Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Purger

User:Purger

Purger

Purger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Standshown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Stagalj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Smerdyakoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.2.146.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
198.24.31.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--Rjecina (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

User Purger is banned from editing Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Purger). To evade this ban he has opened many puppet accounts which has been discovered and blocked (we are having category sockpuppets of Velebit, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Velebit ).... Until now it has become known that this banned user is always opening multiple accounts which are editing articles Neo-Nazism, Ante Starčević, Neo-Nazism in Serbia, Neo-Nazism in Serbia and articles which are speaking about War in ex Yugoslavia (Purger account history , Guivon account history,Stagalj account history,Standshown account history,Smerdyakoff account history) . After blocking of last known puppets article Neo-nazism has been edited from suspected or confirmed IP address of banned user (4:249:xxx:xxx , 71:252:xx:xxx). With creation of accounts Stagalj,Standshown and Smerdyakoff this edits have stoped.

During RFC in article Puppet states users Smerdyakoff and Standshown have supported one-another [1] . This support is funny because user Standshown is saying that he and user Smerdyakoff have elaborated difference between regime and state and then he is showing link for place where only him has edited.

New evidence of this connection is edit warring in articles Ante Pavelić and Ante Starčević. In first article user Stagalj is edit warring against many editors to protect user purger version of article. When we look for differences between versions [2] (difference between versions of user Purger and Stagalj) we will see that 90 % or article has not changed. Only real change is adding of reference but this has been done by other puppets of this user. In article Ante Starčević this is seen even better because there is no difference between edits of banned user:Velebit aka Purger and version of Smerdyakoff [3] or Stagalj [4] . In history of this article is clerly seen that user:4.249.3.145 is Velebit (administrator decision to protect article from user Velebit aka IP:4.249.xxx.x.xxx (in this case) [5] ) . I do not know if it is possible to find better evidence that all this users are in reality only 1 person with multiple accounts and multiple IP address. --Rjecina (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time and dates of Stagalj/Smerdyakoff/Standshown edits in this year:

16 February 03:21-03:32 Stagalj, 03:50-04:01 Standshown
15 February 00:08-00:10 Standshown, 01:32 Smerdyakoff
10 February 14:41-14:51 Smerdyakoff, 14:56 Stagalj
9 February 01:22-01:46 Stagalj, 01:54-01:57 Standshown
5 February 00:13-02:33 user Stagalj, 03:14-03:43 user Standshown.
2 February 01:21-01:23 Smerdyakoff, 01:52-02:32 Stagalj
1 February 00:13-00:15 Standshown, 01:51-01:58 Stagalj, 02:07 Standshown
30 January 00:35-01:01 Smerdyakoff, 01:06 Stagalj
29 January 00:01(started in 23:58)-00:17 Stagalj, 00:22-00:26 Standshown,
21 January 21:54-22:16 Stagalj, 22:28-22:31 Smerdyakoff
18 January 00:46-00:58 Stagalj, 01:47-02:13 Standshown, 03:42 Stagalj
7 January 14:18-18:51 Stagalj, 19:11-19:23 Standshown, 20:18-21:36 Stagalj

Story about this edits never change. When first user stop editing another start. They have never been together on wikipedia, but there is small break between them. --Rjecina (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 January I have been writing on talk page of article Puppet state that SPA account Standshown want to change that article [6] .3 days latter I and user Smerdyakoff have started discussion what is SPA account in which I have explained my position about user Standshown and SPA accounts [7] . Next day user Stagalj which has never edited article Puppet state, my or user Smerdyakoff talk page has started discussion about page wikipedia:Single-purpose account [8] .--Rjecina (talk) 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

FYI

A previously failed accusation thrown here [9] User Purger is not banned from editing Wikipedia - see [10]

So, a bunch of pointless accusations!--Stagalj (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of Stagalj is clear evidence that I am right. I do not see any other reason for false claim that user:Purger is not banned from editing Wikipedia. User Purger is known (and blocked) puppet of Velebit. It is important to notice that user Purger aka Velebit aka Pederkovic Ante aka Guinon aka NovaNova aka .... is using many different IP address which is known from before. When it will become clear that this are new puppets of Velebit I will revert all changes made by this banned editor.--Rjecina (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edits by the accounts mentioned above (and their associated sock puppets, which can be found by clicking on some of the individual userpages) are suspiciously similar, in that they:

focus on similar topics (Croatian and Serbian politics)
blatantly promote a specific point of view
act in an aggressive manner
make huge reverts instead of just changing the sentence or phrase that is at issue
blank their own talk pages in order to hide anything that makes them look bad
immediately and vehemently deny all accusations of sock puppetry (instead of allowing admins to do their jobs and check the evidence and IP addresses)
stick up for the other accounts (even though they are supposedly unrelated people instead of sock puppets)
write in a very unique language style, including making several basic grammar, syntax and wording mistakes that someone would make if English is not one's first language.

This has been going on for a very long time, and simple banning of individual accounts does not seem to work, because a new one soon pops up to carry on in the same way. Spylab (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to see a Spylab's comment on the mediation pages about neo-nazism definition [11] I stumbled accross his comment here. That way I learned that I am again accused of being a sockpuppeteer. Splylab's first attempt of this type failed - see the relevant information here [12]

According to the Wikipedia notes [13] - I see

II. If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you should respond to the allegations, unless they are obviously frivolous. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations.

The truth is - no one of us was informed that a sock puppetry case is opened against us. Obvious frivolity. I do not want to comment 'evidence' - for seeing no connection between my edits and the edits of others, except that I edited or commented article commented and edited by others.

Further - Wikipedia says:

III. If the accuser hasn't requested CheckUser for ten days, the report will be closed by an administrator.

Ten day period is over. This is another demonstration of the accuser's frivolity. Of course, any administrator who might be in charge of this case - is more than welcome to request checkuser - if (s)he might find it appropriate. --Smerdyakoff (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very interesting that whenever I point out that this person is using sock puppetry, the same kind of personal attack appears on my user page or on various other pages on Wikipedia, often by anonymous IPs. And just by coincidence, it happened around the time that user:Stagalj got blocked for 31 hours for edit warring by reverting my legitimate and necessary corrections to an article about Croation politics.Spylab (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Smerdyakoff) --Rjecina (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is confirmed Standshown=Smerdyakoff. --Rjecina (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions