Stubes99

Stubes99 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

05 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

typical articles: Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages‎ (edited by other sock accounts or IPs e.g. [1] [2] [3] or Fifth Crusade (edited by other sock accounts or IPs e.g. [4] [5])+ typical messages [6] Carpathians (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

46.107.156.123 - IP from the usual range [7] - edits on articles previously edited by other socks Carpathians (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingler and 84.0.58.145 - too obvious per wp:duck

Boldingi - edits on typical article, preocupation on genetics of the Hungarian people just like the sock master

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 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious sock of Celebration1981 (better known by his sockpuppet User:Stubes99) Behavioral evidence:

Edits on the same article Matthias Corvinus

User:Balancedright (blocked sockpuppet of Celebration1981/Stubes99): Hahaha, (mostly) only clericals could speak Latin in medieval Hungary. Therefore it was only a written language. [8]

User:Rabenwappen: Only the official WRITTEN language was latin, similar to all medieval Catholic countries. The official spoken language was Hungarian, due t the fact that only few higher educated medieval clergymen could speak latin [9]

User:Rabenwappen: Latin names were not in use in spoken language, due to the fact that only the few higher educated medieval clericals could speak latin [10] Mosmartin (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and the ultimate evidence is the below message posted just by him:: User:Mosmartin is the new sockpuppet of banned chauvinist User:Iaaasi. He started new edit-war for nationalist purposes in the Matthias Corvinus and John Hunyadi articles [11]

Comments by other users

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

User:Mosmartin is the new sockpuppet of banned chauvinist User:Iaaasi. He started new edit-war for nationalist purposes in the Matthias Corvinus and John Hunyadi articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabenwappen (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 January 2013?

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The usual suspects, socks all. Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

19 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Sock master is Celebration1981 a.k.a User:Stubes99.

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
27 February 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


According to his editing practice, writing style, I think this is another sock of the Stubes99. Adrian (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I disagree. These edits testify to his inexperience in the Wikipedia, so, I think he is a newcomer. For example he wrote his opinion in my user page instead of the talk page, and previously forget to sign his message. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 May 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Balkony posted a message in Hungarian language on User talk:Hobartimus, which can be translated as "Hello! Why do not you set your profile to wikis by e-mail, which could communicate with you? Thanks for your response!" [14]. To be noted that the account Balkony was created on 21 January 2013, almost a year after the account Hobartimus became inactive on 29 February 2012. Hobartimus is an old friend of Stubes99 [15]

Balkony contributed on typical articles of Stubes99:

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 June 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Alkunesco reinserted a deleted unsourced text previously added by another sock (User:Balkony) on a typical article (Austria-Hungary)

81.183.162.109 is an ip from the usual range (see former ip socks 81.183.185.244, 81.183.164.43, 81.183.164.159) and it contributed to the typical article Black Army of Hungary (previous sock edits there: [19] - where it can be seen the particularity of adding pictures - or [20]).

Treidoiunu (talk) 06:48, 26 June 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
06 December 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Dropped a similar talk page message here as previously blocked IP.

I've blocked the user as it seems pretty damn clear it is the same user. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 6 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
11 June 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Dosemark was already indef. blocked for personal attacks like this one, but most likely it is not his first indefinite block. Some proofs that we talk about socks of the older contributor Stubes99:

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
-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to inform the administrators that a new very probable sockpuppet is active at Talk:Hungarian Turanism, namely this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eszlenyek . Just like recent sockpuppets (Dosemark, Diversitirif and Friarjuli), he also posted a message at User talk:Maghasito and he uses the typical expression "turan fantasy". Avpop (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Perlumint is also undoubtedly controlled by the same person. This account continued the discussion on Talk:Hungarian Turanism on the thread started by Eszlenyek. Perlumint also edited Louis I of Hungary‎, where Stubes99 himself and the sockpuppet User:Bronsteinicus contributed in the past. Avpop (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
07 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


Too obvious. Typical articles, typical behaviour. A CU could easily confirm that he is a sock PersecutedUser (talk) 12:13, 7 July 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
Both blocked and tagged. Closing. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Brought up on IRC by a user with a history of catching this sockpuppeteer. WP:DUCK comes to mind as well... requesting CU for a sleeper check --Mdann52talk to me! 10:08, 15 July 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
28 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

Newly created accounts went straight to same article Stubes99 previously edited —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:51, 28 July 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
03 March 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

It is quite obvious that Kirglach = Konglich (similar names, similar editing style, successive edits on a not very often edited article). The article was previously protected against sockpuppetry: [21], so it is very possible that both of them are socks of User:Iaaasi or User:Stubes99 (2 sockmasters I found in the edit history) 178.41.230.175 (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extra proof that Konglich = Konglich: both referred to personal union in their edits: [22] and [23] 84.16.39.44 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for Vanjagenije (talk) :

- do you opine that only by chance the editor names are very much alike?

