Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Iaaasi

Iaaasi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
15 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:Iaaasi is one of the most disruptive mass sockpuppeteers with a large number of sockpuppets and well over 2000 sockpuppet edits[1]. User:Karpatia1 is a confirmed member in his sockpuppet army and User:Zzzsolt has very similar edits to that of Karpatia1. For example they both edited the article Gesta Hungarorum : Karpatia [2] and Zzsolt [3], and both of them contacted administrator Dougweller. Zzzsolt advised Dougweller to get some glasses [4] while Karpatia said this [5]. It is a common feature of this sockpuppeteer to repeatedly contact administrators trying to influence them often by lying or pretending to be a new editor seeking help. Zzzsolt's Hungarian name([6]) also fits into the sockpuppeteer's MO of pretending to be of another ethnicity other than Romanian. Previously he made others believe he was German with a German sounding name choice DerGelbeMann. [7] Hobartimus (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ask the administrative action against user:Zzzsolt, blocking and tagging. Are you not convinced upon full analysis of the contributions that Zzzsolt is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi? Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info I will consider it a full confirmation of the socking then. Hobartimus (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed what happened here: A previous case filed against Zzzsolt [8] but it was dismissed. The reason for that is that Iaaasi lied to the administrators pretending to be a new user who "didn't know it was illegal to have 2 accounts", [9] so they simply dropped the case, without doing anything. This is something to note for future investigations, in the MO lying to admins to gain advantage, deceive and conceal the bigger disruptions. In fact it seems there was enough evidence in the old case for a block as well, but the admins were manipulated by the lie. Of course Iaaasi knew very well that he already once admitted the connection between Karpatia1 and Zzzsolt earlier... so the new admission on IRC, was nothing new it would seem. And the previous cases are somewhat difficult to notice when organized like this, a previous case [10] was filed under yet another name Umumu (where once again the case was dismissed at the time...) Hobartimus (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Even if they both are Iaaasi's socks (which the one definitely is his), Zzzsolt has not had an edit since July 2010; I fail to see any further necessary administrative action against Iaaasi. –MuZemike 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked with Iaaasi privately, and he has told me that Zzzsolt is his sock. I really don't care whether or not it's blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 22:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 March 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

User:Bborbely is a single issue throwaway sockpuppet, used for a total of 3 days only. Naming shows strong similarity to the earlier case of Zzzsolt, (use of Hungarian name to deceive, in addition he picked a name similar to the article attacked Balázs Borbély). After the attack period the sockpuppet is thrown away and never used again in order to avoid detection. The sockpuppet was used for harassment and the usual MO can be observed as in many other cases. As usual he tries to disguise the sockpuppet harassment pretending for it to be a content dispute. Then reporting the "content dispute" to various noticeboards and editors [11] [12] in this case with the same harassment sock. User:SlovenskýMuž is a similar case but attacking a different article this time. The throwaway sockpuppet is used for purely reverting the target of the harassment, and is disguised this time with a Slovak sounding name. The account is then thrown away and never used again. In the case of user:Bborbely we can observe a confirmed sockpuppet of Iaaasi, (on the list as MartinMagera) making the exact same edit. [13] [14]. In the other case the article Košice was also edited by Iaaasi sockpuppets like Ddaann2 and Iaaasi as well [15] [16]. Because the same disruptive patterns are present in user:Iaaasi's edits recently as well, this case is even more relevant. A further indication of Iaaasi's socking on Kosice is that a few days after the edits of SlovenskýMuž, an IP appears from the confirmed IP range of Iaaasi and tries to urge user:Yopie [17] to "Keep an eye on Košice too" implying to continue the edit war of the sockpuppet Slovenskymuz. He also adds some incivility, which would have been blockable by itself at the time (if all the blocks, and disruption would be clearly listed on one account in a way that's easily reviewable it would be over 25 blocks, but because earlier conduct is hidden in a maze of IP and sock contributions it seems a false AGF was always given) Hobartimus (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask an administrator to review the evidence, the diffs, all the contributions of the suspected sockpuppets etc to draw conclusions. Iaaasi is presently blocked so I'm kind of puzzled by MuZemike's comment. If someone is already blocked a "block on Iaaasi" is of course unnecessary at this time. The most what could be done is an extension of the block. Hobartimus (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the evidence above shows more current diff's of Iaaasi from this month doing very similar things to that of the suspected sockpuppets on the same article as one of the socks. But I would go into this part in detail after a determination is made whether the suspected socks can be considered as socks. Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the previous case in the archives it ended with a full block of the offending account, as well as some valuable revelations to the extremely disruptive nature of this mass sockpuppeteer. I don't think other facts such as the inability of the wikipedia community to detect and properly handle the extreme disruption in due time are relevant to deciding whether harassment with sockpuppets did occur. Harassment which if left unchecked will continue in the future as well. Also these cases do not stand alone but as part of the bigger picture detailing continuous activity of extreme abuse. But when each case is looked at separately it may seem, like nothing particularly bad is going on, you have to look at them all together (I know it's hard of course) If you determine after reviewing the evidence and think the accounts are not socks that's fine as well I'll look for more evidence etc. Hobartimus (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Again, these socks were from over 9 months ago. How does this amount to a block on Iaaasi on something he did over 9 months ago? –MuZemike 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MuZemike. These accounts are inactive and possibly abandoned. If they return, we can re-assess then and determine what, if any, additional action needs to be taken regarding Iaaasi. TNXMan 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

The Banned editor Iaaasi is operating multiple sock or meatpuppets since his most recent block. This IP, [18] is one of his most recent socks. Following his usual MO the banned editor tries to engage unsuspecting administrators who are unfamiliar with his past history, this time he used a noticeboard even though he is banned [19]. I listed his most recent sock User:Galben for comparsion purposes even though it is already blocked. It seems there was also an issue with the rangeblock described here [20] as the user is still editing from that range. Hobartimus (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rangeblock was already enacted in the past [21] so it wouldn't be any need for enacting it, just reviewing it how that IP in the report, user:79.117.174.32 slipped through it. Hobartimus (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to your link, it looks like User:King of Hearts unblocked the range to try and use a filter instead. The filter he set up does not seem to be set up to stop IPs from this range. You may need to ask him for clarification. TNXMan 18:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do. Hobartimus (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]



19 April 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The extremely disruptive banned editor Iaaasi will simply not stop. He already started to use an old sock / enlisted a meatpuppet, user:SISPCM, while at the same time still being to evade his BAN using IP-s. First the IP question needs to be solved in order to be able to focus on resolving the meatpuppet issue, so I think we need a permanent solution to these IPs cropping up all the time. Hobartimus (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One day later since the previous SPI the banned editor already returns with 3 new IPs listed above. Hobartimus (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The twofold indef-blocked and community-banned Iaaasi is still around on Wikipedia. His interesting field covers the articles John Hunyadi [22]->[23], Székely [24], [25]->[26], and other Hungarian-Romanian related articles as was in the past ,too, done by his previously confirmed sockpuppets like here[27]. Interesting enough, that the article Temeşvar Eyalet was edited by Bozgo [28] and by two previously confirmed sockpuppets of Iaaasi, too:[29][30]
And yet, what is important to note is that there was a recent voting with respect to the title name of the article Béla Lugosi [31] and now this new user Futezatorul is eagerly interested in editing the article (which is a Hungarian-Romanian related article, anyway, and it could also be possible to fit to the interesting field of Iaaasi). [32])->[33] And in addition, Bozgo requested his own account to be deleted ,in order to forestall a sockpuppet investigation, according to my assumption, on 5 May, 2011. [34]

Nmate (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following:

11 May 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

User MateaKis seems to be new to Wikipedia, however, the account started right away with commencing a checkuser aimed at User:Stubes99 [35] , which is one of the main hallmarks of Iaaasi's trait. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stubes99 was opened by CyanMoon, who is one of the detected sockpuppets of Iaaasi [36], just like YellowFF0, who was the second submitter of this page.[37] Likewise, the most active participant of this checuser request page was Iaaasi, yet when he was allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under his original account.[38] Also, Iaaasi is usually about to chase the sockpuppets of Stubes99 via Ip socks within his well known Ip range of 79.xxxx as can be seen here for instance:[39]-- Nmate (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
01 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

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

Straightforward sock, most likely Iaaasi, with a very small chance of someone impersonating an Iaaasi sock or operating the sock at the direct orders of Iaaasi. In any case the contribution history makes it obvious, exl. the Fifth Crusade was edited by sock of the banned user [40] not that long ago. Hobartimus (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by admin Closedmouth, rendering the case moot. Hobartimus (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note i added a newly created account LaszloBacs, continuing to revert where Nonairt left off. Hobartimus (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Both accounts indef blocked. As blatant a WP:DUCK case as I have seen for a long time. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

The master-account is a twofold-indef blocked and a site banned user, whose interesting field covers the Hungarian-Romanian related topics and user Dadamereu's interesing field covers the same topics as can be seen here: [41]-- Nmate (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed, no other sleepers. TNXMan 13:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


12 June 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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

Ever since Bizovne was unblocked about a week ago he's shown some great affinity towards continuing Iaaasi's "work" (masterpiece?) right where he left off. This includes reverting socks of Stubes99 (e.g. [42] and [43]) usually the same way Iaaasi did in the past (i.e. naming them "vandalism reverts" and marking them as minor edits such as [44] and [45]). He also started reporting the socks of Stubes99 which previously was Iaaasi's favorite hobby on WP (see [46], [47], [48] etc.). In fact Iaaasi has lately seemed to create sockpuppets for the sole reason of reporting Stubes99's socks.

Also one of Bizovne's reports raises extreme suspicion for the fact that it's been created just a couple of hours after Iaaasi has reported the same sockpuppet of Stubes99 (Darkercastel) on Commons. This points to quite close coordination indeed.

There's also more evidence regarding the meatpuppetry over at Bizovne's SPI thread written by Nmate which should be taken into consideration as well. It's quite obvious from all of these clues that Bizovne's getting detailed orders from Iaaasi on making its way on WP. -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This request has been already rejected, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bizovne and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DeltaQuad#Bizovne.2C_Iaaasi
I don't know lassi. --Bizovne (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should definitely polish your English a bit, because the first link (SPI) was first about your IP socks which've gotten a 3-month-long block for failing to abide by WP's rules. The talks about your affiliation was only a slight deviation of the original topic. But thanks for linking it anyway, because the things discussed there are still relevant here nonetheless and will just add to the (already long) list of evidences.
The discussion on DeltaQuad's talk page definitely does NOT mean that the case's been rejected, on the contrary. It's still in progress and the story of my encounter with Bizovne might shed some more light into the whole issue (and support the rest of the evidence mentioned above and other editors' notes mentioned below). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

I don't understand why reporting Stubes99's made me suspect of being related with user Iassi. User Iassi was not the only user that was concerned about him. Excluding admins, user Iadrian yu and user Dacono are example of users which reverted some of Stubes99's socks. Have a nice day guys ! :-) --Bizovne (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing his recent edits I can say with certainty, that Iaaasi is no longer denying any use of his meatpuppet Bizovne. He in some edits clearly talks in his own voice (Iaaasi's) and no longer even pretending to be Bizovne, for example the conversation on DQ's talk page. I am extremely familiar with Iaaasi, his editing style and his thinking and I can confirm 100% that Bizovne edited as Iaaasi several times and used him as a meatpuppet to work around his well deserved BAN. In addition to being the obvious meatpuppet of the banned user Iaaasi, Bizovne in his short time on Wikipedia, collected quite a few blocks, not only on his main account [49], but on his sockpuppet accounts as well [50] [51]. Hobartimus (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: I would like to ask for another clerks impartial review also per my TP. My head is just spinning on this case and I can't pull north or south out of it. -- DQ (t) (e) 00:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up note to Bizovne/Clerks: I did say on my TP that I was willing to review a meat case. (Sorry I also put my comment in the wrong case...aka the one above.) -- DQ (t) (e) 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 August 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The mass sockpuppeteer user:Iaaasi (more information on previous socks [52] is using a new IP range. This IP range starting with 184.24.xx.xx made edits such as this [53] (removing Hungarian names and content from Wikipedia is an Iaaasi all time favorite). Showing an interest in Iasi [54] where Iaaasi's name comes from, as well as other articles [55] [56] where Iaaasi and his sockpuppets were contributors [57] [58] More recently the IP range edited this article, which was also edited the most recent CU confirmed Iaaasi sock Buhuhu [59]. The contributions of 188.24.46.251 are very clear Iaaasi, using a sockpuppet to contact admins this time on ANI, which he in addition to using sockpuppets to file SPIs(exl [60][61]) did many times before. The "report" concerned the article 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania also edited by the IP range and heavily edited and proposed for deletion by Iaaasi [62][63]. It is unclear whether this is Iaaasi directly or whether he is editing through another, newly recruited meatpuppet or proxy (see evidence of Iaaasi meatpuppet recruitment / emailing in the SPI archives and on his user page), but this shouldn't matter since it's clear that Iaaasi is the ultimate author of these edits. This case does NOT require a CheckUser as of yet as Iaaasi used a different IP range before. However newer suspected socks should be checked against both his old and new range. Collecting information on this new range is important so that the information for future CheckUsers and sockpuppet investigations against Iaaasi the new IP range of Iaaasi can be used. Hobartimus (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Keeeeper is an obvious sock, returning to the scene of where the IP socks edited before (as in the previous request). User Daccono is an older sockpuppet of Iaaasi but for some reason it was somehow left unblocked (??). In the case of the Daccono account it's blatantly making the same edits to the same articles as the confirmed socks for example [64] This account was also blocked earlier with the comment "indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Bonaparte)". However it was mistakenly unblocked at the time with no evidence provided (there was a reference to CheckUser consultation but as we know it can't prove a negative in case of a user documented using meatpuppets / proxies as Iaaasi user page indicates the use of meatpuppet recruitment).[65] Recently Daccono also wrote this message in Iaaasi's voice [66]. Since Daccono and Iaaasi did overlap taking a look at the user-compare report should also be revealing. (during Iaaasi's first indefinite block Daccono used to heavily edit this is where attention first came to Daccono in the form of the block) Daccono made very few edits in 2011 which helped him avoid getting too much attention (a successuful strategy so far). But when we examine these edits we see that ,for example Daccono edited "Hősök tere" [67] and confirmed Iaaasi sock also edited [68]. Daccono edited Massacres in Translyvania [69] and an Iaaasi sock from the IP range discussed in previous request [70] (see edit summaries as well). The "new" user Keeeeper is also very interested in the same article... Further Daccono made lots of very similar edits to the original Iaaasi account as well, so a user-compare report could be used to determine whether he is Iaaasi even if CheckUser shows it to be a meatpuppet or a proxy account. In this case the underlying IP (the IP used by the Daccono sock) should be added to the internal CU database against which Iaaasi socks are checked in the future (was it a proxy was it a new range was it one of the old ranges etc). If user-compare is bugged between Daccono and Iaaasi then Daccono and Iaaasi could be compared directly as well in terms of edit summaries and edits at John Hunyadi for example, where Iaaasi and his many socks(Umumu, Rogvaiv1, Conttest, etc) are top contributors as well as Daccono [71] (Daccono's first edit was also to the same John Hunyadi article, this account was created during the first block of Iaaasi) Hobartimus (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I already referenced the 2010 (almost a year ago) comment by PeterSymonds above he was alluding to CheckUser consultation. Now we have an additional year to look at the evidence (is this a real user? Was he editing as a real user? (not really made very few edits and all of them Iaaasi sockish). Additionally that comment by PeterSymonds actually raised my suspicion more and not less. Lets take a real user, how will they typically get unblocked? By an unblock request made on their user page. How would an Iaaasi sock get unblocked? By Iaaasi offering pre-prepared "proof" on IRC or similar. Lets look at the facts, was there even an unblock request on August 12th? Nope there wasn't. Daccono never asked to be unblocked. Yet the fact that he got unblocked without making a request and within a very short time (6 hours) suggest to me that the case was involving IRC which Iaaasi used heavily at the time. But a year since passed and there is a lot more of an editing pattern to look at now, making the case easily decidable without any CheckUser. How many edits would a real editor make in a year? How many would a sock that already was blocked indef for being a sock and therefore drew a lot of attention already. Why did he contact Tiptoety out of the blue [72] on August 16th? Was Tiptoety just some random admin out of the 1000? Or was he complained to before by Iaaasi socks [73][74].(later also contacted by Iaaasi main account should I announce you first before reverting) I believe a detailed look at the contributions can determine this case without any CheckUser being used. In 2010 we didn't know Iaaasi employed meatpuppets. That he had multiple ranges that he used either through proxy or personally. Now we now he had dynamic IP ranges in Craiova and in Bukarest at the same time at minimum, as well as meatpuppets as far as in Slovakia (Bizovne per earlier case). I wouldn't be surprised if a Checkuser at the time would say "well the data shows they are different persons..." But that type of thinking no longer applies regarding the current situation. And also there is the most recent case. Daccono shows up in the exact same article to revert as other socks of Iaaasi? I also added a new IP that recently appeared, [75]seems to be from the new range of Iaaasi discovered in the previous SPI request (see SPI archives for case Iaaasi) This IP is making the same edit with the same edit summary as Keeeeper, who is listed in this request. So a CheckUser/duck test is probably necessary against Keeeeper against Iaaasi's new range, while Daccono will have to be determined on editing pattern without the use of CheckUser. User compare report could help there if it can be done between Daccono and Iaaasi. Hobartimus (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per the last request the IP falls into the new range of Iaaasi that was range blocked for two weeks recently (see the archives). Daccono doesn't need to be checked at this time against either the old or new range. It just needs a user compare report generated first. like this but between Iaaasi-Daccono instead of Iaaasi and the 188.24 IPs. Does anyone know when do these auto generated reports get updated so we could get one on the Daccono-Iaaasi relation? Hobartimus (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeltaQuad your last comment seems quite puzzling to me, I've never actually seen someone attack the results of an already closed earlier SPI case like that. In that case it was established by closing admin and per the evidence that the range 188.24.XX is either Iaaasi outright, or Iaaasi throguh a meatpuppet. Another thing I don't understand is how a comment to my talk page from July 2010 would be relevant in September 2011. Not to mention that the original comment was quite ignorant of the circumstances at the time to begin with. Coming from an editor who wasn't familiar with the extent of Iaaasi's socking, complains on July 13, unaware that only four days earlier on July 9, two different confirmed Iaaasi socks were blocked by CheckUser MartinMagera blocked July 9, Karpatia1 blocked July 9 showing these exact few days to be one of the high points of confirmed Iaaasi sock activity. Since July 2010 a very large number of (IP and regular socks) socks of Iaaasi have edited wikipedia (partial list), most, but not all were CheckUser confirmed. Unfortunately CheckUser is starting to get useless against such an experienced socker as Iaaasi transformed into. Other than that issue, volume is a further concern, nobody has the time to file that many SPIs for each and every new sock that appears and then wait for SPI cases to close (and then possibly even a closed and decided case being attacked/reopened) before reverting a new sock. This would be almost equivalent of lifting the BAN on Iaaasi, but lifting the ban should only be done by the community consensus. Your comment about reverts is all the more puzzling because I don't know which reverts of mine you are referring to. Recently I only reverted Keeeeper (who was called "duckish"), IP 188.24.33.188(from a range confirmed to be Iaaasi by admin HelloAnnyong), and [76] a new IP with a single edit that's the exact same edit as the other two were doing, in addition to previous confirmed Iaaasi IP socks. In addition ALL the edits are taking place in an article heavily edited by Iaaasi, proposed for deletion by Iaaasi[77], whose talk page was also edited by Iaaasi, an otherwise very obscure low traffic article. So much so that Keeeeper one of the socks (hope thats not in question that he (the "duckish" one) is a sock at most one could argue that he is a sock of a different user...) in the report is already 3rd ranked contributor in this article [78] In other words I reverted these edits because I believed that no reasonable person who is familiar with Iaaasi and his editing pattern (familiar defined as s/he read at least 10% of Iaaasi's 6-7k confirmed editsdistributed over many different accounts) could disagree. If I was wrong in that I will note it and simply switch to different edit summaries. I also don't happen to agree with the edits themselves, what they are making (readding text that was originally added by the Iaaasi main account, compare by Iaaasi with [79][80][81]) so I would have made very similar edits in any case just would explain the reasons differently. A lot of the behavioral evidence always requires good familiarity with earlier edits and in Iaaasi's case that's very hard to achieve because the contributions are so fragmented and takes quite a long time to review. I think the key here is thinking instead of "I don't think X is related to Y" to say "there is not enough evidence yet to conclusively say whether X and Y are related or not" And then possibly look at their contribs in detail and compare them. Related of course can mean sockpuppet, meatpuppet, proxy whatever, some of which are easier to determine than others. I am also filing a technical request about Daccono that's just a technical thing it's just to get the UserCompare unbugged, it seems very bugged at the moment. Please don't touch that request yet it can be deleted after the bug is solved. Please don't comment on Daccono before that technical issue can be solved. Hobartimus (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report concerning the Daccono-Iaaasi relation can be found here. Additional similarities are further possible as the report only compares the Iaaasi main account to Daccono. For example close matches such as CU confirmed Iaaasi socks editing an article on May 31 , May 30 and Daccono editing the same article June 1 are not included in that report. I can't say whether this was done through a proxy a meatpuppet, or a sockpuppet operated from a library or similar, but something is definitely up here. Hobartimus (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Keeeeper looks duckish, Daccono isn't new, but looks unrelated esp per the block log noted below, but does he match any other socks? That's as far as i'm looking tonight. Lets get the lot on Subbes99 and Iaaasi checked.
(del/undel) 17:17, 12 August 2010 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Daccono (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Behaviour and technical evidence (as discussed with a CheckUser) seems to indicate this account is unrelated to the Bonaparte/Iassi socks. )

-- DQ (t) (e) 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: At this point, i'm not convinced that either of these are Iaaasi. Keeeeper does have a lot more suspicion than the other, but I doubt this is the same user. I actually disagree with the 188 being Iaaasi as HA noted in the last case. Would like another opinion though from another clerk, who is free to contact me further about my thoughts. (I would actually prefer if they did contact me). Also, Hobartimus, I think you could chill on so fastly reverting users as socks as was pointed out to you. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've taken a look at this. First, the IP listed here geolocates to Romania. Many of the other IPs in the archive also geolocate there. Also consider that the IP's only edit had an edit summary of "I am not banned." But this was the IP's first edit; it wasn't like they had previously edited and then had been blocked. Another IP, 88.158.36.38, made the exact same edit five hours later - and that IP also geolocates to Romania. Soyeah, I'm pretty convinced on the IPs.
As for the accounts: I don't really see where Daccono was checked, but I'm not wholly convinced about them. By comparison, I am fairly convinced about Keeeper. For example, their edit here is similar to one by Iaaasi though separated out. Either way it's clear that Keeeper is not new to Wikipedia. (I can expand on this, but WP:BEANS and all.) Anyway, I've blocked and tagged Keeeper as a sock. The IP hasn't edited in a few days so I'm going to count it as stale for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20 September 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Iaaasi has a penchant to hover at the most recent contributions made by Hungarian users to Wikipedia as these new users have done. Howbeit, I am not 100% sure these accounts are Iaaasi's, but my inkling is that.-- Nmate (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons can't be very obvious as long as the suspected users have very few edits on Wikipedia.

Iaaasi edited the same artice as TransilvaniaROU did ([82] [83])¶([84] And Bizove participated in a voting about an article which is related to the Hungarians [85] as TransilvaniaROU did here [86]. Iaaasi's sokpuppets were interested in editing the article Magyarization [87] [88] as TransilvaniaROU did [89]. One of Iaaasi's sock edited List of Nobel laureates [90] , but TransilvaniaROU edited Rolf Schock Prizes here

However, as far as I see, User:WestSVK is already blocked for block evasion, but I do not know why.--Nmate (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Aside from TransilvaniaROU, there is no obvious reason to suspect that any of these are socks, let alone of Iaaasi (or Bizovne).  Additional information needed: Please spell out the connection more plainly. AGK [•] 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a patrolling administrator please decide the outstanding questions about the suspected socks, and block, tag, and close the case? I'm reluctant to do so myself, because I have already commented in a CU capacity. Thanks, AGK [•] 12:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I've blocked and tagged TransilvaniaROU. The other account edited a total of one time, and that was a month ago - so we can let it go for now, I think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18 October 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious Iaaasi sock very recently created. It follows the same pattern of most previous Iaaasi socks. The account also recently deleted [91] [92] some information from the talk page of an admin, Dianaa. It is worth noting that Iaaasi and Diannaa have a history. Diannaa was the admin who revealed that Iaaasi is attempting to recruit editors who would proxy for him in order to circumvent his WP:BAN. Dianna said that "Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails to myself and at least two other editors in attempt to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf." [93]. And therein lies the main problem the community failed to tackle so far. With confirmed reports as early as this April of recruitment by Iaaasi it becomes trivially easy for him to avoid CheckUser. I'm not sure whether to ask for CheckUser here, it's 100% clear that this is Iaaasi but when editing through one of the recruited proxies, CheckUser have no way of detecting that. Hobartimus (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed that Dotonj (talk · contribs) is the same as SamiraJ (talk · contribs). Proxy blocked. TNXMan 18:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Anyways, Dotonj (talk · contribs) is now Blocked Tiptoety talk 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


User:Iaaasi's newest sock, he already confirmed it through a since then auto-blocked proxy IP, so Checkuser is not needed. I'm only leaving a note, because one legitimate editor asked for it.

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/217.64.22.14 This IP is not mine, it is another user Fraere (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

10 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Borderline - not entirely the same - similar editing pattern to Iaaasi. Relatively long-time editor; might not really be Iaaasi. Has previously reverted Stubes99 sockpuppets, which constantly make claims of sockpuppetry by Iaaasi; since then, appears editor has been attacked by Stubes on numerous occasions. (mainly at User talk:Diannaa) Requesting CheckUser for confirmation. HurricaneFan25 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

I do not believe Iadrian yu is the sockpuppet of Iaaasi. This is a highly unlikely claim that was made earlier by Iaaasi himself. In October I have seen a youtube video that showed an email written by Iaaasi with the text: "STOP SOCKING ON MATTHIAS CORVINUS ARTICLE. MY SOCK-PUPPET IADRIAN YU WILL REVERT YOU !!!" In early october in an email Iaaasi wrote. This actually makes me believe even more that this is not the case. First of all Iaaasi is a banned user known to lie all the time for furthering his goals. I don't think Iadrian even edited the Mathias Corvinus article, but in any case based on their contributions I am certain that they are different people. This is why I am surprised to see this SPI request because I think this was an obvious smoke-screen sent up by Iaaasi. In my view it is not possible that Iadrian yu is a sockpuppet of Iaaasi and as such a CheckUser is not necessary in my opinion. In addition Iaaasi has demonstrated use of proxy servers and meatpuppets, so CheckUser will only work against him in lucky cases (and not at all here as Iadrian is clearly not a sock of Iaaasi). Instead of relying on CheckUser the community should try to examine IRC logs and email exchanges by Iaaasi if this is at all possible because he does seem to contact a lot of people (primarily admins) to ask various things of them and trying to get them to edit on their behalf. So in my view the CheckUser request should be rejected. Sorry I got distracted by something else I wrote this comment a lot earlier than I posted it. Hobartimus (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iadrian yu
[edit]

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

I am really surprised by this sudden request.. but anyway I am ready whenever it is requested of me to do a check-user. Just in case I wasn't clear or I need to declare myself officially upon this request, I am not a sock of Iaaasi or similar. Please bare in mind I have never did this and I would require some explanation if I need to do something from my account. About the accusations, I don`t don`t want to comment about something that is being claimed by User:Stubes99 and his standard chauvinistic insults.Adrian (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobartimus, thanks for the comment, I am surprised as well since I speak languages that Iaaasi doesn`t (I have never seen him or his sock that speaks other than English) while I speak some Slavic languages and even edited some time the Serbian wikipedia which I believe can be checked also. I believe I have some comments in Serbian here on the English wiki too. I thought that this fact is more than enough for anyone who analyzed my account.. Anyway, maybe this is a good thing since I have been accused by several editors being a sock of User:Olahus and similar to clear this once and for all.Adrian (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
16 November 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Identical contributions, such as these two. Relevant ANI thread here. Calabe1992 21:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Please note also that Iaaasi being an extremely experienced sockpuppeter and one who have already demonstrated usage of both proxies and meatpuppets (accounts created to post to wikipedia what he writes) CheckUser is not relevant to this case and instead the contributions should be examined and compared to that of Iaaasi and sockpuppets. The thing to determine here ; is Daccono acting on behalf of Iaaasi always posting into wikipedia what Iaaasi writes and editing what Iaaasi wants edited. Hobartimus (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Likely - Looks like he is attempting to use new IP ranges and Useragents. Give the following block log entry: (del/undel) 21:17, 12 August 2010 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) unblocked Daccono (talk | contribs) ‎ (Behaviour and technical evidence (as discussed with a CheckUser) seems to indicate this account is unrelated to the Bonaparte/Iassi socks. ) I might recommend contacting PeterSymonds before taking administrative action. Tiptoety talk 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't remember many specifics, but the CU didn't seem to think it was Iaaasi, and after further digging, the pair of us decided there were too many differences. I'm happy with the finding of this check, especially in light of the recent edits. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I could see how another CheckUser could mark this as more as a highly  Possible, but given they are geolocating to the same exact city and are editing via the same ISP I would say it is conclusive enough (coupled with the edits) to block. Tiptoety talk 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26 December 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


It is possible that there are new sockpuppets of Iaaasi's, cropping up in Wikipedia to edit. Each of the suspected sockpuppets has a Hungarian sounding user name as Iaaasi has also chosen in the past several times like for example User:LaszloBacs was.--Nmate (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Nmate (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IDK...User:Erdelyi kopo seems to be a quite unlikely candidate, considering the fact that the term itself shows a fairly high proficiency in Hungarian (we both know that only native/near-native Hungarian speakers could come up with a term like that). User:Iaaasi on the other hand doesn't seem to speak Hungarian at all. So you might be wrong on that one. -- CoolKoon (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed

All of the above (and a lot of older accounts caught in previous iterations of this SPI) are editing from the same range with the same user agent. Erdelyi kopo (talk · contribs) is editing from a different range, and has a different user agent. Combined with CoolKoon's note above, I'd say the account is  Unlikely to be related. J.delanoygabsadds 04:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

03 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

They are blantant sockpuppets who are about to chase Stubes99's sockpuppets as usual.-- Nmate (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
21 February 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Iaaasi often pretends himself to be both Hungarian an Slovak as these usernames suggest.-- Nmate (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iaaasi is often interested to edit the same articles that Hungarian users actually edit for inscrutable reasons. Recently, most Hungarian users edit the article Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919 where AksamitSK too appeared to be editing.[94] [95] The string "SK" suggests that AksamitSK is of Slovak. However, Slovak users don't normally edit Romanian related topics for geographical reasons, but, it looks to me that AksamitSK is very interested to edit Romanian related topics.[96] ("Transylvania is a Romanian related topic"). Therefore, the likelihood of the fact that AksamitSK is Slovak is not too high. Additionally, in the past, Iaaasi also posessed an account with the string "SK" : User:DusanSK.--Nmate (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I'm sorry, but could you be a little more specific about the connection here? Diffs would be helpful. TNXMan 14:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I too would like to see the filing party provide better evidence, after a little bit of digging the connection is plausible. Looking over usercompare the accounts have edited similar articles. Additionally, This edit of Iaaasi's is similar to this edit of AksamitSK's. I think the most compelling piece of evidence though is that both Iaaasi and AksamitSK have removed Portugal [97] from World War I. That said, I don't see a lot of evidence supporting KassaiGy being a sock of Iaaasi and will also note that both of suspected socks have different styles of edit summaries from those of Iaaasi. I'm on the wall with this one. Tiptoety talk 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This was Kassai's first edit. That's not the first edit of a new account. Previously Iaaasi and one of his socks, Dotonj, also edited that article. There's also similarity in usernames; compare the style of caps in KassaiGy to CsikszeradaiJanos, blocked back in December. The other account I'm less sold on, but it is mildly curious. I'll leave it up to the CUs, but I'm inclined to endorse this. If nothing else, we haven't CU'd this account in a few weeks... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


His behavior is very similar to the banned User Iaaasi. See: [98], or here:[99]Fakirbakir (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. This one was intended to be a self-revert, cause I changed my mind and I decided to retract the third opinion request, as I explained here [100]

These edits [101] are explained on the talk page: [102] Romorinian (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

29 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


It is an obvious sock of Iaaasi's; no sooner one had blocked ,one another was created , and this has been going on for a long time. The previous one was: [103]-- Nmate (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. When are you going to leave aside your battleground mentality and start constructive editing? BTW, what happened to your friend hobartimus4? I haven't seen him around for a long time, I miss him lol IndianuTalpaIute (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Blocked indefinitely for harassing behavior. Obvious sockpuppet consistent with behavior of previous sock account. No checkuser is necessary. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, with Iaaasi, where there's one, there's usually more. Bbbbaaaa1111 (talk · contribs) is another  Likely match. TNXMan 13:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
03 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


There is a mass sockpuppetry coming from said user. New sockpuppet will be creating as soon as the previous one has blocked without any moral.

Iaaasi appears to think that WP policies do not apply to him, and his mass sockpuppetry seriously undermines the spirit of the Wikipedia project.-- Nmate (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Who is udermining the Wikipedia:Wiki spirit here?

"Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing.

  • creation-oriented editing is, for example, creating new pages, adding more information
  • suppression-oriented editing is, for example, page deletion, blocking user, protecting page"

When did you last create an article, upload a picture, write a paragraph or at least correct a typo? Your request for deletion of a cooperation board is representative for your way of behaving here [104] Dobitocilor (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have anything to do with Wikipedia any more, Iaaasi, therefore; I refuse to respond to your accusation on the grounds that you do not know that if you are banned from editing, it really means that you are banned from editing. Only that you do not understand that "NO" means "NO", due to the deficiency of your personality. And yes, reporting you is fairly counterproductive, it even abhorrents to me, and still I am obliged to do so.--Nmate (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obliged by whom? By your battleground mentality? How about trying to "attack" some articles yourself instead of only stalking your self-proclaimed opponents? Is is funny that you ask for the semi protection of articles against this kind of edits [105][106]. B.t.w. you forgot to ask for the deletion of the article Michael Szilágyi that I created while being banned... PS The nickname Kmate would suit you better Dobitocilor (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed match to BMatthew HU (talk · contribs) and IndianuTalpaIute (talk · contribs). TNXMan 14:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: and borderlining  Relisted Out of curiosity, since User:Dobitocilor said "you forgot to ask for the deletion of the article Michael Szilágyi that I created while being banned" in the last comment, is it possible that Dobitocilor is related to the banned User:Titiprosop which created that article? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


10 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The account was created to continue to edit Wikipedia soon after the previous sock had blocked. See his user page: there is even a sockpuppet picture there.-- Nmate (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, said user has moved an article page under a new name but who cares [107]?--Nmate (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Little Mr. Big, you are so perspicacious! Mdaaaa (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the sock image on your User Page? RashersTierney (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is my police sketch. Isn't it cute? Mdaaaa (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"Interestingly, said user has moved an article page under a new name but who cares?" Yes, how did I dare to move the page in the conditions of these google books results: [108]? Mdaaaa (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged. TNXMan 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Note that the most probable meaning of the word "Bzg" is "bozgor", which is used for Hungarians with xenophobic intention by Rumanians. In the past, Iaaasi also had a sockpuppet with similar sounding name chosen :User:Bozgo-- Nmate (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I don't see enough evidence here to investigate this -could you explain a little more (preferably with diffs) why this is Iaaasi? TNXMan 14:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After getting more info on my talk page, here's what I found:
21 March 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


It is an obvious sock of Iaaasi's: [109]-- Nmate (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • [110] ("See edit summary: rev to pre-banned user Stubes99 version")
  • [111] ("See edit summary: rev to pre-banned user Stubes99 version")
  • [112] ("See edit summary: rev to pre-banned user Stubes99 version")
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Are you obsessed with me? How about starting doing something constructive, like improving articles, instead of spending 100% of the time here with reporting accounts? When did you make the last useful contributions to an article, in readers' benefit?

For the admins: yes, it is a sockpuppet. If you consider you should block this account in order to "prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" (WP:BLOCK), go for it

P.S. Speaking of the above link [113], probably Nmate disagrees bringing into attention the existence of an IP which makes this kind of edits [114] Titiprosop (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

No need for checkuser, the user admits the account is a sock of the banned user. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

04 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Like most recent sockpuppets of Iaaasi, these accounts come along with user:Koertefa to edit the same articles. Messages on the talk page of Koertefa left by Iaaasi's detected sockpuppets: [115] [116][117] as Jaro88slav did :[118] Additionaly, the account Jaro88slav was created 3 days after [119] User:Bzg1920 received an indef block as a sockpuppet of Iaaasi[120].

User:Savneli hasn't made significant contributions to Wikipedia, but this user still comes along with User:Koertefa's editing (see this edit summary: Koertefa, Janos Eszterházy had a Czechoslovak citizenship!!!))
Also, Savneli comes along with User:Thehoboclown's editing to edit the same articles that he does [121] [122]. Note that Thehoboclown is one another Hungarian user, and Iaaasi likes editing the same articles that they do.
User:IndoEuropean1988 comes along with my editing to edit the same articles that I do :[123]-> [124][125]

-- Nmate (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC) And you notified yourself about the sockpuppet investigation [126].--Nmate (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Mate, instead of making and withdrawing reports and asking for sockpuppet investigation, you should use your time for a better documentation. There is no village in Ukraine named Batragy. The real name is Batrad'. Also there is not Salanki, but Shalanki [127]. Not to say that there is not Velyka Dobron but Velikaya Dobron’ [128]. In addition you provide unreferenced demographic data that had to be corrected by me [129] [130] [131] IndoEuropean1988 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you notified yourself Lol, Savneli is not me, ask for a Check User IndoEuropean1988 (talk)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Jaro88slav hasn't edited in days and the other accounts are blocked. I'll mark for close for now. TNXMan 18:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


It is an obvious sock of Iaaasi's, who edits articles that the previously blocked socks also edited: [132] [133] and follows Hungarian users around to edit the same articles as they do. --Nmate (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Confirmed the following are the same:

31 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I already reported this suspicious Jaro88slav account in the past, but it has not investiged on the grounds that it became inactive. However, this "user" began editing again. The account ArpyArpy is also very suspicious. This user edits articles like Magyarization and Central Europa that Iaaasi also prefers to edit.-- Nmate (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Imho, behavioral evidence ties Jaro88slav positively to other sockpuppets of Iaaasi; for example Iaaasi confirmed sockpuppets began moving articles under new names [134],or initiated discussions on the matter [135] as Jaro88slav did here and here and at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) a previously detected sock of Iaaasi and Jaro88slav also participated in a discussion. Also, admin Materialscientist said that Jaro88slav's editing was carried out through some strange server or software like an open proxy: [136]--Nmate (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
13 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Iaaasi likes choosing names that reminiscent of the word "bozgor" ,for example: there were socks in the past with the names User:Bozgo, User:Asianbozgor, and User:Bzg1920.-- Nmate (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk note: Please provide more evidence (usually best in the form of diffs) as to why this user is a sockpuppet. Merely claiming he has a similar username is insufficient evidence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed:
12 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

There is a banner on Iaaasi user page saying that Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. Please do not act upon any instructions issued by this banned user.
And now a user who had previously no interest to edit Wikipedia approached User:Omen1229 on his user page to elicit his email address for purpose of cooperation [137].

