Mkd07

Mkd07 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 March 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK: William H. Nault (talk · contribs) is new account, created on 9 March, which is right after Mkd07 ceased editing for reasons unknown, although I have a hunch that my message warning against his repeated source misrepresentation and making up stuff played a role. Both users are interested in very obscure articles related on the presence of Slavs in early medieval Macedonia; their POV is the same, with WHN creating a new article on St Peter and Paul Church, Macedonia referring to the Republic of Macedonia simply as "Macedonia", or creating articles such as 6th-century Macedonian people (AFD'd by myself), which in this context is telling, since Mkd07 clearly had an axe to grind in this area, with edits like this or his edit history at History of the Macedonians (ethnic group), where mentions of Greeks, Hellenization, Bulgarian rule over the early Slav settlers, mixed ethnic background of the "Sclaveni" is repeatedly removed ([1], [2], [3]). WHN also claims to be an Australian, but his articles are written in a bad English rather reminiscent of Mkd07's articles: compare for instance WHN's new creation, Hatczon, with Mkd07's original versions of Rynchines or Akamir.

Interestingly, WHN's "Hatczon" does not even exist as a name: the only attested Slavic chief is known as Χάτζων (Chatzon or Hatzon) in Greek sources, and "Hatczon" was probably a typo, not surprisingly originally inserted by Mkd07 in the Berziti article. Mkd07 also created the first version of the article, but it got deleted, and now WHN re-created it with obviously zero additional research to see whether this figure ever existed. Either he is confident of Wikipedia's accuracy or it is the same person doing the same mistakes. This is also the link between WHN/Mkd07 and Geographer1 (talk · contribs), two of whose three total edits concerned the change of the correct form into Hatczon in Siege of Thessalonica (617), as well as the addition of "AD" in the dates (also a shibboleth of WHN, in the very same article). A particularly obvious case of WP:DUCK is Mkd07's very peculiar habit of placing the name of the article he edited in lieu of the edit summary, and WHN does exactly the same.

Mkd07 obviously has the right to change account names, but IMO this is a blatant attempt to "wipe the slate clean" after running into opposition for his edits by myself and Jingiby (talk · contribs)'s warnings, so that he can again go about at creating low-quality, badly-researched and sometimes contentious articles. Just out of curioisity, I posted at his talk page asking if he is the same user as Mkd07. Let's see what he will answer. Constantine ✍ 00:12, 10 March 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
information Administrator note William H. Nault indef blocked and tagged. Mkd07 hasn't edited since January, but I've applied a one week block nevertheless, partly so that there's a record in the block log, and partly to autoblock their IP for a short while. I've left Geographer1 untouched. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
05 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


clear case of WP:DUCK: same fixation on early medieval Slavic history in the s. Balkans (Macedonia), same repetition of the article title in the edit summaries, re-addition of the blatantly wrong "Hatzcon" spelling from the ohrid.org.mk website in the Chatzon article, etc. Constantine ✍ 13:03, 5 May 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
Really? You have a new account whose third edit is article creation (a common indication of sockpuppetry) and whose edits match 100% the pattern of a user known to be using multiple accounts and with a history of fringe POV edits and adding invented facts to one of the most sensitive nationalist battlegrounds (Macedonia) and you see no abuse? As the one who has time and again to clean ip his stream of pseudo-history additions, I rather disagree. Constantine ✍ 14:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
14 September 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Part of a long series of socks, distinguished by their focus on Slavs and their history in Macedonia. Aside from WP:DUCK, such as, inter alia, the promotion of this obscure self-published book by a fringe nationalist author, the identity of the the accounts is evident by the continuity of these edits: [4] [5] [6], as well as by the tell-tale and unusual habit of replicating the article title in the edit summaries (cf Heraldry76's contribs with MKd07's contributions, which is also clear evidence of the overlap in articles between the two accounts). Byzantine writer appears to be unused, but is clearly a sock per WP:DUCK. I reported it a while back, but no action was undertaken. Constantine ✍ 14:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cartographer1 (talk · contribs) seems to be another sock of the same guy per WP:DUCK. Constantine ✍ 10:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to Bbb23) Well, if the administrator in question failed to see a loudly quacking WP:DUCK over a range of accounts, then I don't see why I shouldn't raise it again. Admin decisions are not sacrosanct, and it is not him who has to clean up this guy's edits every now and then... Constantine ✍ 18:06, 29 September 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

 Clerk note: I've blocked and tagged Heraldry76 because their edits are relatively recent (September 14). It will also give us a non-stale technical basis for a CU if more puppets appear in the near term. I'm not blocking Cartographer1 as it has not been used since July 21. Byzantine writer is even older (May 2013), and given that nothing really has happened since the last report when an administrator declined any action, you really shouldn't have raised it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am going to issue some more blocks here, checkuser says  Confirmed for the three accounts:
Byzantine writer is stale, but couldn't be more duckish if it tried. So I am blocking it as well. Courcelles 19:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Loudly quacking WP:DUCK, edits on subjects related to Macedonian Slavic history, including highly FRINGE and OR claims like the non-existent Grand Alliance of the Sclaveni. Tell-tale habit of repeating the article in the edit summary is also present. Constantine ✍ 12:50, 20 December 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
09 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


per WP:DUCK: a new account that in its second edit revisits an article created by the previous sock account, only to remove a sourced statement that a Slavic chieftain spoke fluent Greek; the very unusual tell-tale habit of repeating the article name in the edit summary continues to be present. Constantine ✍ 13:03, 9 January 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


09 January 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

An user who periodically creates a new sockpuppets who are subsequently blocked. He creates a lot of nonsensic, duplicative and/or not notable articles related to the Macedonian question, many of which were deleted, or redirected. Also he uploades images with copyright violation. He is editing Macedonian question related articles, puting a lot of spam-tags at articles tops etc. Examples:

1.At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.