-- Kirglach

-- Konglich

--(K**gl*ch)

- don't you find suspect that that Kirglach made the last edit on 21:31, 1 March 2015‎, while Konglich made his first edit on 12:02, 2 March 2015? (changing accounts to lose his track)

- don't you find weird that both added images to the section 'Status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution': https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848&diff=649526931&oldid=649526812 / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848&diff=648969933&oldid=648968157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.205.66 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 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
  • @Vanjagenije and Salvidrim!: Stubes99 and his pal Iaaasi constitute one of Wikipedia's longest running sideshows, with both participants long banned ten miles beyond Hell, where Jimbos fear to tread. This contribution was a stock example of their friendly banter and led me to consign Konglich to the smelly drawer, which promptly caused this friendly message to appear on my talk page. True to form, it was quickly followed by this helpful remark from the opposite side of the aisle. I blocked that one as well, all in the name of fairness. Regarding the present case: yes, Kirglach is probably the same as Konglich, certainly edit-warring merrily along the beaten path. He's probably moved on, but someone should block him just for consistency. Guess I should, for old times' sake. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, goody! That one has been editing Matthias Corvinus, the very heartland of the Stubes99/Iaaasi feud. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've accordingly updated all three socktags to CU confirmed, for what's it worth. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


See User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Block_evasion and this diff, especially the edit summary, as compared to the previous diff. See also User:Againt frustrated chauvinist slovak IP ref similar name & WP:DUCK. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 08:15, 13 June 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

06 December 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK on Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301). Sleeper check requested Mdann52 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I would have thought this matching the WP:LTA/Stubes99 would have been enough... Anyway, here goes:

Mdann52 (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral evidence are clear, as per Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Stubes99. Typical editing style and typical articles about Hungarian history (Louis I of Hungary , Black Army of Hungary , Hősök tere, Austria-Hungary etc) and about science and technology in Hungary (History of the telephone, Telephone exchange, Steam motor).

Also he posts messages in Hungarian on User talk:Borsoka, like other previous sockpuppets. 82.79.214.252 (talk) 11:52, 12 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


14 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Per the reverts on Slovak Soviet Republic, Diet of Hungary and User:Enginerfactories for example. Same MO as puppeteer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Requesting a CU to check for any sleeper accounts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


Same behavior as before, same interest, continuous massive personal attacks (see the contributions). I am checkuser on huwiki, there he is doing the same activity and a comprehensive investigation is underway (we can share later the results on the International Checkuser List ([Checkuser-l])). Pallerti (talk) 12:28, 7 September 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

 Confirmed:

The above are  Blocked and tagged.

 Possible to  Likely but hasn't made any edits yet:

The latter may be compared to the others on the new page for Stubes99 at the checkuser wiki. Pallerti, use that page to share info and just make new sections showing hu.wiki results and ranges/IPs blocked (but in English if you want me to be able to read it. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Same behavior as before, same interest, (s)he had sockpuppet previously with similar name (user:Cumbertone). --Pallerti (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2020 (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

  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. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2020

Suspected sockpuppets


Same behavior and same interest as before, this sockpuppet has already detected on the huwiki. Pallerti (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

RoySmith, how is this not enough? You can compare the category with the one in this Wikipedia [24] and see the users are the same. Super Ψ Dro 15:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