User:Ayapitokcsajan has made only one edit to Wikipedia [138], however, his edit supported a Ip user's contributions (user:2A02:2F02:8027:F002:0:0:BC18:2089) at the article Cluj Napoca [139]. Interesting to note that Iaaasi usually appears at the same articles that Hungarian users are actually editing.
Then an another "IPv6" type of Ip user user:2A02:2F02:5021:F00B:0:0:50D:2D13 began editing the article János Bolyai [140] that Iaaasi also often used to edit under his original account yet when he was allowed to edit Wikipedia: [141].
Then, yet another "IPv6" type of Ip user user:2001:4BA0:FFF7:12:0:0:0:2 appeared at the article Bratislava to help User:Omen1229 with edit-warring 15:28, 11 July 2012. Shortly afterwards User:Slavbrat who had never edited Wikipedia appeared at the talk page of User:Omen1229 to ask for his email address 16:20, 11 July 2012-- Nmate (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
26 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The user is trying to push the same POV [142] as a recently blocked IP did that may be associated with Iaaasi [143]-- Nmate (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

Already blocked. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 02:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

31 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Recently, some new users have emerged in Wikipedia of whom I suspect that they may be the sockpuppets of Iaaasi. see: the palpability of the similar edits made by the suspected users and by Iaaasi. It shows the cloven hoof.-- Nmate (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • While a connection to Iaaasi is  Inconclusive, I can say that the following are  Confirmed as being socks of one another:
12 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See contribution history at Hungarian Turanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lajos Kossuth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IP's are aware of Stube99-Iassie dispute, this is one of the articles Stubes99 edits. Raising an SPI on Iaasi also. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I have reverted one edit by 79.117.186.230 ([144])) as a logged out edit by a banned user and obvious vandalism by trolling. In this LTA investigation, before he was banned he engaged in trolling and vandalism, which was probably why he used these IPs to engage in trolling. Also, the edit by user Irji2012 may have to be reverted too as a sock of a banned user. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, reverted to last version by IP 81.182.80.131 on Lajos Kossuth. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
81.182.80.131 belongs to Stubes99 and it is an illegal edit Irji2012 (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
27 February 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


One user expressed that this is a sock of Iaaasi [145]. If it is necessary, to conduct a check user. Adrian (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
31 December 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I have made this report as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warrior keeping POV fork reverts User:Norden1990. Various users have suggested that User:2QW4 is a sock puppet of banned User:Hortobagy, who was sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi - I believe that this is because they recognise his/her writing style and behaviours.

I have noticed that 2QW4 has three times brought attention to the fact that the person he/she is complaining about at ANI was once blocked for edit-warring.[146][147][148] When I looked at the block log of that user,[149] I found the article he/she was blocked for violation of the three-revert rule: John Hunyadi, on 14 July 2013. Looking at the article history for that article,[150] for 14 July showed that the editor who he was edit warring with was User:Sutgol - who turned out to have been another sock of User:Iaaasi. This looks like evidence of a long-standing grudge by 2QW4/Sutgol/Iaaasi. Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warrior keeping POV fork reverts User:Norden1990[151]
I am not sure, that Iaaasi and Hortobagy are the same. However, I am sure that 2QW4 is identical with Hortobagy. Both editors are almost solely concentrate on 2 topics: (1) the existence of a Székely language separate from the Hungarian language (2) the discrimination against Romani in Hungary. Moreover, for this purpose they were/are creating separate articles without proper references. Finally, both editors obviously tend(ed) abuse reliable sources: they write/wrote sentences and add(ed) sources which do/did not substantiate their own claims. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, just because I don't agree with you now you investigate who's sock I am. I am not a sock. So, good luck with your approach. And by the way, your reverts are still reverts, and your POV fork is still POV fork. Happy edditing! I think you forgot the aim to be here. 2QW4 (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
14 February 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


IP locates to Craiova Romania, same as previous confirmed and suspected IPs. Expert knowledge of WPisms and shortcuts, pro-Slovak/Romanian anti-Hungarian editing, fairly self explanatory. WP:QUACK In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User talk:Tiptoety it's requesting what would be a de-Hungarianizing either to English or Romanian. From what I can see of the diffs (which are new to me too) Iaasi is Romanian not Slovak. Slovak would mean removing the Hungarian accent and adding a new Slovak one in a different place. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
20 June 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Usual. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
07 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Well, he just wrote I am not sure about 178.164.179.114. He knows that I am Iaaasi But a CU may be in order Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. I don't hide my identity. I am User:Iaaasi. PersecutedUser (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Thank you! Both blocked and tagged. Closing. Favonian (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
08 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Kinda obvious. The account was created right after the previous socks were caught and blocked (yesterday), and immediately started to edit the very same pages, namely John Hunyadi (previously edited with account User:Avpop) and Land of Hațeg (edited with account User:PersecutedUser). This latter one was created and edited exclusively by that prev. sock. Clearly fails the duck test.

Requested CU to see if there are any sleepers prepared for action. Thehoboclown (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

User:Thehoboclown I don't understand how the contributions from this account disturbed you that you had to denounce me. For the admins: Yes, I am Iaaasi, block me already, cause I am very disruptive. It is unacceptable that I dared to create 2 new articles that were missing on en.wp: Kendeffy Castle‎ and Land of Hațeg‎. Joeqqq (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
08 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

IP`s only edit is to remove the speedy deletion tag from an article created by the previous socks Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I'm a bit confused. Has it been established that Shulinjiang is a sock of Iaaasi? Land of Hațeg was created by a Iaaasi sock and has nothing to do with the WZ-10 helicopter Shulinjiang is so fond of. De728631 (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

09 July 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Obvious WP:DUCK. The account was created immediately after the previous one was caught and blocked. Solicited another user to act on his behalf and contest the deletion of the article created and edited exclusively by the previous sock. Also admitted of being a banned sock master. Thehoboclown (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
19 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Shocate (talk · contribs) first actions after creating the account were to rush and tag Stubes99 (talk · contribs)'s sockpuppets (Iaaasi's arch enemy on Wikipedia) with the confirmed puppet tag. ([152], [153], [154], [155]). Furthermore, he went on his long-term abuse page to expand with additional topics, which suggests that he has a long experience on Wiki and the knowledge of the above given user. He is very likely not a new user – hard to believe that a newcomer would be able to do, and at all would be interested in doing such things – and is an obvious sock per WP:DUCK.

Additionally, some of his edits are very similar to that of Cricrucra (talk · contribs)'s, focusing on the very same topics in the Romanian football (See Editor Interaction Analyzer). Incidentally, Cricrucra was involved in an edit war in some of those football topics and eventually got checkuser-blocked, subsequently the new Shocate account began/continued the very same actions. Given that he may have sleeper accounts, I've also requested a checkuser. Thehoboclown (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK. The new account was registered just after the last puppet (Shocate (talk · contribs)) was blocked. Immediately after the new account was created, it started to edit those of Shocate's and Iaaasi's "favourite" articles, ie. Gesta Hungarorum and John Hunyadi, respectively (see the history of those articles). His actions (ie. hunting down the articles created by User:Borsoka and interacting with him/her) are also similar to Iaaasi's. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit talks for itself as well. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

@admins Hurry up, this account should be blocked as soon as possible. Wikipedia articles are in real danger as long as this account is still alive lol

Listen to this clown, I am "hunting down" Borsoka's articles lol

User:Thehoboclown, you must have serious mental problems if you use this phrase. Guess what notification I got: "Borsoka thanked you for your edit on Shepherds of the Romans". A "victim" that thanks for being hunted, that's interesting lol Partiee (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The account was created just after the previous sock (Partiee (talk · contribs) got blocked. The new account's first (and only) edits were to restore the edits of the previous sock, that were reverted by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) per WP:BAN. Thehoboclown (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
29 September 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK. The new sock account was created right after the previous one got caught. From his contributions it looks obvious that he is not a new user and it also shows the same behavioural signs, ie. edits only those articles that are edited by User:Borsoka. It also has to be noted that the former sock Shocate and the current Carligei account has created the very same article in their sandbox, which is more than suspicious. Thehoboclown (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

@User:Thehoboclown - Dear Hungarian clown, instead of these childish reports against my harmless accounts (maybe at the request of my indef. blocked "friend" User:Norden1990, who is also an active sockmaster - his last ip sock being 62.165.211.32), you'd better focus on doing a good work with your actual contributions. No less than 3 files of yours where removed after I indicated to the admins that they have insufficient information about their authors: [156] [157] [158] Carligei (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


01 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK. The account was created just hours after the previous (Carligei (talk · contribs)) got blocked. It immediately started to edit in the same manner as the previous socks (ie. focusing on articles related to Hungary and Romania and their shared history; articles edited by User:Borsoka). Additionally, the new account's first edits appear like the were made by an experienced editor, who has the knowledge how wiki works. Thehoboclown (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
06 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Eurocentral edits articles related to Romanian history, just like Iaaasi. His editing lacks of neutrality. He/she constantly tries to push the Romanian POV (e.g.[159], [160]) inserts words in well referenced sentences (e.g. [161], [162]). His actions are very similar to Iaaasi's behaviour and mentality (IMHO). He cannot accept the consensus of editors (e.g. here and there). He/she cannot stop edit warring (e.g. [163], [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172]).

I have a feeling that he/she has something to do with that banned user. Other users already got tired of him. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

DQ, Your claims are baseless. What sort of political control? I just asked for an IP check. That is all. Iaaasi is a very "experienced" sockmaster. It does not matter that Eurocentral has been editing for years (less than 2 years). Nobody has checked him/her so far. Actually you started to judge me without knowing anything about the problem (Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Iaaasi). I cite another user's opinion about Eurocentral's behaviour: " I am totally fed up with his uncivil behaviour". If my presumption is false then Eurocentral has nothing to fear from this investigation.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iaaasi has contacted me on Wikimedia Commons, here: [173]. According to him he gave instructions to Eurocentral. It is clearly WP:WIKIHOUNDING at least. I do not know if it counts anything.... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this:[174] I can tell you something is fishy here.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DQ, Thank you for the detailed explanation, now some things make more sense to me. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Check declined by a checkuser - This account has been editing for years, no diffs are presented from the previous socks, and besides violating policies which anyone can do, the only evidence listed is a Romanian POV. To top it off, the end of the evidence section seems like a 'get rid of him, because we don't like him' statement. CU is not to be used for political control and believing someone has something to do with a banned user and believing it's a sock are two different things. If you don't believe it fully yourself, then why was the case filed? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fakirbakir: I know plenty about Iaaasi, I've dealt with him since May 2011. I know Iaaasi's technical information in the CU interface, and if he had crossed CU information with Eurocentral, we would have found it before today. In your evidence, you don't even link diffs of Iaaasi's previous socks to prove your point, hence the decline for lack of evidence. We don't just check people blindly because they have 'nothing to worry about'. If we did, I could CU you right now. Your statement "Other users already got tired of him." implies that you wish that he is gone. I know another user said they were tired of him, but you wrote it. We don't file SPIs because we 'wish [...] that [other editors should be] gone'. Your using SPI as a means to deal with him administratively where you haven't given evidence to your accusations. We don't use CU to check people just because we don't like them. That's the political control of the wiki I was talking about. The burden of proof is on the filer, not the accused or administration. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
18 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Pacpacpoc (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account, created yesterday, only to request a sockpuppet investigation on a user, namely Norden1990 (talk · contribs), who is one of Iaaasi's "enemy" in the Wikipedia. The investigation request's length and details obviously shows that he has good knowledge of the reported user, and he also refers to Psychonaut (talk · contribs) "who knows this sock master very well can confirm my [his] suspicions". Interestingly enough, it's the very same Psychonaut to whom Iaaasi turned at the commons in a blockshopping-like manner [175], and it seems that since this request remained unanswered, he is about to escalate the issue to the English Wikipedia.

