Asdisis

Asdisis (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
28 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Based on the Michael Cambridge's diffs it's clear that the most of his edits are in the line of unconditional support of the Asdisis' attempt to 'prove' that Tesla was a Croatian. Detoner is a new account created today which the only edits are to support 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1. If we compare Asdisis' edits with the one that are made by 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 we see that the language, logical fallacies, attacks on other user's who disagree with him are in the same line as the ones coming from Asdisis. The most obvious identical behavior of Asdisis and the IP is, in the first sentence, to agree with the opposite view, then, in the next few sentences, completely disagree with the view. Both Asdisis and the IP have lengthy and repeating comments on every comment coming from other users who disagree with the IP/Asdisis. 72.66.12.17 (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1. I've requested the CU. After seeing that the request was declined without any explanation, I added my disagreement to declining the CU and got threat to be blocked, along with my disagreement removed, by Bbb23 administrator. What kind of disruption it is to oppose a decision? Is anyone's decision on this case not revocable or cannot be judged by other administrators/checkusers? --72.66.12.17 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2. A WP:CANVASS type of Wikipedia rules violation is visible below: User Detoner asked me to share my point of view. says KIENGIR. In the past, KIENGIR was a supporter of Asdisis. See Dear Asdisis, ... I appreciate your struggle, I tried to help with the best aim, ...The "ip address" debating with you seem no real friendly aims. Fkcapcais seem not to like any source with Croatian roots --72.66.12.17 (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3 IP Address 72.66.12.17 is making a clear provocation against everybody not immediately supporting his POWs, that is against any objective evaluation and factual approach. What a suprise you taste me also again and again. I did no harm any rule, telling my POW is such a right you also and evebody have. I was not a supporter of anyone, I was supporting a fair and professional investigation of unsolved questions, like I always do, and the cited content also cannot be debated, they are simple facts, confirmable by everyone. Yes I supported Asdisis's struggle to clear up any controversies, and it is still unsolved, at least an important discussion get on the topic, it is too sad it ended up in a Croatian-Serbian "war". I also saw your "nice" activity in the Croatia in the union with Hungary" article, so you better stop your propagandistic accusations. I reached my goal in the Nikola Tesla article, not anymore the fake Austro-Hungarian citizenship is there. I suggest you to make an account, do not hide under an IP Address!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Hello. The user Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 is himself a puppet who came from Serbian Wikipedia since he got blocked indefinitely over there. See here. He is a puppet of another user that got banned for disruptive behavior. See here. He now turned to English Wikipedia and shows the same attitude that already got him blocked 2 times. He's been active both on Serbian and English version of article on Nikola Tesla. Detoner (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this ip's behavior is identical to the behavior of FkpCascais. Both have participated Nikola Tesla discussions, and both have strong objections towards anything related to Croatia. For instance FkpCascais had opened a section called What we are experiencing on this talk-page is the result of a wide-scale nationalistic phenomenom in Croatia regarding Tesla worth mention in the article. I think the similarity to the above ip's claims is very much obvious. Also, FkpCascais had wrote this to Michael Cambridge: "now it is clear your mission here is to put the word Croatia in the top of the lead, with clear intentions of giving a more Croatian impression to the readers straight away, sorry, but it want happened, and it is time for you to give up and edit some other issues or otherwise your behavior is just identical of the one Asidisis had and I will report you." Not only there is a striking similarity to the ip's post above, but also you can notice another very important thing. FkpCascais is misspelling the name of the user Asdisis as "Asidisis". The very same mistake done in the title of this report by Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17. Also, if you look at Croatia_in_the_union_with_Hungary talk page you will notice that he had also made the same misspell writing "The discussion is burdened by users behaving like the blocked now Asidis who are attacking the IP who proposed the article rewrite as ". He had wrote that post under the different ip, Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79, but he had not fooled the user Shokatz who said "Any other IP address you can post from? You know, changing IP address or posting from a different computer does not make you immune to Wikipedia policies.".Shokatz was asserting that the person from the ip Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 is the same person from the ip Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 which is very much obvious as they both misspelled the Asidis. The very same mistake was done by FkpCascais and the person who wrote this report. Furthermore, FkpCascais has himself wrongfully accused 4-5 people of being Asdisis in the last few months.

Here are some more similar comments by those two anonymous ip's and FkpCascais.

Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 : "The phrase "national and local citizenship" is just laughable. Spam and trolling "supported" by a blog and a private publication"

FkpCascais : Asdinsis point is to prove he had some "local citizenship" (?) in Croatian-Slavonia so he could later claim Tesla was Croatian, which is an absurdity.

FkpCascais "Obviously you support him, you are a one-purpose account" said to Michael_Cambridge

Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 in this very own report stated the very same thing about Michael Cambridge : "Based on the Michael Cambridge's diffs it's clear that the most of his edits are in the line of unconditional support of the Asdisis' attempt to 'prove' that Tesla was a Croatian."

I will also mention that this sockpuppet accusation was dismissed by other users participating in the discussions: "FWIW, I don't think Michael Cambridge is a sock of Asdisis because their ability to use English is slightly different. " said Bob_K31416.

I gave only a representation and I urge the clerk responsible here to look in detail at the posts done by Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 and Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 and FkpCascais.

Oh, I forgot to mention yet another connection FkpCascais is the one who reported and managed to block Asdisis and the ip Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 had made the contribution to FkpCascais's report. Now we have Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 making a report.

Please note that I had posted only a brief summary of the connection between those 3 people. I hope this is enough for the admin too look in detain into the behavior of FkpCascais,Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 and Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17. This for sure is a hard case to crack since FkpCascais is a long term editor and knows very well how to avoid being detected.

FkpCascais has been POV pushing for a long time on Wikipedia, as I have seen. I give this discussion as an example. I've been on a verge to make a report for POV pushing since he is constantly repeating a certain source says something, and I know that is false so I asked him to provide a quote. I asked 4-5 times and he refuses to provide a quote but claims it exists. Of course it does not exist as I have proved it in the discussion. The very same behavior can be seen in the ip's comments.

I spent an hour making this , and in the meantime Bbb23 you had post a comment below, thus I'm pinging you.

Also, while I was writing this you Bbb23 had corrected the misspell from the title of this report, and as I explained it is very important to note that mistake. The misspell "Asidis" present in the title is the very same misspell done by FkpCascais, Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 and Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79. That mistake by itself is a strong indicator that this is the same person. Very strong indicator, but the behavior of those "3" people proves this is the same person. Detoner (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User Detoner asked me to share my point of view. I am sure he is not any sockpuppet of Asdisis and I don't think Asdisis would maintain continous sock-puppetry, just because more Croatians want to investigate a very complex issue it would not mean all of them are sock-puppets. I think the Croatian-Serbian tension went too far in this issue. Because of this user 72.66.12.17's accusation is above a healthy limit, also in the Nikola Tesla and the Croatia in the union of Hungary article he maintained a very rude behavior where the good faith or objectivity did not count, any opposing or proven counter-argument he did not want to accept, but he is maintaining to cite some legally citable documents that mostly represent an outsiders POW, but not necessarily the legal, lawful affiliation of the corresponding entities (Austria, Hungary, Croatia, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for your participation. I would also like to add one important thing. User Asdisis was blocked because of disruptive behavior. If he is to maintain a sock then that sock would also be disruptive in its behavior. No one here is being disruptive. The user who made this report is trying to block someone because of the similar stands, but not similar behavior. I don't think it is necessary to explain why it is dangerous to block certain stands on Wikipedia. User FkpCascais had already try to do that to 5 other users and managed to wrongfully block one ip. Later he himself admitted his mistake, as he continued to talk with that ip on his talk page. I think he realized that 5 false accusations on his account is too much, so he made a report trough this sock. Detoner (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also add a case of clear vandalism by user Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 see here. The reason for this vandalism is that Drmies had removed a POV from the article. POV that was strongly defended by FkpCascais. Detoner (talk) 09:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another link between the mentioned users. FkpCascais and Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 both keep participating the Military Frontier article and they just made 2 personal attacks to me. I reported that and I'm reporting it here. Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 said: "Please, do not respond to this troll called Asdisis, Michale Cambridge, and now Detoner. His spamming technique is the same: pointing at irrelevant sources, ignoring already supplied ones." []

FkpCascais replied to that by: "Even in a comment he is unable not to push the POV that MF was Croatia..."

I think I put enough that shows that all these people are obsessed with Croatia. Detoner (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As lots of editors told you, no one here is giving a dime neither to Croatia, or Serbia, but editors are just interested in what the majority of reliable sources say. And you were presented by numerous sources, you are the one not having sources for your pretended edits. Stop turning things other way around, and stop talking about me, most if not all senior editors disagree with you and they are all neutral editors. FkpCascais (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais and Special:Contributions/72.66.12.17 are both participating is a discussion with a goal to ban me. See Here. That is very similar to the case where both Special:Contributions/65.220.39.79 and FkpCascais participated in a case to block user Asdisis. See Here. I hope this is lasting so long because you are working on my case. Detoner (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • After following the discussion at WP:ANI and probing some of the evidence myself, I decided to run a CU. There are some significant stylistic simlarities between Asdisis and Detoner, some of which are striking. I don't intend to disclose them here. I'm also disturbed by Detoner's admission that he used an open proxy before creating an account. I also found in the course of the CU that the IPs he used were often dodgy, even if they didn't sink to the level of open proxies. They also reflect an apparent attempt to hide who he is, which, even if he is not Asdisis, is problematic.
  • Asdisis (talk · contribs · count) and Detoner (talk · contribs · count) are  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely).
  • Michael Cambridge (talk · contribs · count) is Red X Unrelated.
  • I blocked and tagged Detoner. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Asdisis is a SPA editor who spent his time on Wikipedia promoting Croatian nationalism. His disruption at talk:Nikola Tesla is the stuff of legends. As the archives show, he has used sock and/or meat puppets to tip the scales in favor of his POV. Full disclosure: I have no opinion or position whatsoever about the Croatia vs. Serbia debate.

Following a brief respite after Asdisis, and his previous socks and proxies were block, it seems that we are back to the same promotional editing.

Although Asdisis has edited from proxies in the past, I am requesting a checkuser to hopefully identify sleeper accounts. I tried to query new user accounts created around the same time as these, but I keep getting a "2013 Lost connection to MySQL server during query (10.64.32.25)" error. - MrX 15:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I agree with the above. I have observed the edit conflict at Nikola Tesla since all the accounts in question began editing, although I have no opinion on the Serb/Croat issue. All of these editors are single purpose accounts whose only interest on WP is to push their nationalist cause. Michael Cambridge was a loyal supporter and defender of the sockpuppeteer Asdisis, the most extreme POVPUSHer I have ever seen, and since Asdisis was blocked has carried on the fight; he has been the most aggressive tendentious editor on Talk:Nikola Tesla. He is certainly committed enough to create sockpuppets himself. In addition, several more suspicious single-issue IPs have popped up to support the same cause:
User:141.138.50.1 [8]
User:89.164.185.106 [9]
There are also some on the Serb side of the conflict:
User:109.172.46.216 [10]
These disruptive editors, on both sides, have wasted an enormous amount of good editors' time and effort. The entire conflict at Nikola Tesla, which has been going on since 2007, is over a single word in the article! Whether or not they are judged to be socks, most of them have demonstrated enough transgressive behavior to qualify for blocking as disruptive editors. --ChetvornoTALK 12:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those IPs are clearly M.Cambridge. From Tesla he moved to another article, Talk:Serbs of Croatia, first used the same IP he admitted to be Cambridge at Tesla talk-page, 141.138.50.1 , then he continued the discussion at both articles using IP 89.164.239.139. FkpCascais (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP 89.164.239.139 shows same exact pattern as Asdisis did (diff) - "Oh don't block me, I didn't even edited the article, I only discuss at talk-page to create consensus". FkpCascais (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
89.164.239.139 and 141.138.50.1 both geolocate to the same city as an IP address used by Asdisis in the past. - MrX 15:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I come from Zagreb. I don't know where the mentioned users come from, but Zagreb is home to nearly 1/4 of population of Croatia. Is it true that before someone is blocked as a sock a pattern of misconduct has to be determined? In which aspect is my supposed misconduct similar to the misconduct of the other mentioned users?89.164.239.139 (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will mention that this IP tends to wikilawyer much the same way Asdisis did. On several occasions this same person(with different IPs) has complained about how unjust Asdisis was treated. I don't think I have ever heard louder quacking, combined with the technical evidence this seems clear. I am involved in the underlying content dispute to be clear and won't be taking any action myself. Chillum 19:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I never mentioned those users, nor do I know who they are. I don't know what wikilawyer-ing is. Technical evidence? I think Wikipedia has a system which looks upon IP addresses, so there's really no need for your assesment of technical evidence when admin will use that system to see. I asked what is my misconduct and still I do not get an answer. 89.164.239.139 (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the diffs for some of the occasions where this reoccurring character mentions asdisis. Take note of the writing style: [11][12][13][14]. Chillum 19:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