It's honestly ridiculous how the previous report on this account has been rejected. As Pallerti, a checkuser on the Hungarian Wikipedia (from which this puppet originates), has already said, "Liltender" has already been identified as a puppet by IP verification. And in case this is not enough for some reason, just look at the long-term abuse case and look at the similarities between the edits of the already identified puppets and "Liltender". Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add some more proofs that might speed up this process. According to the long-term abuse case (link above), Stubes99 "periodically abandons his account and creates a new one, even if the other one is still unblocked". This matches with Liltender, who appeared out of nowhere editing articles that other puppets of Stubes99 have already edited and suddenly disappeared as well. Some of these articles are Austria-Hungary (an engeenering-related edit, see User:Enginerfactories), also edited by these confirmed puppets [25] [26] [27]; and Hungarian Revolution of 1848, also edited by these confirmed puppets [28] [29] [30] [31]. I can cite more but I consider it unnecessary. Notice that these two pages are in the long-term abuse case.
I also want to mention how other allegations done by Pallerti, who reported this account first, about suspected sockpuppets from Stubes99 have been previously accepted [32] [33]. Also, one of the proofs that have been used in an accepted accusation of a puppet of Stubes99 is "forum-like posts on talk pages". Liltender has done this as you may see here [34] (note the use of "Romani-an" as other puppets of Stubes99 have employed [35] [36]) [37] [38] [39]. I hope this is enough. Super Ψ Dro 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've added several other account to this report:

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Yes, Liltrender, Royal Free Citiy and Royal Free City are obviously socks. After I mentioned that he is obviously Stubes99's sock during a debate, Liltrender wrote me the following message in Hungarian: "Nanny, please save me from the Evil put in the corner", alluding that I want to involve administrators because I lost a debate. After this conversation, Liltrender stopped editing articles. Royal Free Citiy called me "Borsi" (a diminutive form of "Borsoka", that sounds like a pet dog's name in Hungarian) in an edit summary ([42]) - Stubes99's sock Cigányforma WOG alföldiek mentioned a similar form ("Borsika") in a message to me on my Talk page. Both Royal Free Citiy and Royal Free City are convinced that my family is of the Great Hungarian Plain or of Serbian origin and both editors use derogatory language when speaking about Hungarians living in the plain and people living in the Balkan Peninsula, like Stubes99's sock Cigányforma WOG alföldiek as it is demonstrated here. Liltrender, Royal Free Citiy and Royal Free City love referring to the results of autosomal genetic research in strange contexts, as it can be demonstrated here, here and here. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Only a few days ago I became aware of the existence of this page and since I had never participated in a sockpuppet investigation discussion before, I thought the accusation would simply be accepted. Then I saw the message you left announcing that the accusation would be shortly archived and I wanted to respond by making a more elaborate accusation, but I didn't have enough time that afternoon and night. So yes, I apologize for not having responded in time. Super Ψ Dro 19:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, The problem is, we walk a fine line. The general philosophy is that if we're not sure, it's better to err on the side of not blocking. The ((DiffsNeeded)) I used is pretty explicit about what kind of evidence we're looking for because that's what makes it easiest to move forward. We can't just accept accusations without proof, otherwise we'd be blocking people left and right. If that's what you're looking for, there's always Reddit :-) Also, as WP:BLOCK says, Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. If a particular account hasn't edited in 5 months, they're not doing any active harm, so there's not much lost by failing to block, even if they are a sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I apologize again for the trouble this first accusation of mine is causing. I have added more proofs, although I thought its detection on the Hungarian Wikipedia would be enough. Super Ψ Dro 22:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed User:Royal Free Citiy to User:Free Royal City. All other listed accounts are stale. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7 November 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Account created on 23 October 2020, a few days after the account Free Royal City (a confirmed puppet) was abandoned (this coinciding with the behavior of Stubes99 according to the long-term abuse case). This new account has edited articles that have already been edited by tons of alts of Stubes99. Some of them are Austria-Hungary [43] (edits done by confirmed puppets: [44] [45] [46] [47]), Hungarian Revolution of 1848 [48] (edits done by confirmed puppets: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]) and Magyarization [54] (edits done by confirmed puppets: [55] [56] [57]).

The account also makes the forum-like messages characteristic of Stubes99 [58] [59] (examples from confirmed puppets: [60] [61] [62]) and has talked to an user that has been targeted by other puppets of Stubes99 [63] (examples from puppets: [64] [65]). Also, II.kerulet continued to talk in an argue started by Free Royal City [66].

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 February 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


This is a little long, for which I apologize, but please stick with me.

I hesitated mightily before opening this report, not only because I am one of the parties involved in a content dispute with both editors, but because the evidence is not nearly as straightforward as I usually would like it to be before filing an SPI report.