Bagnume (talk · contribs) per WP:DUCK. The account was created on 3 October, one day after the previous sock was caught. It started to edit articles related to Craiova, from where Iaaasi self-admittedly is, and which topic was a favourite of his recent socks, including Cricrucra and Shocate (see also the history of FC Universitatea Craiova and CS Universitatea Craiova (football) articles). Later, he edited certain articles that are definitely out of the scope of a new user who claims to be interested in Romanian history and such – rather it is in the scope of someone who is interested in the stupid nationalistic struggles – ie. the idiotic fight over the city's native name in the Kanjiza article. He also soon appeared at the Origin of the Romanians article, a favourite of him and his recent and earlier socks, including Vi3cu7 (talk · contribs), Partiee (talk · contribs), Avpop (talk · contribs), etc.

Additionally, I've requested CU to detect whether there are sleepers. Thehoboclown (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]


20 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Per WP:DUCK.

  • The account was created just after the prev. sock was caught
  • Just like the prev. socks it immediately started to contribute to articles edited by Borsoka
  • Drawn up the very same draft in the talk page like the prev. socks [176] Thehoboclown (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I am sure that User:DeltaQuad will be as avid to block User:Norden1990's socks from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Norden1990 as he is in the case of mine. Osugiba (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Osugiba has stated outright that he is a Iaaasi sock: "I am Iaaasi." [178] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
27 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Per WP:DUCK. The account was created just after the previous sock was caught. It started to edit the very same articles the previous sock did (eg. Talk:Origin of the Romanians), and others, which – just like in the case of former socks – were edited by USer:Borsoka recently (eg. History of Christianity in Romania, Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary). Thehoboclown (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, similarly to his former socks, he edits articles related to Craiova. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added another one, of which sole purpose was to re-create a deleted page that was originally created by "Cenamol". Thehoboclown (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

User:Thehoboclown, what's the point of these successive reports? At a superficial analysis, any editor would easily realize that my contributors are not problematic per se and they are useful to the encyclopedia. Why do you keep asking the block of my accounts for something that happened in 2011? I don't remember having any conflict with you in the past, so I don't see why you would have resentments towards me. As Eleanor Roosevelt affirmed, Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.. It is inexplicable for my why you insist to get close to the third category, when the wiki spirit is to fcus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing. User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir have no restraint to collaborate with my accounts, even if they obviosly recognize (from my editing style) who controls them; why can't you follow their example? Cenamol (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iaaasi, would you mention one example of my cooperation with you after I realized that you are a sock? Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka There are at least 2 situations when you thanked me for my edits using the thank button (instead of reverting me per wp:ban). There are also plenty of discussions where we exchanged opinions. Cenamol (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iaaasi, sorry, I do not understand your above remark. If I think that an edit improved an article, I thank it - but it is not cooperation (actually, I am not sure, that I whenever realized that it was you who made the edit). Yes, we exchanged opinions even after an SPI was initiated, because, personally, I do not have any problem with you. However, this it is not a cooperation.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

31 December 2015

[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


X2Faces second edit[179] is to rant at WT:What Wikipedia is not that consensus is preventing them from adding TRUTH to articles. Third edit[180] is to edit article Censorship of Wikipedia ranting that Wikipedia is censored. When that edit is reverted they proceed to open first[181] and second[182] RFC on the page to rant about being persecuted for socking.

X2Faces first edit[183] is at Talk:Bosniaks. Looking at the page history[184] I found this:

  • 19:07, 20 December 2015‎ X2Faces <-
  • 04:29, 17 December 2015‎ Dkfldlksdjaskd[185] Blocked sock of Iaaasi
  • 18:19, 15 December 2015‎ Liz
  • 18:03, 15 December 2015‎ TravisRade
  • 22:16, 19 November 2015‎ Lowercase
  • 14:19, 19 November 2015‎ Norrskensstämmor
  • 12:23, 19 November 2015‎ X2Faces <-
  • 14:52, 31 October 2015‎ NobleFrog[186] Blocked sock of Rolandi+

Sock masters Iaaasi and Rolandi+ are likely the same user who evaded being linked. X2Faces and Dkfldlksdjaskd also each have a pair of edits[187][188][189][190] 4 days apart at WT:WikiProject Ethnic groups.

I could easily dig further for more specific connections, if for some reason more evidence were requested.

Alsee (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC) --- re-edited, strictly to rearrange evidence for clarity. Alsee (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

04 May 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Copy/paste from WP:ANI:

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at [191]. Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: [192], namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At [193] 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At [194] Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Iovaniorgovan displays awareness of his probable wikifate, Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA, at [195]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:SOCK and WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

End copy/paste. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff for Cealicuca: [196] his first and till now only edit at enwiki. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca:: When Iovaniorgovan brought it to my attention provide diff, please. Are you aware of WP:MEAT? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca: If I can check those comments, then it is quite easy for you to provide the required diff as evidence: it should be a matter of public record. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca: I see, replies from 4 May 2018, about the fifth day after I had opened the WP:ANI topic, see [197]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca: I'm saying that I have reasons for being skeptical of your defense in respect to WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. If there is no sockpuppetry involved, as you claim, will you agree to a checkuser verification? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca: I had noticed lots of WP:PROXY activity at the talk page, so of course I am suspicious about it. Especially since Iovaniorgovan bickered twice about being blocked for using a WP:PROXY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK test: P.S. Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent, [198], revendicated by Cealicuca at [199] and or a group of well-coordinated agents [200] by Ioaniorgovan. Both users are obsessed with agents of influence, so they could be the same user. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cealicuca: I have not "suspected" both of you for using open proxies, I know for a fact that both of you have used open proxies, e.g. those "suspected proxies" resolve to proxy.ec.europa.eu for a reason. sorry, are you talking to/about me? I do use VPN on occasion (it's for work, as I need to watch geo-blocked videos from around the world) and I forgot to sign in a couple of times (seeing as it's not required to post comments on the talk pages)-- I can tell you exactly which are my unsigned comments though (only 2-3 are unsigned but you can tell by content they're mine). is there a problem here?, see [201]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I just opened my Wiki account this year and it's my first ever Wiki account, which I alone use. Additionally, I try to sign all my comments in the "Talk" pages (even though it appears it's not required). Tgeorgescu's accusations are completely unfounded and baseless.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised by this. I hope this is the right place to appeal this, if not please redirect me to where I can do that. Anyway, my "evidence" is the following:

1. I am a "newb" in what Wikipedia editing means.
2. When I first posted I did not intent to be dragged into a debate. Nevertheless it did happen.
3. I did post without creating a user (which I admit was a mistake). Nevertheless I am confident any reasonable person could clearly see that all the posts were made by the same person, following the natural flow of the discussion, without any hint of actually hiding the fact or making it seem like there are several people involved. There was never any intention of Sockpuppet or otherwise creating a false impression that there were several people responding to the thread. I sincerely believe that this is clearly reflected by the content itself.
4. When Iovaniorgovan brought it to my attention I tried to rectify my mistake (see point 3) ASAP - as such I have edited the debate and signed ALL the posts (in case I missed one I will gladly take responsibility for it and sign it).
5. I do not have another wiki account but this one that I have created as a result of point 3 + 4.
6. On a more subjective note - I find this discouraging. I actually tried to rectify this mistake in a transparent and honest way, and as a result of that this happens. I thought editors were supposed to "guide newbs"... but anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu What are you talking about? I meant he brought to my attention that I should sign my comments - which I fail to see how it connects to the rule you cite, unless you deliberately misinterpret my answer. Check the content page please, especially the comments I exchanged with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Oh, a matter of public record... I see :)

There we go - Iovaniorgovan said:
"I agree. And you can clearly see the double standard applied between the Origin of the Romanians page and the Origin of the Hungarians page. Where's the consistency? Even though I also see Tgeorgescu's points, in some ways, it's just a matter of emphasis. As is, equal weight is given to both theories, which is not fair by any standards of proof. On a side note, you might want to sign your comments here because Tgeorgescu reported me for "At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan," etc. In other words Tgeorgescu appears to lump together everyone who contests the "immigrationist" hypothesis or his way of handling the page content and is trying hard to get us blocked. Nice guy otherwise.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
to which I respond:
@Iovaniorgovan, @Tgeorgescu Yes, my bad. I apologise about this, never meant to be drawn up in this.There we go, I hope I signed all my statements (hope I didn't miss any).Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)"

Or, since I don't really know the accepted way to provide "diff", maybe you're referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOrigin_of_the_Romanians&type=revision&diff=839579374&oldid=839574513 Note how I signed all (i hope I did not miss any) my comments on this, as well as adding the "My bad [...]" part. Line 271, "paragraph" 6.

ETA: Ok, ok. I just got itchy hands but still... I mean, you keep on coming with some of the rules (and it's good that you do - we should ALL abide by them, right?). My problem is that you enforce those rules arbitrarily. For example, after more carefully reading the WP:MEAT rule, I have to wonder. Doesn't this apply also to: TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Borsoka, KIENGIR ?

Those 3 users say basically the same thing - yet you didn't get triggered. I asked them to bring proof supporting their statements, even reminding everyone of the WP:BURDEN. The only reply was that the opposing idea is false (as if this would automatically support their idea) as well as you dismissing the WP:PROVEIT, WP:BURDEN - and I quote:

"In certain respects, experienced Wikipedia editors are a hive mind. You cannot therefore win a war against WP:PAGs. As for WP:PROVEIT and 500 years after the fact, Wikipedia editors do not make the call, WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes the call, see also WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

So wait a minute. So in certain respects it is actually okey-dokey to support (well, my contention is that it's just saying stuff without actually supporting it) the same idea - you know, "hive mind"? What would those "certain respects" be and how come some can fall under those while others can't?

