutiny. Peter E. James (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm not sure what action you would like us to take here. The account appears to have been abandoned. The first two IPs have not been used in some time. The other IPs don't appear to overlap in editing dates. So, while this may in fact be the same person, they simply appear to be editing while logged out, which is permitted. TN X Man 15:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they fail the following points of the policy:

Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics
Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way to suggest that they are multiple people.
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions.
Editing logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles.

Note the above edit where one of the IPs explicitly replied negatively to my request to identify themselves as LdM, yet it's pretty clear they're the same. If that's not improper concealment, I don't know what is... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I suspect all IPs and the user are run by the same person, the IPs are all in the same range and are probably just dynamic IPs. Editing has not occurred simultaneously on any of them in the last six months, and the account has clearly been abandoned. Although there were probably warnable policy violations going on, at this point in time there is very little to be done on the matter. NativeForeigner ^Talk 03:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 January 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

71.178.106.120 (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 hour.

Well, just as my previous complaint was archived as obsolete and fruitless (not complaining, just saying :), in the period between 2012-01-25 and 2012-01-28, this user has conveniently changed their IP address again to help prove my point:

Special:Contributions/71.163.236.199 ends with a flurry of blanking reverts of their talk page despite several warnings against talk page censorship listed there: User talk:71.163.236.199#Talk_page_censorship. Over there I noticed how they previously wanted to censor talk page contributions of banned/indef-blocked users. Their reverts have edit summaries where they invoke "talk page rules" - wrongly, but still. This all indicates to me we're dealing with a repeat offender who is acquainted with the workings of Wikipedia.
Their new IP is 71.178.106.120, as evidenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Giorgio_da_Sebenico&diff=prev&oldid=473691463 where they repeat http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Giorgio_da_Sebenico&diff=473438139&oldid=473419657

This means that the former address, 71.163.236.199, was used between 2011-12-23 and 2012-01-27, which is 35 days. The address before that one was used between 2011-10-12 and 2011-12-18, which is 67 days. Sure, this can all be the result of an accidental change by their ISP, or their modem can just so happen to lose power every time they feel like further fragmenting their contribution history. -- Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

query: >"this user has conveniently changed their IP address again to help prove my point"

Perhaps, but isn't this arguing a lack of evidence is evidence? Like the editor who argued a complete change of style indicated a sock was gaming the system? You may be right, but just sayin'… --Unicorn Tapestry ^{say} 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk note: I have a feeling this editor's ISP hands out dynamic IPs. Per the findings in the previous case I'm closing with no action taken. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

05 February 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Luciano di Martino, where I noted:

[...] User:Eleven Nine, which I believe to be yet another sockpuppet of the same person, added their POV back into the article claiming they were just copying it from the Simple Wikipedia - as if that is somehow a legitimate rationale for abuse. Yet, this is simply transparent - http://simple.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Giorgio_Orsini&action=history clearly lists all the same IPs used for the same abuse on the English Wikipedia.

Now that the username Eleven Nine responded to my accusation, they didn't really deny the sockpuppetry, it was more of a generic rant against Wikipedia, and one that also talked about someone called John Harnad. This gave me the second clue:

history of John Harnad and Talk:John Harnad has a bunch of edit-warring and ranting in the same style from 71.163.236.199, another one of the IP sock puppets I already reported here.

It seems to me we have enough circumstantial evidence here for me to legitimately request that someone check the logs if there these are in fact the same person. IOW has this "Eleven Nine" edited from the same IPs as "Luciano di Martino" &co.? I'm pasting the complete list from the archive again:

71.178.115.169
71.163.229.6
71.191.19.40
71.163.236.199
71.178.106.120

I also mentioned User:Davide41 as suspicious in my AE request, but there the correlation in contributions isn't immediately clear (at least I haven't researched it enough to be more sure). If you have some extra time and believe my hunch, maybe that should be checked, too; but I'll certainly understand if this is deemed too invasive a search at this point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of your definition of 'stale' - the account Eleven Nine was active since 11 July 2011, which overlaps with most if not all of the anonymous activity periods. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2012 (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 declined - Luciano is stale, and there's no other non-stale accounts to connect to. This will have to be determined by behavior. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I'm convinced. Both blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

06 February 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This doesn't really matter these days because both accounts are already indefinitely blocked, but I wanted to mention:

The pattern of all other contributions seems to generally fit, too - fascism, Italy, Croatia, etc. If I'm right, this seems to point to a pattern of sockpuppet behavior spanning well over three years. -- Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I read up more about this user, I saw him implicated in User:Velebit's shenanigans, but never confirmed. I read some of the older history of the latter and their writing style doesn't seem to be overly similar, though it looks like the same ISP/region was used. Does anyone see any more concrete clues? If not, I guess this can be summarily closed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (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

So closing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

22 June 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

PoseidonAndMedusa seems to be a WP:SPA that reminds me a lot of Luciano - editing the same kinds of articles (Luciano Laurana, Talk:Cristopher Columbus, ...) and going out of his way to battle against anything Croatian/Slavic on what they perceive as purely Italian, reverting edits they don't like ([19]). Please check that it's not the same guy all over again. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another classic example - Andrea Schiavone, where they removed all mention of the person's Croatian name, even breaking WP:R#PLA given the redirect Andrija Medulić. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2012 (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 declined All of the previous accounts are stale for Checkuser purposes so a determination will have to be based on behavioral evidence. —DoRD (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence presented is insufficient for demonstrating a link. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

08 July 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same IP block as before, same topic area (Italian-Croatian friendship :) same pattern of "contribution" - mass removal of anything Croatian just because they don't like it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the diff of the damage this account caused, that's behavioral evidence. If you look at the history of this abuser, their standard modus operandi is to hop across different anonymous accounts and occasionally add a named account - in the most recent case, it seems like User:PoseidonAndMedusa is it, but my request to analyze that one was declined as well. This kind of lenience towards this incessant POV pusher isn't helpful, it's letting them go on undisturbed and forcing everyone else to do more work in reverting. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More time passed, and more behavioral evidence appeared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PoseidonAndMedusa&oldid=501529960

How predictable. :( --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, they posted this at Talk:Giulio Clovio, a talk page of an article that is completely unrelated to PoseidonAndMedusa's edits, but was last abused by Luciano's (other) sockpuppets in June last year. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I enacted an initial temporary WP:ARBMAC block on PoseidonAndMedusa for a specific bit of abuse, and it resulted in this rant. This is the second time they have decided to purportedly retire in disgust, the last time was in February at WP:AE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2012 (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 declined - We will not connect accounts with IPs using checkuser. Make a case using diffs and beheavioral evidence, and it can still be dealt with that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 August 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

71.178.108.23 (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 hour.

Check out an ANI complaint by Peacemaker67 on 15 August, plus a table compiled by User:Osiris showing Velebit's activity across all Wikipedias. Velebit was blocked back in 2006, but Osiris's work suggests that he is still active through IPs. He constantly struggles to ensure that our articles on WW2 Croatian Ustashe figures are sufficiently negative. In my opinion the evidence is already good enough to block the IP, but I thought an SPI filing would help keep the records up to date. Velebit was noted for his abuse of other editors, and the IP I'm reporting here certainly carries on that tradition. Since this editor constantly cycles through IPs, I'm guessing that we will need both blocks and protections to deal with him. If semiprotection is found to be appropriate, then it will be good to have an up-to-date SPI case (this one) that can be cited as an explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Egad. Their invocation of John Harnad looks exactly like something I saw at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit/Archive#05 February 2012. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the link in Joy's comment above. The merge of the Luciano and Velebit cases caused the link to become red. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