2.At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff:

For example, several socks have eddited thone and the same article about an nationalist Macedonian politician Todor Petrov:
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
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. --Rschen7754 06:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20 October 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Loudly quacking WP:DUCK: new account who with his first edit revisits one of the sockmaster's favourite haunts, the tell-tale duplication of the article title in the edit summary, and today the recreation of an AfD'd article that was created by a previous sock. Constantine ✍ 08:57, 20 October 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

 Completed  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Blocked & tagged. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

01 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


Long-undetected sock account, recently reactivated and a loudly quacking WP:DUCK: edits in the usual South Slav-related articles, addition of the same extremely fringe and POV source (cf. previous SPI), same, utterly unique, insistence on repeating the article name in the edit summary. Constantine ✍ 17:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: I thought it self-evident, but here it goes:
  1. the contributions of the sockmaster vs. sock, all with the very tell-tale repetition of the article name in the edit summary; in all my years here, I've never seen anyone else doing this, let alone being so consistent in this process. A short look in the SPI archive will show you that this is one of the hallmarks of this sockmaster that is present across the multiple socks he's so far created. Why he doesn't change it I don't know.
  2. the topics of the articles he edits, early Slavic tribes in the Balkans, an obscure area with little activity in the best of times. Cf. at Belegezites (sock & original account), or at Berziti (sock, sockmaster, and old sock Nr. 1)
  3. the introduction of the same obscure self-published book by a fringe nationalist author that no-one else ever references. Cf. old sock Nr. 2, old sock Nr. 3, and current sock.

Taken together, this is a WP:DUCK using a megaphone and advertising itself with a neon billboard.... Constantine ✍ 22:28, 1 May 2015 (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: I believe the evidence presented by Cplakidas is enough to block Moldovian1 as a sock. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

02 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


[7] same articles/subject area (Balkans and archaeology), same edit summary style, addition of same non-RS sources, apparently self-published and cut & pasted into articles: [8] [9] user created new article (partial recreation of deleted, seemingly copied from GNU source see Sassa website [10] and several more. In particular, this stood out as a common interest Haploidavey (talk) 00:35, 2 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

05 November 2017

Suspected sockpuppets


Indeffed per this discussion and that the sock is making duck edits.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:28, 5 November 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

24 March 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Same area of editing as previous socks, similar user page as Old revision of User:ConstantinVacheron, similar edit summaries as older socks (without quotes this time, though) and addition of same non-RS here. This looks like a WP:DUCK to me so I haven't notified the user. Requesting checkuser only for potential sleeper accounts. byteflush Talk 17:09, 24 March 2018 (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

The case is  Stale. CU declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Account opened about a month after the previous sock (User:Showerman05) was blocked. Same obsession with promoting an essentialist Macedonian POV by inventing "Macedonians" in the 7th century (compare current sock with article name and subject created by previous socks [11], [12]) and inserting them in a Bulgarian 19th-century revolt ([13]), but most tellingly, the recreation of History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations, an article on a pseudo-scientific publication that has been repeatedly deleted and recreated by socks over the years. Only the sockmaster and his socks ever used this as a reference ([14], [15], [16]) Its universally unknown co-author Tome Egumenoski (an article for whom has twice been created by previous socks and deleted) was even added by the current sock into the FA list (!). Constantine ✍ 11:32, 31 August 2018 (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

Sir Sputnik -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

30 November 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Loudly quacking WP:DUCK: new account, whose 10th and 13th edit was the addition of a pseud-source that is a well-established canard of the sockmaster; and whose 16th edit revisited a page where previous socks were active, with the same unusual edit summary repeating the article's name, and incorrectly changing the location of the article's subject from central Greece to Macedonia (Macedonian-related issues being very high on the sockmaster's agenda since his very first appearance). Constantine ✍ 12:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

This looks like same guy - Tome Egumenoski with the self-promotion of his book. Jingiby (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

31 May 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


Fairly typical WP:DUCK quacking into a megaphone behaviour: creating and editing [17] [18] articles with the title in the edit summary (cf. sockmaster and older sock), and of course, the recreation of the History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations article, a piece of pseudo-science that is a hallmark of this sockmaster's contributions (see most recently here). Constantine ✍ 12:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for additions of History and Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations as a reference, I also discovered another sock, Deerfield07: same edit summary habit, and of course this little gem, which uses this same publication for referencing some hogwash about the Teutonic Knights... Constantine ✍ 12:26, 31 May 2019 (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 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Hi, the first editor has been unexpectedly activated lately only on the Macedonian question after having being passive since long time. The second editor was registered recently, is active on the same issue and both are actively communicating. One of the topics the first covers is the Karposh Uprising and Karposh himself, where his previous incarnations were often active as here: now [19]; [20]; [21]; and some time ago: [22]; [23]; [24];. Another habit of his is to hand out barn stars left and right, such as here: now [25]; [26]; [27]; and some time ago: [28]; [29]; [30]. Note that he gives barn stars to users who have not been active for more than 5 to 10 years, which means that he probably had registrations before the current one, which is from 2018, and knows them as follows: User contributions for MatriX – not active since 10 years; contributions for Lunch for Lunch for Two – not active since 5 years, etc. Jingiby (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2021 (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

More