Since this hasn't been archived (I find navigating SPI pages quite arcane, btw): it seems that 72.66.12.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), disrupting Ivo Andrić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is another sock of his. Or of some else banned Balkans editor. No such user (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked into this IPs edits yet, but I will say that this sock recently said they would evade their block by going to other articles. Chillum 15:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pushing Serbian POV with significant vandalism, and you Chillum haven't really reacted to that.I've been deleting whole passages from the talk pages, and I've been making some significant changes to the articles and you were present there and you haven't really reacted. It's getting bored since no one reverts me and I'm being allowed to vandalize the pages. It seems I have to declare it openly, so here I'm doing it. I will also go beond Balkan pages. It's interesting how fast someone can get blocked when he is designated to be Asdisis. No IP is safe, and when I activate my fake accounts, even the signed up users with a long history of editing won't be safe. I don't see any other way to expose your little kartel but to get as much other people blocked. 89.164.161.161 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I already suspected, "I've been pushing Serbian POV", there were IPs Asdisis used to push Serbian POV in order to make a point. The discussion at Nikola Tesla regarding Serbian Orthodox Church was clearly him cause there was no logic at all after everything that hapend to someone behave aggressively in order they did. FkpCascais (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that when you see the same person pretending to be multiple people taking opposing points of view and arguing with themselves that it is safe to assume that the underlying content dispute is not their goal. Rather it is likely that they get their kicks by finding a controversial area and intentionally muddying the waters. It isn't new, it isn't clever and he is not particularly good at it but we are being trolled. Chillum 20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You are wrongfully accusing everyone of being Asdisis, as you did with me, and as I now see, some other people as well. No one of them was a positive match for being a sock. This is getting ridiculous. Who is this guy who's making a report? Where did he come from, I don't see him in any of the discussions I looked at, where Asdisis was involved. 65.49.68.182 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Long-term disruptive editing at Talk:Nikola Tesla. Obvious CIR. Please see SPI archive and thread about the IPs. These five IPs were used 13–14 May (!); as the user says himself: "There was no multiple users. The only one who had posted today was me. My ip had changed, but that was all me.". Zoupan 01:16, 15 May 2016 (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

16 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Same old song DVdm (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2016 (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

17 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


More of same, as was expected. DVdm (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2016 (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

18 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Same as every other day. DVdm (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2016 (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

18 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Second today. DVdm (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2016 (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

19 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Same as before. DVdm (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2016 (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

31 May 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Same as all the others. - DVdm (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2016 (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

01 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Another one. - DVdm (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2016 (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

07 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same as always. DVdm (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2016 (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

Reopened to add another. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked and re-closed. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same as ever. DVdm (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2016 (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

09 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

another usual suspect. DVdm (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2016 (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

11 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

one for the list. DVdm (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2016 (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

12 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

(for the record). - DVdm (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2016 (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

17 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same as ever. DVdm (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2016 (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

18 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

For the record. Already blocked. DVdm (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2016 (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

19 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same as before but with entirely new IP ranges. Meat puppets? Open proxies? Reopening was refused by Bbb23, therefore we'll have to do it this way. Please don't close too quickly: there's probably lots of these to come. DVdm (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2016 (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