Let's start with the obvious. KIENGIR is a long-term editor who has been here for 9 years 10 months and has 23,520 edits. Creator Edition, on the other hand, is a new editor, 1 month old, with 237 edits. KIENGIR has a primary interest in articles about Hungary and Hungarians and related subjects, but also edits in various articles about Nazi Germany. [67] Creator Edition almost exclusively edits to articles about Hungary and Hungarians. [68]

Considering their shared interest in Hungary and Hungarians, it's not unusual that their edits show a significant overlap of 30 articles. [69] These overlaps make up a full 40% of Creator Edition's edits.

When this overlap was first brought to my attention, I looked into the interactions between the two editors on various articles, to see if the new editor was being used by the established editor to create a false consensus, or any other indications of sockpuppetry. I did not find that. In fact, I found some minor disputes between then, such as Creator Edition telling KIENGIR not to "troll". [70] For this reason, I initially rejected filing a report. (Later, I considered that perhaps this might be a deliberate bad hand/good hand situation, to establish the "independence" of the new editor.)

The entire reason that an editor brought the overlaps between KIENGIR and Creator Edition to my attention has to do with the content dispute that I mentioned above. On Talk:Nazi Germany, KIENGIR is adamantly resisting a consensus in which 7 other editors, all long-time participants in editing the article, agree on something, and KIENGIR and one other editor disagree. The other editor is Creator Edition.

Now, this is odd because Creator Edition has never edited Nazi Germany, or indeed any other article in that subject area. They've only edited articles on Hungary and Hungarians, but here they come barrelling into a discussion to support the lone editor who doesn't agree with the consensus, the editor they know from Hungary and Hungarians article editing, KIENGIR.

And they way they entered was odd. They didn't post to the ongoing discussion in which KIENGIR was disputing consensus, [71] instead they created two new sections using CAPITAL LETTERS in the section titles, with many misspellings, typos and misuse of language, almost as if they were trying their best to show "I am a newbie editor, and I'm not related to KIENGIR, who's posting in that other thread." [72],[73] And, to be fair, maybe that's exactly the case, but as the discussion continued, and Creator Edition never posted to the thread that KEINGIR was posting in, only to the thread that they started, the behaviors of KIENGIR and Creator Edition became to appear to me to be more and more similar. They're both extremely repetitive, posting the same points over and over again, they both exhibit IDIDTHEARTHAT behavior, and they both have, seemingly, dug themselves in for the long haul without being receptive to any counter-arguments. And neither one posts in the other's thread.

It all feels very strange, odd enough that I overcame my doubts to file this report. I certainly agree that it's quite possible that these are mere coincidences, and that there's no connection between KIENGIR and Creator Edition, but the prospect of a consensus discussion continuing forever, despite what seems to me to be a clear-cut result, because these two are tag-teaming the discussion in their bizarre separate ways, pushed me to come here and dump the problem into someone else's lap.

I would appreciate it:: if a clerk would take a look at the situation and decide if there's enough evidence to pass it along to a Check User. I do not think that behavioral evidence will be sufficient for a final resolution, I think that will require a CU, but I'm hoping that it will be enough to take the next step.

I've tried to be fair here, and point out the flaws in the argument that KIENGIR and Creator Edition are related. In a way, I hope they're not, because KIENGIR's edits in the Nazi Germany subject area have generally been useful and positive, and I don't really want to believe that they are socking. However a perusal of KIENGIR's talk page shows signs of their not quite understanding Wikipedia's policies correctly, and of sometimes being tendentious and unwilling to let go when they think they're right -- their many warnings for edit warring are an indication of that. (Of course, the same could be said about me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 Yes, that was the other possibility that I did not include because my report was already quite long, that Creator Edition might be a sockpuppet of someone else, not KIENGIR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEINGIR Your comment explains why you didn't interact with Creator edition, but I wish you had made some comment on Talk:Nazi Germany about them, if only because it would have prevented me from making a fool of myself here, for which I apologize to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KIENGIR fixing my ping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you "banned me" (and I was not explained about my questions about this, however how could I notify you, if you don't want to be pinged, then I will ask an admin) from pinging you, I don't know if this message reaches you. Anyway I did not comment on that section because yes, we at some level avoid socks, on the other hand I did not watch the video he linked then, then why to comment if I don't have all the information on the subject? Ok, I accept your apologies, but please me from now on, you follow the utmost good faith and collaboration, and understand my argumentation in a good faith. We want a better, accurate encyclopedia, isn't it? Just because I stand firmly on my opinions, don't suspect anything negative, this engineering style of mine is well known. Some like me, some less, but my professional approach is almost never debated (anyway I recognize socks, many I just don't have enough evidence, I know Romanian socks as well, even if they are IP's, but these are forever recreated, we got tired).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't suggest that you might have notified me. I suggested that you should have said something on the article talk page. There are other editors involved in that discussion with Creator edition. Didn't you think it was worthwhile to let them know that they were arguing with a known sockpuppet? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'll repeat what I wrote above, that I am glad that you and CE are not related. That's the honest truth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you suggested, but there is not guarantee what I would adress to you would reach you. I already told you we gave up a long while, only Borsoka sometimes strikes his socks without even any investigation, becuase it's useless, he will create another one.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Bbb23 I left a message for Pallerti on their talk page on hu.wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