Thank you for taking the time to explain the thought process. Cealicuca (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: "@Cealicuca: I see, replies from 4 May 2018, about the fifth day after I had opened the WP:ANI topic, see [7]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Really sorry, but I cannot understand the relevance. What exactly are you saying here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: "@Cealicuca: I'm saying that I have reasons for being skeptical of your defense in respect to WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. If there is no sockpuppetry involved, as you claim, will you agree to a checkuser verification? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)" - while I have no idea what a checkuser implies, and what it's relevance is - go ahead. Yes, I agree with a checkuser (for my part at least).[reply]

As for your reasons - did you actually read about how things happened? The guy told me to sign my stuff, so i DID. ALL of them (again, I hope I have not missed one). I say his message today, so of course it's today that I created the account and made the changes. I was not aware of any investigation you requests - until today (like when this whole thing started). Anyway - as I said, go ahead with whatever checks you like :)

Oh, always forgetting. Will you also do the same checks on the 3 users I mentioned? Would you care to elaborate how come your suspicion falls on me (and the other guy) for arguing on the same side but not on the others? :) Especially the relationship between TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit and, maybe, Borsoka? Cealicuca (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: "@Cealicuca: I had noticed lots of WP:PROXY activity at the talk page, so of course I am suspicious about it. Especially since Iovaniorgovan bickered twice about being blocked for using a WP:PROXY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)" - Wow :)) So wait, you suspected me for being a proxy... of whom exactly? Even when my comments were not signed, you yourself responded to some of my comments a number of times - in a way that clearly shows you were talking with the same person (me). Anyway, pfff... :) As I said, go ahead with the checks please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) [reply]

@Tgeorgescu: And one last thing - really need to go to sleep - are you the person who does the checking, and draws conclusion from it (prosecutor, judge and executioner)? Just so I understand the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I don't know what happend, but I did post this last evening. this morning it was gone... anyway, reposting my answer.

Wow, where to begin... So - this will be a long answer. I will thoroughly answer your accusation. Nevertheless, so far I have tried to give you the benefit of a doubt. The latest "evidence" that you brought, in my opinion, is nothing but a fishing expedition. So, I will also ask a couple of questions to you. Since in the talk page you dismissed them all with "the pot and kettle" stuff, would this be a more appropriate forum to answer those questions? I do hope so. Anyway, here goes my long answer (preceded by a lot of questions - which of course you will dismiss because hey, you CAN :) ):
1. On what grounds do you qualify as obsessive what I said? Care to give a context (don't worry about this, I will give it for you)? Care to bring examples, quotes of how many times I did say that? Obviously, I do not deny saying that - and I will also explain why I said that.
2. Since we're on the topic of obsession, why don't we give a little context before we continue.
My OP is:
The Immigration theory should be renamed to Immigration hypothesis throughout the entire article. There are several difference between a theory and a hypothesis and as such, Roesler's south-to-north immigration doesn't amount to a theory. It stands opposed to the Daco-Roman continuity, which is supported not only by several author's research (just like Roesler's) on the subject but, more importantly, by archaeological findings which, in turn, coupled with linguistic evidence and primary sources form a cohesive base that support the the hypothesis - transforming it into a theory. This comprehensive and diverse evidence pool is lacking in support for Roesler's hypothesis.

I would have not proposed this editing, but this false equivalence (and the Wikipedia article) are often times used to support certain nationalistic views. I believe that it is important to underline the distinction between a supposition (Roesler's immigration) that lacks crucial evidence (especially archaeological) and a supposition (Daco-Roman continuity) that is supported by a wide range of evidence, from linguistic, archaeological, toponymy, geographical and not least, lately, even some genetic studies. Equally important is the fact that while any of those evidences might be disputed, individually, they form a cohesive base for the theory. Imagine a criminal investigation - where there are few individual pieces of evidence that provide a definite answer - but rather the totality of the evidence is the one that paints the whole picture. Simply put, evidence support each other so that while individually they might have several explanations when put together they point towards a single common one.

Now, immediately I got the following replies:
Oppose. The immigration theory is at least as well supported by archeological research, linguistic evidence and written sources as the continuity hypothesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, as well. Moreover, the Daco-Roman continuity theory have numerous weak points, that the other theory does not have. It's a bit odd that the IP is identifying i.e. "linguistic", "toponymy", "geographical studies" roughly as a "comprehensive and diverse evidence pool", although especially these are in the strong support regarding the Immigration theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC))
Definitely oppose. Both theories have their weaknesses when it comes to evidence, but to call one a theory and the other hypothesis is dubious, especially considering that the immigration theory doesn't solely rest upon Roesler.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I concur: accurately speaking, both are just hypotheses, they never made it to "theory". Conclusive evidence is severely lacking for both. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
To which I reply:
@Borsoka, KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Please list those evidences - that support/prove the migration/admigration hypothesis. Saying that some evidence that supports the Daco-Roman theory - or comes into conflict with it gives more credence to the other two hypothesis is a logical fallacy. Such evidences that support those two hypothesis are not present in the article, while the article does present evidence supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Evidence of a Latin-Speaking population south of the Danube does not support those two theories - you need to present evidence proving the alleged migration (especially in the light of abundant evidence of a Latin-speaking population north of the Danube, present in this article). Until those evidences are listed under the same section, in this article, those two (migration, admigration) cannot and should not be presented as "well supported" and "competing" theories. It's simply ridiculous that those evidences are not referenced/presented in this article, for all of us to see how well supported they really are.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
And then I get the following answers:
There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans. On the other hand, the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers from Slavs, Hungarians, Turkic peoples and Germans (which can hardly be explained based on the continuity theory). The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples, although the Gepids dominated the territory for a longer period than the Romans had held it. The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary. The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords. The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Question (set) no. 1: Were the article editors providing an unbiased, neutral answer? If so - then please explain the statements, of you and the other article editor, in the light of what the article itself presents. Moreover, as anyone could see in the talk page, I offered you a most respected source (Britannica) that clearly states the exact opposite of both your and Borsoka's statement. Care to explain, in light of those answers and the information in Britannica how the article editor's answers were not supportive of a certain POV (Immigrationist) while at the same time dismissing another POV (Daro-Roman Continuity)?
Question no. 2: Considering your statement that both me and another user seem to "obsess" over a specific point (that we both mention) could you please explain why did such a keen sense of "proxy" was not triggered by, for example, the user TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit. I did check his activity log. He has exactly 1 contribution - this specific comment on the talk page.
Question no. 3: Would you care to explain how come KIENGIR said: "I warn you again, better stop with groundless, prejudicative accusations like "all the Hungarian "nationalist" propagandists here" or "well-coordinated agents" just because some editors disagree with you, such may have heavy consequences in WP." at 10:49, 5 May 2018, so IMMEDIATELY BEFORE you brought up this point in the investigation (10:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)), considering that nowhere else in the debate (not even after I made the oh-so-troubling obsessive statement, on 13:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question no. 4: Why did you leave out an important part of my "obsession"? Of course, I will give more details, but I believe it is quite important. This is exactly what I said: "Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent, your arguments so far and the way you support them are precisely taken from the "book" of Hungarian nationalistic propaganda. A simple google search will lead to forums filled with so-called scientific talk where the arguments always start with "[...] and as we all know the Romanians are a migratory shepherd people [...]"."
And now onto my explanation - why I said that. For the other accused, his reasons - ask him, I cannot speak for him.
Not a long while ago I discovered on Quora several users (some of them most likely bots) who would literally swarm every topic about Romania/Romanian history or, especially Transylvania. Some of those users are (so that you can check them out):
John Caliber
Jánossy János
[Anonymous] - still counting
Dez Szatmari
János Kovács

and others.

Those users had in common many things - not saying anything about the nationality here - but about their posts. They were all a variation of the 1st hit that you get on google (or any other hit on the 1st page as well as the next, and the next, and the next etc.). Examples:
about Romanian illiteracy and the fake history and origins
Vlachs, more Vlachs, and how "in the reality" Romanians are "known late-nomad shepherds" or something
WOW, you get hits on Quora, Reddit, Youtube and even Wikipedia. Oh - it's actually the "Origin of the Romanians Article".. Last result. Missing "reality" from the search string.
And, of course, "history" forums - and go check them out to see where the message comes from.
Here is the entire post. Feel free to simply google phrases from it to see the extent of how well spread the "message" is:

"In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherd tribesmen (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a "NATIVIST" state-propaganda. This chauvinist propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. It's the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central part of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.

Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.

1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal.

2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained.

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language.

3rd: The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process.

4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS.

5th: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.

6th: The complete LACK OF any LINGUISTIC INFLUENCES OF BARBARIANS of the area on Romanian language: There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans: The the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.

7st: The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

8th: There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s.

9th There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"?

10th Only the BALKAN Valchs were recorded as neo-latin speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary Chronicles (4th-13th century). Which is not surprising, because the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlach neo-latin speaker nomads were very often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles)

11th: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS: Other interesting fact, that Romanian language borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice if immigrant populations.

12th: The "great latin" Romanian vlachs always fiercely resisted against the Latin (Catholic) church and its latin liturgy, they chosed the Slavic Orthodox church which used church-slavonic language istead of Latin. (It was due to the fact that old romanian language contained more slavic words than latin, so the liturgy was more understandable for their people.

13th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century: During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages.

14th: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in old romanian language: Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the linguistic reforms. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. This also supports the balkan migrations in the high medieval period.

The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality:

The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.

Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history..."

Wait, wait... seems awfully familiar to one of the editor's (or even several) "neutral", "non-partisan" etc. response.
So... Quora did start and kind of shut some of them down. Now I ask - if you see the same content pushed on all forms on media, would that amount to a propaganda program or just mere coincidence?
Anyway, don't know if you followed but the gist of it is: bots and real people "push" a pre-prepared post on every medium you can think of. Reddit/Youtube/Quora. Same post (and sometimes I mean exactly the same, with the "in the reality" laughable mistake even) is found on, surprise surprise, nationalist Hungarian forums. And then... Borsoka shuts me down with something that is awfully resembling the very text I quoted - the one that you can find all over the internet. So either he is a PART of all this (which, in my newbish and humble opinion disqualifies him from ever touching an article again) or he is NOT a part of it but then he clearly favors the same views. Which again disqualifies him.
Final Question: I have my suspicions too. I might be wrong, and of course this is just too much, and you will dismiss it out of hand with some smart quip of evoking yet another set of rules. So again - explain how my suspicion upon which I acted by calling Borsoka a propaganda agent is an obsession while your suspicion, that somehow everyone who supports different POVs than you and the rest of the article takecareers (and oh boy... you ALL have the same neutral non-biased opinion) are bots/socks whatever.