@Bbb23: ha, but this is a bit of chicken-egg problem: I always open an SPI here, in order to have something to point at wp:AIV. Admins who are not familiar with this case might be inclined not to block unless the ips are listed here as well. IIRC I had one refusal for user insufficiently warned. - DVdm (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... and of course, when they happen to be already blocked, it's good to have then listed here in order to create a permanent archived record, revealing possible patterns in behaviour, articles, talk pages, ISP, open proxies or whatever. - DVdm (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, we don't have to have them listed "for the record", and generally when accounts are listed for the record, the SPI is closed right after, so we're back to square one. Sounds like you should rewrite the policy and procedural rules to suit your rather effective methodology, at least until little ole me interrupted your rhythm. As an aside, it's highly unlikely the IPs here are open proxies. There's a huge difference between geolocate confirming a proxy server and the IP being a true open proxy. Most proxy servers aren't open. Of course, that doesn't mean these particular IPs are legitimate for ordinary people, but that's a different issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difference between a proxy and open proxy, and I agree that most proxys aren't open, but this user has used open proxies before, so having them tested at WP:OP would seem to be prudent.- MrX 18:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more practical suggestion. If you have IPs to add on the same date as the close, add them and highlight the fact that you've done so. In that way, a clerk should look at them before archiving the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice to know that that's OK too. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a WP:LTA page would a better place to keep a record to use as a reference at AIV. Once the patrolling admins become familiar with that link they will be able to recognize the pattern easily enough. It would take some of the load off of SPI. HighInBC Need help? ((ping|HighInBC)) 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A case of LTA it definitely is, but then.... I had a look a four random LTA-cases, and... they all refer to SPI for lists of confirmed and/or suspected sock puppets. Wouldn't that be even more load? - DVdm (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Repeating the same telltale edits as previous socks, for example these. - MrX 21:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Nothing wrong with posting sources. That doesn't make me a sock. Since it was me who dig for that sources I doubt that anyone had posted those sources previously so there's no reason to compare me to this disruptive editor. I may agree with some of his claims, but that doesn't make me the same person. I'm not disruptive, he was blocked because he was disruptive. You are being very disruptive by removing those sources which may interest other editors. 141.136.216.129 (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add 89.164.106.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Should the IP's unconstructive comments remain or be deleted?--Zoupan 17:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another one 89.164.226.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).--Zoupan 20:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Possible sock removing sockpuppet template from other IP socks please see SPI archive ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]). Thank You – GSS (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2016 (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

26 August 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same as always. See archive. DVdm (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pointing to a consensus and the edit that goes against that consensus. That can't be ignored because someone accuses me of being a sock. 89.164.174.221 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I concur. Same IP range; same comment style; same obsession with Croatian nationalism.- MrX 22:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to a consensus is not "obsession with Croatian nationalism". You ignoring a consensus and letting Serbian nationalistic edits to stay against a consensus is an obsession. That edits are up there quite long,and see how quick you were to support removal of me pointing to the consensus.141.136.213.92 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you stopped reverting me on talk page? How am I to prove that you and other editors are disruptive if not with a case where you are letting people edit against consensus and having my objection removed? I couldn't hope for a better case and now you aren't playing along. Not that my old case where you remove sources is a bad one, but I like this one better. I've already changed ip's and you didn't even block the previous one. 141.136.196.194 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Same as always. - DVdm (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2016 (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

04 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Repeating identical edits of previous socks. See contributions. - MrX 19:19, 4 October 2016 (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

21 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

same as always. DVdm (talk) 11:59, 21 January 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

10 December 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP as well as 141.136.229.217 exhibit identical editing patterns as the master, and are editing from the same networks. See previous reports and contributions. - MrX 🖋 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs are pushing a pro-Croatian POV at Nikola Tesla exactly as the master and his previous socks have.- MrX 🖋 20:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

He was not carefull yesterday, and ended up showing that the IP account pretending to be someone else supporting him, was just him himself. It happened at Talk:Austria-Hungary where he went editing as IP to try to make the changes he needed for the Tesla article. At middle of discussion with me, and with me insisting the one single source he presented is not enough, he ended saying It's not irrelevant, and I have provided a secondary source from a contemporary historian saying that happened. I immediaetlly remembered that the only source added by any of "the two" was added by User:Bilseric a bit earlier at Tesla talk-page in this edit. I started asking him what souce was he erfering to, and seing he made a mistake he avoided presenting it for the rest of the day, as seen at the discussion. But today he couldn´t avoided, ansious to win arguments, and he [diff admited] the source he was refering to was the one Bilseric presented. Clear evidence he messed up and showed that Bilseric and IP are both him. FkpCascais (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am being clear, but the case is quite simple. While discussing with me, Asdisis forgot he was discussing with me as IP, and said he presented a source refering to a source presented while he was logged in as Bilseric. I checked IP contributions and he didn´t presented the source anywhere, so he was clearly refering to that edit of Bilseric. Bilseric and IP are the same person, and since that IP account is Asdisis sock, so is Bilseric. FkpCascais (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with FkpCascais. I compared some of Asdidis comments from a couple of years ago to Bilseric's comments. While there is not a lot of evidence of similarity, there is some (I can present evidence later today if needed). What sealed it for me was when Bilseric started edit warring over my close of the AN/RFC discussion [20][21] similar to the two IP socks here. Other similarities are the dogged persistence in pushing Croatian nationalism, and the style of their arguments. These can't be shown through diffs. It would require reading lengthy discussions. I'm happy to post links to representative discussions if that would be helpful.- MrX 🖋 12:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