@Beyond My Ken: Creator Edition has been indefinitely blocked on hu.wiki by Pallerti, a CheckUser, for, as I understand it (Hungarian is one of the most difficult languages in the world), socking ("block evasion"). Pallerti, who doesn't edit en.wiki very often, might not see this ping, so you might have to approach them at hu.wiki (in English, which they apparently speak at least some). {U|KIENGIR)), whom I'm intentionally pinging because I think they should be notified of this particular filing, has edited very little on hu.wiki, but, FWIW, they are not blocked there. Finally, although I think CE is a suspicious account, based on a cursory look, it appears unlikely to me that the two users are the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging KIENGIR because I messed up above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, Hi, Creator edition is the sock of Stubes99. The hundred'th xxx one. Once I reported to Deltaquad/AmandaNP one of his former sock, but there was not enough evidence. Since then, all Hungarian editors gave up reporting, because he will create a new one (indeed have useful contributions as well in some areas).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Moreover I advice the third time to Beyond My Ken to calm down, just because we disagree on some content issues, I have the right to debate erronous and illogical assertions, regardless how many editors have a different opinion, since I even today demonstrated that the added bold edit is even semantically erroneus, and consensus building is ongoing. He should take a break and cool down, he was quite unfriendly towards me. I suggest him now WP:AAGF.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
This is not the place to debate an issue on Talk:Nazi Germany, but I do want to point out that there is no "consensus building" going on -- not a single other editor agrees with you. I'm going to let things continue for a while, then I will advertise for someone to close the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop telling me to "calm down", it's beginning to be insulting. I'm quite calm, thank you. Anyone reading this SPI report can see that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t belittle other editors, Sockpuppet investigations is one of the hardest parts of wikipedia and we should support all good faith investigations. I’ve also been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, its important not to lose your cool. A nothing-burger is a nothing-burger no matter how well you describe it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have been accused of being a sockpuppet of numerous other editors, but I've shrugged it off because I knew it wasn't true. As I wrote above, I hesitated considerably before filing this, because the evidence was not nearly as clear-cut as I would have liked it to be, but in the end I decided to file it, and it seems like something good might come out of that. I am sorry that I accused KIENGIR of doing something he did not do, and I've apologized for that, all that remains is for all good faith editors to return to their editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you should see you became very strained on me. Again, even if not a single editor would agree me, it does not mean i could not have right or valid points, that's why we are discussing. Btw. semantical errors may lead outside of community consensus: I hope you will let it to be discussed well, and not endorse close earlier to illustrate the approach of majority. Give it a time, if you are seven against me, nobody should afraid about one. Understanding, collaboration and good faith.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

First of all: user:Kiengir is almost certainly not the same as user:Creator Edition. Creator Edition is a sock from a well-known sockpuppet manufacturer, Stubes99 (we in huwiki as Dwirm are known). Hungarian is my native language, Kiengir communicates completely differently than Creator Edition (Stubes99) I’ll look at the situation because it’s pretty complicated. For example, I know that two editors are innocently blocked on the enwiki because they thought the chekusers were Stubes99 socks. --Pallerti (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reported Dwirm to Amanda, funny a Romanian sock draw my attention that then, they are their Hungarian-Romanian counterparts as, Norden1990 would say. Oshwah, yes, the capital city's most common internet provider may cover over a million at similar range, though 3 big providers are competing. Nice to see you, it's a pity at these circumstances :) Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hi KIENGIR! Yeah, I figured as much. Wide ranges will have lots of people on them. ;-) I'm sorry to be saying hello under these circumstances as well. Nonetheless, I wish you a great day and happy editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