IOW it could all be merged here. Does anyone disagree? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Not sure how to combine them myself (still a trainee) but that would make CU easier, and you just may be correct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not too much trouble to combine the Luciano di Martino case with this one, it would be helpful when future problems arise. I am personally much more familiar with the Luciano case. Luciano was clearly warned under WP:ARBMAC. It may not yet be generally known to admins that Luciano is the same as Velebit. The latter editor has had a couple of his IPs warned under ARBMAC, but nobody has yet mentioned Velebit's name in the log. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The connection of Luciano to Velebit is described at the bottom of that table Ed linked to above. I'm not entirely convinced they're the same person, but it's possible. It's equally possibly a case of meatpuppetry. Osiris (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocation of socks points more toward sock than meat, however. I will leave to others to make a final determination, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah at this point they might as well be combined. They're already overlapping anyway -- both masters have some of those Verizon IPs attributed to them (which is obviously the same person), and they both share the same pattern, abusive behaviour and POV. So might as well combine them to make future reports easier. Osiris (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nod, I brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. The archive search brings up earlier instances of merged cases, so hopefully someone who knows the exact procedure by heart will help. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to DoRD, these two are now merged. However, I also found several earlier usernames, notably User:Oesterling, created on 14 November 2005, processed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Purger, well predating both Purger, created on 23 December 2005, and Velebit, created on 22 August 2006. Can we move all this to "Oesterling"? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I didn't find exact documentation of the connection between "Purger" and "Velebit", but the latter was indefinitely blocked because of it, so I'm assuming it was based on behavioral evidence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few searches later, I see that User:Dijxtra's October 2006 block is briefly described by them as inverted at User talk:Purger#Indefinite block. It was implicitly supported by User:Duja who had also noticed the same sockpuppeteering problem at User talk:Velebit in October 2006. It was subsequently explicitly supported by several other editors:

User:Ante Perkovic said it at User talk:Steel359/Archive 12#Guivon, User talk:MastCell/Archive 11#Blocked_user in August 2007
User:Spylab did so in their WP:ANI report in August 2007
User:Lar said the same in their WP:ANI report in September 2007
User:R-41 said the same in in this monologue in September 2007
User:Jehochman said the same at User_talk:Alison/Archive_19#Stagalj in February 2008
User:Moreschi said the same at User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 9#Thanks_3 in May 2008
User:Sandstein said the same when addressing them at User talk:Historian35 in September 2009

And also there's a bunch of the same from User:Rjecina, but they're banned so that doesn't mean much as such. The consensus seems clear nevertheless, with two former admins and three current ones saying the same as several other editors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there we go. Per User talk:Dominic/Archive15#Regarding_User:Velebit, while checkuser between the two accounts couldn't be done in October 2006, User:Dmcdevit told Dijxtra that "an admin might block based on similar behavior". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Joy's suggestion that this case be moved to User:Oesterling, I would argue for keeping it at Velebit. Any well-known name that is sufficiently old ought to suffice, even if it is not the oldest one used by this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Geolocates consistent with last IP sock, behavior and topic clearly makes this a duck. IP is likely a public accessible IP, blocked two weeks, strongly suggest page protection since IPs are as cheap as blocks. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Cases and archives have been merged as suggested. —DoRD (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

216.168.230.7 (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 hour.

I just realized that we failed to note this IP as a puppet in the previous report per analysis at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Osiris/work/Velebit I concur with that analysis, and because the two sets of abusing IPs aren't really distinguishable, they should be tagged and blocked. Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2012 (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: That is part of a fairly large range, 216.168.224.0/20 owned by Verisign and used for "VeriSign Infrastructure & Operations". The equivalent of 16 Class C networks, or 4094 hosts. 216.168.224.0 through 216.168.239.255. Need to look at this closer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After poking around the range, it doesn't appear to be a proxy, blocked IP for 6 months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

28 August 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

71.178.106.250 (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 hour.

Same ISP as before, adding info "from simple" (as before), area of editing as before, style as before. Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2012 (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

Administrator note 71.178.96.0/19 rangeblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

03 January 2013

Suspected sockpuppets

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

User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

Behavioral evidence - came in in late May, made a handful of India-looking edits, stayed under the radar. Then he reappeared in August on Velebit's well-known turf - Croatian Liberation Movement - and also played sidekick to Velebit's other recent sockpuppet User:Juraj Budak at WP:RSN.

BTW, the history of that article is informative, basically it's Velebit battling it out with other people. In August, 71.178.108.23 and 71.178.106.250 were blocked. In May, it was 71.178.101.2. This is all covered by the range block imposed in late August. Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2013 (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

Check declined by a checkuser - The named account is Stale. Use behavior. T. Canens (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: I've blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

03 November 2013

Suspected sockpuppets

Fight Forgery (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Juraj Budak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
68.98.165.98 (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 hour.
Editor interaction utility

This "Fight Forgery" account is a WP:SPA on the kinds of topics Velebit has tended to dwell on - bizarre fixations on arguably very subtle Croatian matters. Pasting pieces of the article on talk and then railing on and on. I called him out immediately, but he proceeded unabated, and has most recently proceeded to attack User:MrX on Talk:Nikola Tesla, who merely tried to reason with them AFAICT.

The pattern matches the behavior of the most recent identified Velebit sockpuppet "Juraj Budak" and the IP 68.98.165.98 just before that. Let's end the charade - yet again. Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2013 (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

Administrator note There are very tiny things Velebit (talk · contribs) does that are unusual, and a clear indicator of it being "him". It's surprising how often these old habits persist over literally years. Anyway, it makes it clear Fight Forgery (talk · contribs) is him, so blocking indef. Obviously doing nothing with the IP, since it hasn't edited in a year. Closing. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 August 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

Aries no Mur (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
216.54.171.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
96.241.218.72 (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 hour.
Editor interaction utility

WP:DUCK. Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2014 (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

This is a courtesy notice for anyone watching this page - please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#Velebit for my formal site ban proposal. Thanks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a complete loss for this one: The IPs are obviously not connected (and one hasn't edited since April), the Aries no Mur account hasn't edited since 2013 (and it's completely unclear why anyone would think it is connected to the IPs), and this particular SPI file seems to be a dumping ground without any serious evidence that the mass of accounts connected to Velebit are indeed connected. Also, please refrain from tagging IP pages; in 2014, IP addresses are so rarely dedicated (they tend to be reassigned regularly) so the next person who gets assigned that IP address is going to be treated like a sockpuppet instead of a potential new editor. Declining CU because there's really nothing to check. Risker (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but what are you talking about? Nobody ever requested a checkuser. This was archive material from day one, and in the meantime we already closed the discussion I pointed to. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, in the case of Velebit, a lot of his block evasion has been done through IPs, and tagging IP pages with the appropriate template (the one that is meant for IPs) seems perfectly appropriate to me. It allows people who browse article histories at a later date to easily connect the dots and see which part is potentially by a banned editor and which part isn't. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

11 February 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Michelle Ridomi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Milos zankov (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
109.245.135.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
109.245.185.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
109.245.147.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
109.245.159.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
109.245.134.117 (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 hour.
Editor interaction utility

Suspected sock/meat puppets per WP:DUCK. Accounts Milos zankov and Michelle Ridomi show a similar editing pattern, mostly concerned with the article on the book Magnum Crimen, an important Serbian nationalist talking point, which they own by censoring edits so to keep the article verbatim identical to its official website. For background, see Talk:Magnum Crimen and for ownership tendencies see article editing history. Both are likely socks of User:Velebit, a known puppet master fixated on the broader topic area as well as the specific article in question. The five IPs listed are clearly related to each other and seem to be socks of a single user with a very similar axe to grind, and all the IPs have been involved with vandalizing the article Far-right politics in Croatia by insisting on inserting an image unrelated to the article topic ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]). All three (Milos, Michelle, and one of the IPs) have responded to a mudslinging thread on ANI so I suspect they might all be related, which is why I'm requesting CheckUser. I'm also pinging User:Joy who may help by providing more background if needed. I'm also available for more evidence if needed (the edits on the specific article were too many too count so I'd rather not list them all here, and I believe taking a look at article histories and talk pages should suffice). Timbouctou (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

As it can be seen from the user block log user Timbouctou was blocked six times for edit warring and harassing other users. The troubles we are experiencing with Timbouctou are originated in his irrational behavior which I elaborated below.

First, he entered a big number of ^{[citation needed]}, ^{[clarification needed]} and primary-source tags into the Magnum Crimen text, which was stable for at least five years, refusing to discuss them on the talk page several times. Michelle and me added 10 references and inline citations in order to improve the article quality. All of them were removed by Timbouctou repeatedly, within two week range and without any explanation.
Second, he removed sections of the earlier content claiming that the sections were plagiarizing the http://magnumcrimen.org/, a commercial site, selling this book and mirroring the Wikipedia Magnum Crimen article content. The removed sections of the Magnum Crimen are, at least, five years older than the (copied) text in http://magnumcrimen.org/. I repeatedly warned him that time is not running backward and, if talking about plagiarism, then it's on the http://magnumcrimen.org/ side.
Third, the same Timbouctou claimed that Oscar Neumann review of this book published in Journal of Central European Affairs of the 1950 year, was verbatim pasted into the Magnum Crimen. I had to prove that only two sentences of that book review are in the Magnum Crimen and are dutifully attributed to Oscar Neumann.
Fourth, he added the http://magnumcrimen.org/ link to the See also section claiming that the *.org site is the official site. We disagreed to this practice because of respecting two facts: the *.org site mirrors the Wikipedia article and it is of the commercial nature which is against the Wikipedia no-advertisement policy.
Fifth, someone added an absurd text claiming that the Magnum Crimen book, published in 1948 was used two years before (1946) where Viktor Novak agreed to prepare the work for Stepinac's trial. Michelle removed this absurd statement along with other irrelevant additions for bringing a biased political tone in the article and being of a marginal importance to this article. Timbouctou is putting back regularly such un-encyclopaedic content.

I highly appreciate the CU work but still do not like hints that my and Michelle's accounts are the same. I assume that Wikipedia promotes and shields constructive collaboration of two users (Michelle and me) and protects honest efforts to improve the article quality and credibility.--Milos zankov (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed - The interaction analyzer highlights the fact that the accounts seemingly take turn edit-warring with Timbouctou. Note to other clerks: the filer said they thought this might be socks of Velebit but I'm not moving the case (yet) until we know more. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the accounts are the same - one appears to be editing from a residential connection, the other from a business, and they're both in the same geographic area, but it isn't possible to be certain. Note that the IPs are in a different continent than where the accounts are. As for a link to Velebit, the CU logs on them and their socks are too old to be of any assistance here. —DoRD (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CU completed. Nothing proven with certainty. It's been 7 days and nobody presented any new evidence. Closing the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a more thorough look before it's closed. Mike V • Talk 22:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The accounts have been edit warring over the same content: Michelle Ridomi 1, 2, 3 Milos zankov 1, 2, 3, 4 Both users called the edits vandalism and lies. Michelle Ridomi and Milos zankov show a similar temperament and make similar claims about the copyright. In addition, they've supported each other on the Italian Wikipedia. Michelle Ridomi Milos zankov On top of the fact that they are in a similar location, I think it's fair to conclude that the accounts are related. I've blocked the sock and gave a 1 week block to the master account. Mike V • Talk 23:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

Milos zankov (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Michelle Ridomi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
72.66.12.17 (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 hour.
Editor interaction utility

It looks like we found another one :( Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption at Ivo Andrić for the literal evidence (prior sockpuppeteering block made by admins at the English Wikipedia, prior connection between different usernames and IPs made by admins at the Serbian Wikipedia) and the usual behavioral evidence (focusing on the same smattering of topics that they always do, WP:ARBMAC axe-grinding and engaging in abuse of other users). Barring any last-minute objections, I'm going to block this account as WP:DUCK, but a cross-check should be done to see if other IPs or accounts have also been involved. Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Gentlemen, can we please have a block here, or more accurately, a couple of blocks? He continues posting a "RFC" [27]. While I have little doubt he will re-emerge his ugly hateful head soon enough, we should at least show him that we mean business. It isn't too hard to follow his trails, and I don't think any of you two, Joy or Vanjagenije counts as involved... and even then, that anyone would complain. You've been elected administrators, please administer. No such user (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should be informed that this SPI was open against me. Beating dead horses makes no sense. I have no connection to any previously blocked account nor I violated any Wikipedia rule.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebel: I was the one who was trying to "shut down" the RFC in an unsuccessful attempt to minimize disruption. We have rules how to start a WP:RFC, which require neutral wording and good-faith dilemma. This "RFC" is based, at best, on cherry-picked facts by a sockpuppet of user with proven WP:TE anti-Croatian record. The statement His mother was a Serb which was stated by W. H. McNeill but deliberately omitted in the article, "citing" the only source not available online, is a downright lie. No such user (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Downright lie user Read it online

Collapsed extensive argument about the rights and wrongs of the editing dispute, with no bearing on the sockpuppetry investigation.