14 June 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

See the full list of IPs at the relevant talk page. In short, similar POV pushing and non-adherence to talk page guidelines of the kind that led to the relevant article being listed at WP:LAME. A lot of these accounts made relatively few edits, and then suddenly converge on the talk page and the subsequent RfC to make the very same arguments. The IP I list (out of all the others) has a very similar WP:BLUDGEON style to User:Notrium. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Seriously, @RandomCanadian:? You request CU investigation of everyone who disagrees with you on the RfC, and is not also an admin? That's plainly abuse. Notrium (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those accounts haven't even participated in the RfC, or have also participated in other discussion than the RfC, FWIW, they're just quacking very suspiciously like you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, how about you actually try to present arguments in your favor, instead of banning difference of opinion? Do you really think it's realistic that one person in socking for 5 years, now as 5 different persons? 5.43.173.12 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how did you, whose first edit is just half an hour ago, suddenly notice this? Notrium: If this is you logged out, you're not helping your case... As for arguments in favour; making the very same kind of comments at an RfC as a known sockpuppeteer is evidence enough in my opinion., and the first edits of some of these accounts being to talk pages of users involved in this while they didn't previously edit there is also a very clear sign there's something amiss... In any case, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and I don't think there's a valid reason to extend it too long in a situation like this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: "And how did you, whose first edit is just half an hour ago" - obviously she/he is that reasonable IP from the RfC, but on a different IP now. That's how Internet works. Notrium (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was plainly obvious who I am, but not that it matters. RandomCanadian, you can't go naming 5 people as socks without any argument like this, just listing them, seemingly based on the sole reason that they disagree with you. You have to provide an example of irregular behavior which mirrors the one of the Sock. 5.43.173.12 (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: and, you really have some nerve to mention WP:AGF after calling for a CheckUser investigation of everybody who disagreed with you. Notrium (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because you named me in this SPI (I'm the 89...). I guess you recognize socks only when they disagree with you. Also, maybe you should provide diffs when making claims like "making the very same kind of comments at an RfC as a known sockpuppeteer". 5.43.173.12 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough you're wrong since some of the above actually vote no; but since diffs were asked for: eg looking at the relevant histories Bilseric is an SPA who has only edited the Nikola Tesla ethnicity talk page or other topics very closely related to the Serb/Croat conflict; Oel0302's very first edit was to remove an ethnicity here as per the same arguments you and Notrium (if you're not the same person) have been making... (and then recently he made a very lame request that Tesla was actually Croatian on the same TP...) And Theonewithreason has also only SPA'd at Tesla's page and at involved editors talk pages. In short, they're all editors with little involvement elsewhere... Oh, and, both you and Notrium have shown a consistent tendency towards WP:BADGER both at the RfC and here and every elsewhere you engage in a discussion so that leads me to think you're in fact one and the same. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the significant proportion of IP edits also matches the pattern of previous sockpuppeting attempts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's leave it for admins. I don't recall I made a request that Tesla was actually Croatian though. And I really can't control what others write, or whether it is similar to what I write or not. I admit I have engaged in pointless discussions with you. 5.43.173.12 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BDW, Admins, please. I don't feel comfortable that an editor is revealing my location in this discussion [35]. 5.43.173.12 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're editing under an IP, so that's to be expected, since IPs can be geolocated... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? What could possibly be the reason to geolocate my location and then reveale it to everyone??? What does my location has to do with anything? Why is that to be expected?5.43.173.12 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom of your contributions page there's a very clear link to pages such as this, which does indicate you are (like the sockpuppeteer and some of his known IPs) from Zagreb, Croatia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether is it possible or not, I find it very uncomfortable that someone is actually publicly revealing it to others. I may make an account and If I forget to login then I should also expect that my location is publicly revealed? 5.43.173.12 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:. This user: @Binksternet: who was yesterday revealing my geo-location is now deleting my posts [36],[37],[38]. 89.201.200.208 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to engage him, but this feels just like he is trying to provoke some kind of inappropriate response from me. 89.201.200.208 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

More