@Oshwah: They are both from the territory of Hungary, it is not surprising that the IP range is common. I’ll look it up too, but I see a small chance they’re the same. --Pallerti (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock of User:Stubes99. He says so here: Diff of Talk:Nazi Germany— Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Identical edit on Name of Hungary with a similar edit summary [74][75]. Edits focus on Austria-Hungary. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:18, 10 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

31 May 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Same behavior and same interest as before, this sockpuppet has already blocked on the huwiki. Pallerti (talk) 12:38, 31 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

14 July 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


They edited articles where previous socks were active in the past. To name some of them:

Also, he used a typical racist comment: Daco-Romani instead of Daco-Romanian [76]. A previous example of racism is the use of the username Gypsy_romanian.

Typical behaviour: he abandoned his older accounts and created new ones, even if the other one is still unblocked, as pointed out at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Stubes99 86.120.251.98 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC) 86.120.251.98 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 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

04 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Blatant sock that restored the edits of User:Falkmet, the recently blocked sock, on articles where he was almost the only contributor [77][78]. The other edits where also on typical articles (for instance here the previous edits on the page also belonged to a sock of him, User:IPusers). Another clear evidence is here: very similar edit summaries on the Hungarian Turanism article with a previous sock: [79][80] 82.78.61.116 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 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

06 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


He edited articles where previous socks were active in the past:

His very first edit was to open a new section on Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War, where the last 2 sections were opened by 2 confirmed socks of his.

Later the same day he gave an edit war warning. I guess a new editor would not know the concept of edit war from his first day. 86.120.251.224 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC) 86.120.251.224 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 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

26 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits on articles where he has been an active contributor by using previous accounts:

I think the things are clear, but I will add more behavioral evidence if necessary. 77wonders (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2022 (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

14 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

New account whose very first edit was to restore the reverted edits of the recently blocked sock Longsars. 86.120.52.216 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2022 (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

29 September 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

Edits on articles where he has been an active contributor by using previous accounts:

82.78.61.36 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2022 (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 October 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

The very first edit of Winklers75 was to restore an edit of the previous sock Investigator77 on the István Tisza article. Afterwards he made another edit on the article Hussar, where he also contributed in the past using the accounts Stears555, CumbererStone, Liltender.

Kandallok also made edits on articles where he has been an active contributor by using previous accounts:

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

13 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

On huwiki the user is identified as Dwirm, aka Stubes99 in enwiki, globally blocked indefinetly (hu:Category:Dwirm_zoknibábjai) JSoos (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JSoos what makes you think Csataelőkészítő is Stubes99? You need to provide some evidence before this can go any further. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP check was done by chekusers in huwiki, after the edits shown big similarity. It must be among the logs, as you can see the local block as well, however the master in huwiki is Dwirm, not Stubes99. Sorry, now I see, it should have noticed to Meta, not here, I will ask the checkuser to forward the results to Meta. JSoos (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2022 (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

There's a few others things I've noticed, but they're rather subtle and would rather not state them in a public forum. Feel free to email me if the information above isn't enough to run a check. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same behavior and same interest as before. Pallerti (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izno The IP check has already been done on huwiki, the result is positive (he is primarily known as user:Dwirm on huwiki.). --Pallerti (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Earlier edits on the same articles also shows he is the reincarnation of Strubes99, also in huwiki. Also the offensive style he usually follows in talks, show the same (both in enwiki and huwiki, eg. warnings on his talkpage: [1], [2]; and on others: [3]). See user interactions with preceeding sockpuppets Csataelőkészítő (talk · contribs) and Longsars (talk · contribs):

(Also his earlier suspected sockpuppet identified on huwiki is: Masodikkerulet (talk · contribs) [huwiki master: Dwirm (talk · contribs)], though not active since) JSoos (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

This account was created several days after the last Stubes99 sock, Pharaph, was blocked, and has recently re-created Hungarian political crisis (1905–1906), an article last deleted in 2021 as a creation of Stubes99. Lee Vilenski says that the deleted version of the article and the new version are the same text, leading to suspicions that this is another sock. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2024 (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