Ivo Andric: The Bridge on the Drina The University of Chicago Press, 1977

Introduction by William H. McNeill, p 3

Ivo Andric was born in Travnik, Bosnia, in 1892, but he spent his first two years in Sarajevo, where his father worked as a silversmith. This was a traditional art, preserving artisan skills dating back to Ottoman times; but taste had changed and the market for the sort of silverwork Ivo's father produced was severely depressed. The family therefore lived poorly; and when the future writer was still an infant, his father died, leaving his peniless young widow to look after an only child. They went to live with her parents in Visegrad on the banks of the Drina, where the young Ivo grew up in an artisan family (his grandfather was a carpenter) playing on the bridge he was later to make so famous, and listening to tales about its origin and history which he used so skillfully to define the character of early Ottoman presence in that remote Bosnian town. The family was Orthodox Christian, i.e. Serb;

Who is William H. McNeill? William H. McNeill is the Robert A. Millikan Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in the Department of History and the College at the University of Chicago. In 2009 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal for his work as a teacher, scholar, and author. His many books include The Pursuit of Power, The Rise of the West, and Mythistory and Other Essays, all published by the University of Chicago Press.--65.220.39.95 (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book is conveniently listed as "No preview" in all editions. That text contradicts everything what is widely published about Andrić's early years: in Višegrad, he lived with his aunt from father's side and his husband, named Ivan Matkovščik – hardly a Serb. Confirmed e.g. by thorough biography in nationalist-leaning Novosti [28] I call bullshit. No such user (talk) 13:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:No such user No preview on Google books does not discriminate it as a source. A scholarly work trumps a blog. You can't just call "bullshit" because you feel like it. It's quoted chapter and verse here. That suffices. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebel:: No, that does not suffice. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not a single other source cites that paragraph from "McNeill". Not even the Serbian nationalist daily, who would certainly expound on Andrić's supposed Serb origins if there was any hint about it. I quoted two scholarly sources at Talk:Ivo Andrić, both recent, who say otherwise. Ivo Andrić's Foundation is one [29]. All available sources say he's born in a Catholic family. We AGF on accurate quotes from printed sources, but Velebit, who has a history of sockpuppeting, lying and falsifying sources, is lying. That "quoted" paragraph is a fabrication. William H. McNeill (historian) is a respected scholar indeed, but Velebit is a liar and a manipulator. No such user (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:No such user. I'll leave a message on your talkpage Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user English language Wikipedia reader does nor read a balcanic insignificant newspaper blog written by God-knows-who. Blogs are not permitted sources by the Wikipedia policy. Looks like that we have back the same Adisis again. Both he and this @No such user are using the same phrase: cherry-picking and repeating the same nonsense over and over!--65.220.39.95 (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user: The referenced article says nowhere " he lived with his aunt from father's side and his husband, named Ivan Matkovščik". It's extremely difficult to lead any serious conversation with this person. The newspaper article nowhere contradict McNeill. The article says only that Ivo inherited the home of his aunty and uncle, located in Visegrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased that from his biography [30] published by Ivo Andrić's Foundation in Belgrade. No such user (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asdisis is back! Asdisis = No such user!--65.220.39.95 (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't obvious to anyone that 65.220.39.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/65.220.39.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a Velebit sock:

Location: 65.220.39.95 geolocates to West McLean, Virginia. 72.66.12.17 is in Sterling, Virginia, both in DC Metro Area. Previous socks such as 216.168.230.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 71.178.106.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 138.88.212.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) all geolocate to DC Metro Area, chiefly via Verizon.
Expert in wikilawyering, accusing others of "vandalism" Purger Ridomi 72.66.12.17
Purges Wikipedia of all things Croatian 77.66.12.17 Purger
Likes "citing" sources not available online Ridomi, see above
As I said on ANI: On Serbian Wikipedia, sr:Korisnik:72.66.12.17 aka sr:Korisnik:Djura aka sr:Korisnik:Milos zankov was indefblocked for the same kind of POV-pushing and disruption. Another sock of sr:Korisnik:Djura is sr:Корисник:Purger~srwiki. On English wiki, Purger (talk · contribs) is sock of Velebit (talk · contribs). 72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Djura, judging on same "it's only in printed references" stunt at sr:Разговор:Анте Старчевић/Архива 2#Све из почетка.

It quacks loud and clear. Can we have a (belated) administrative intervention, please? I'm disappointed that it takes so long. No such user (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP geolocations. While reading the geolocations of the IP accused being the sockpupet I've learned that these 'socks' inhabitated California, Colorado, Kentucky, Virginia, Washington DC, Maryland, New Jersey, New York City in the US and then in Brambton, Ontario, Canada, then in a few places in Italy and Serbia. I did not have ability to geolocate the registered users who are tagged as the 'socks', but I believe, the geographical area would be a bit larger if I had that ability. Some administrators doubted that such mass of accounts and IPs could ever belong to the same person; me too.

Giorgio da Sebenico article. There were two attempts to show that Giorgio Orsini was a member of the Italian noble Orsini family. The users quoted the most notable work of the British architect T. G. Jackson who quoted F. A. Galvani's work Il re d'armi di Sebenico con illustrazioni storiche and provided a photography showing that Orsini used his family coat of arms to sign his work on his home in Sebenico. Two Italian scholars accused a Croatian author (Fiskovic) for misquoting Galvani to 'prove' that Orsini never used his family name and that Orsini name was 'adopted' by Giorgio's son Mateo. Both users were blocked, the Italian references along with Jackson's were removed by the Joy [shallot] and replaced by the fake Fiskovic.

Nikola Tesla article. User FightForgery reported a telegram 'sent' by Tesla to some Croatian politician as a primitive forgery. The 'telegram' was removed from the article; it was added earlier to the article by the same Joy [shallot]. Outraged Joy [shallot] reported FightForgery as a Velebit's sock. The FightForgery user was blocked which outraged one honest Wikipedia user Tom Hulse (talk).

Block:08:58, 5 June 2014 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) blocked Joy (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Abuse of administrative powers.)

These three things are the most blatant demonstration of the abusive use of the admin rights here. Kindly please dismantle this farce called Velebit by disciplining infamous Joy [shallot].--65.220.39.95 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zankov, Ridomi, Serbian Wikipedia I do not see any SPI or checuser work on the Serbian Wikipedia. Michelle Ridomi has no edits on Serbian Wikipedia. Looks like that a Serbian administrator acted alone and blocked Milos zankov after arguing with him on the Nikola Tesla talkpage opposing removal of the fake telegram. I think this is a premeditated and agreed upon block that serves the wishes and goals of the Croats who are apparently sore about having blocked their racehorse Asdisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.220.39.95 (talk • contribs) 15 December 2015

The block of Joy 18 months ago is of no relevance at all to this investigation, and is an attempt to use an ad hominem argument to prejudice readers against Joy in this SPI. The IP editor has canvassed me to come to this SPI, evidently in the hope that my previous disagreement with Joy on a totally different matter would mean that I would be biased against Joy in this case. The same IP editor, using a different IP address, has also attempted to canvass another editor. If the IP editor continues to attempt to use such disruptive methods, I will consider blocking all IP addresses known or reasonably believed to have been used by that editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk declined - All accounts are Stale. We can't run a sleepers check neither as there is no evidence that suggests there might be sleepers. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the evidence standard for sleepers checks? With Velebit, who has been at it since November 2005, I don't think we can discount any possibility. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: But, in those 10 years, not a single sleeper account was ever found (as I can see in the archives). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanjagenije, does this mean that the RFC at talk:Ivo Andrić can be reopened? It seems to have been shut down prematurely awaiting this investigation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hebel: I don't see anything "shut down" at talk:Ivo Andrić. Anyway, this investigation is ongoing, it is not closed. I declined the usage of CheckUser, but the behavioral analysis still needs to be done. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanjagenije, you are right. The discussion was closed down during the sockpuppet investigation but has been reopened. Thanks! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. Anyway, the behavioral evidence is clear at this point, what with all the knowing of the intricate history and pointed insults. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection from other SPI-watching admins to me doing a block of 65.220.39.95 and 72.66.12.17 for say a month, tagging them as sockpuppets of Velebit, as well as merging the Michelle Ridomi/milos zankov case into this case? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC) I've also been going through contributions and blocking all the other anonymous IP accounts used in this batch. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22 February 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

178.223.67.126 (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 hour.
Editor interaction utility

Edits and MO are extremely similar to the User:Bedford, PA sock and other IPs, which attempted to insert copyrighted lyrics into Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara on the basis that hate speech is not copyrighted. We should be able to shoot a WP:DUCK here. Izno (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2017 (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

Blocked on the basis of behavioural similarities with User:Vujkovica brdo (who may well be Velebit). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nikad viđeni predmeti Ante Pavelića, Jutarnji List

[1]