One final note: Mr. Georgescu - I am really tired. I am on holiday and really wish to enjoy it - so good luck with your "investigation". If it so happens that this will be over before I come back - then so be it. And, please take the time to read what reputable Encyclopedia say. And maybe - just maybe - ask yourself why that Encyclopedia, although mentioning several POVs ends up actually presenting on POV over the rest (hint - theory vs. hypothesis). As for me, i will always remain with the following quotes from you:

"There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect." "I have repeatedly stated that it is not the task of Wikipedia editors to engage in WP:OR in order to evaluate evidence" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 07:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

11 July 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 August 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

There is a discussion at the Incidents noticeboard regarding this user's problematic edits relating to Romania, WW2, and Jews. It seems that none of those there are aware that this is another potential sock puppet of this banned user. Funplussmart (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Multiple editors, including myself, have noted in the ANI thread that there are very strong similarities between the Torpilorul account and Iaaasi sock Romanian-and-proud (talk · contribs). As some examples:

  • Repeatedly arguing that Romania's contribution to World War II has been systematically understated due to some kind of anti-Romanian bias by editors and threatening retributions: Romanian-and-proud - [202] [203] Torpilorul - [204] (See also the entire Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 146#The chronic "forgetting" of Romania thread)
  • Arguing that the Romanian WW2-era Mareșal tank destroyer inspired and was superior to the German Hetzer tank destroyer: Romanian-and-proud - [205] Torpilorul - [206]
  • Advocating for Romania to be considered a major participant in WW2 based in part on a work by historian Dennis Deletant: Romanian-and-proud - [207] Torpilorul - [208] [209]

Please also see the examples other editors have provided in the ANI thread (for instance, [210], [211]). I think that there's more than enough for a WP:DUCK block here: the pattern of behaviour is identical, and the views on highly specific issues noted above are highly unlikely to be coincidental. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc and DeltaQuad: Can you shed some light on the confirmed sock template and the checkuserblock-account of Romanian-and-proud (talk · contribs)? Is it certain that R&P is Iaaasi (and thus neither of those are Torpilorul)? Or is it reasonably possible that my AGF of Torpilorul is misplaced? But, I realize it might be difficult to remember things from 2+ years ago... Mojoworker (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also could be wrong, but I'm not convinced that Torpilorul is Romanian-and-proud/Iaaasi. For one, the former has quite an impressive content/article creation record while I don't see the same for the other two accounts, based on a brief search. Also, the User:Torpilorul account was created in August 2017, and the Iaaasi sock created three known accounts in the meantime. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your approach has been to excuse away Torpilorul's Holocaust denial, I don't have a great deal of confidence in your analysis. I think that the above diffs and other comments in the ANI thread make a very clear link between R&P and Torpilorul: same tone, same content, down to using the same obscure books and promoting the same obscure tanks. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so this really has nothing to do about socking and enforcing WP's rules, but about punishing an editor who voiced a politically incorrect opinion (and no, if we exclude your BS spin, he clearly wasn't expressing Holocaust denial). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided multiple examples of where this person was introducing biased material into articles and disrupting articles as part of pushing their views in the ANI thread. Their Holocaust denial/anti-Semitism is very serious as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His behavior (unless he is a sock) doesn't warrant an indefinite ban, and you're exaggerating the extremity of his comments (context is key). And he had a completely clean record before the ANI thread. Wikipedia shouldn't indefinitely ban editors just because of voicing politically incorrect viewpoints. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that R&P may have been miss-identified as a Iaaasi sock (which Amanda appears to suggest below). I think that Torpilorul is a clear-cut R&P sock. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, now that I think of it, that may be the case. Funplussmart (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that there's substative behavioural evidence that links R&P and the current account (Torpilorul), as detailed by Nick-D. The topics and thrust of arguments are the same. The use of the same historian (Dennis Deletant), along with the joint focus on the obscure Romanian hardware, is quite a tell. There are a also stylistic similarities, such as the identical use of ellipsis (no space before and after). R&P editing as an IP:
But I am not a threat for anything if unblocked...That's why I tell you all this, so I could take it off my chest and not affect my editing. 82.79.46.80 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC) [212]
Torpilorul's Talk page:
Yeah...yeah...words are really nice, but it's another thing when you get to experience it. This...this is Hell for me.
I've been dealing with the Royal Romanian Navy for the past 11 months, but thing is...I'm kinda done.
ANI:
Ah...Okay, sorry. My bad. So what now? Am I getting blocked? [213]
Then there's identical use of "we"; "us"; "ours" to refer to the entire Romanian nation, while airing perceived grievances. R&P:
I don't know what you make out of this, but all I see is that someone wants to humiliate us, to make it seem that we have no representatives, and I can't have that. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Cultural theft is what France is doing with our Constantin Brăncuși. They refuse to let us bring his remains back in the country. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Compare with the current account:
"Shouts like "Fascists, Antisemitic, war criminal" - they're literally gibberish to most of us. We won't see the point, all we'll see is our anti-Communist heroes and martyrs being attacked, and we won't like it. We're exercising our costly-earned freedom. Torpilorul (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that R&P and Torpilorul are the same person. This was not a WP:CLEANSTART for sure. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went and looked at posts by Iaaasi, as well as those by R&P. While I do not have much experience in this area, Iaaasi and R&P have completely different styles and "speech" patterns. I feel it is a strong possibility that R&P was misidentified as a Iaaasi sock. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that R&P was initially blocked for an indefinite duration for being "apparently here only for the purpose of engaging in nationally-motivated tendentious editing" in the words of the blocking admin, not being a sockpuppet. This is pretty much the same reason for Torpilorul also being blocked for an indefinite duration. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: The close is premature. Multiple editors have noted that R&P seems to have been misidentified as Iaaasi, and Torpilorul has an almost identical editing pattern and style to R&P. I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could check the WP:DUCK comparison and respond. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for an admin to check the behavioural evidence at WP:AN#WP:DUCK check requested for a SPI. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I have already ran this check. It gets a little complicated. I know Iaaasi well. This is not Iaaasi. Now Iaaasi has long claimed that Romanian & Proud was not their sock. Of course Romanian & Proud is long since stale, so I have no ability to go back and check the data to reevaluate that decision. I accept that Torpilorul could be R&P. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mojoworker: It's already as I said above. There is no way in hell I'm going to remember data from two years ago, it has to be constantly refreshed in my head like Iaaasi's is. As I said above already, Iaaasi ?= R&P ?= Torpilorul, but Torpilorul != Iaaasi. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

25 July 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Iaaasi, a chauvinist Romanian editor, is a long-time abuser in Wikipedia, who was banned from the project a decade ago, because of his persistent extremist and disruptive edits. Since then, this user is appealing to the method of persistent sockpuppetry and canvassing from time to time. For further details, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi. By manipulating talkpage discussions and formed editorial conflicts, Iaaasi usually uses own sockpuppets to report fake complaints against Hungarian editors, even if they have been inactive for some time. These sockpuppets were relatively inactive users, whose operation is reserved for this purpose only. The first sockpuppet, User:Cealicuca "registered" in 2018 in order to comment a previous sockpuppet investigation related to sockmaster Iaaasi, details Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#02_August_2018 here. Without editing namespace, this user was highly involved in a harsh dispute on Talk:Origin of the Romanians, as previous Iaaasi's sockpuppets did (for instance, User:Eurocentral. This "inexperienced user" first reported a false complaint targeting Hungarian editors, including me, and moderate Romanian editors, in February 2019 ([214] Norden1990 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

AFAIK, one could recognize Cealicuca by their use of WP:PROXY, especially public proxies of the European Community. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My above argument for the suspected sockpuppetry was much more longer, but a portion of text somewhat lost (unfortunately, I never really delved into the technical details of Wikipedia). The point: Cealicuca made their first report in February 2019 against Hungarian editors -including me - and moderate Romanian editors, even two accused editors User:Koertefa and User:Fakirbakir were roughly retired by that time. Cealicuca cited and manipulated age-old conversations and discussions as evidence, assuming a nonense conspiracy against "Romanian inerests" in Wikipedia, in order to mislead administrators. After failure, Cealicuca became inactive. They were "re-activated" in April 2021, after the block of User:KIENGIR. The sockpuppet repeated the same false report unofficially, but they did not reach a result and failed again. Since then, Cealicuca was again retired. Without any predecent and former involvement, a relatively passive user Out slide launched a similar report with same language tone and manipulating methods against the same users in July 2021, citing 7-year-old edits and discussions, despite that User:Borsoka has not edited on the subject of Romanian history for many years, while Fakirbakir and Koertefa remained inactive users. This second user made false accusations and misleading assumptions in order to reach a topic ban against Borsoka and now retired user Fakirbakir. If the sock puppet accusation isn't even there, I suspest Canvassing and Meatpuppetry -through e-mail conversations, for instance - between long-time banned user Iaaasi and two "inexperienced" users Cealicuca and Out slide, who who have reactivated after a long time as sleeper agents in recent months. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I mean European Commission, European Parliament, and so on (.europa.eu). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Out_slide is obviously a puppet. He wrote a detailed report of articles that he had never edited and raised accusations against editors with whom he had never interacted. Iaaasi and his socks, including Cealicuca, have always been engaged in the same articles and have raised the same accusations against the same circle of editors. Borsoka (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Again with this? No, I am not a sock puppet. I would like one of the admins to contact me and I can provide, I believe, enough information about this - just as I did the last time Tgeorgescu (and Norden, Borsoka, the late Kiengir, Fakirbakir etc.) accused me of this. Seems like deflecting. You may also contact DeltaQuad for more information on this.
I find it funny - whenever Borsoka, Norden, late-Kiengir and others get in trouble (see Kiengir's ban - he "invoked" my name too), Tgeorgescu magically appears to save the day and the common theme is the boogey man (cealicuca is a sock puppet!). Well, tough luck, I am not. I don't know who is Out_slide although I suspect that the whole show was conveniently created by Tgeorgescu, who tried to frame a similar thing in the past, for my "benefit". What an honour... I mean it's not like Tgeorgescu or Borsoka or Norden did not have access to the info - the "detailed report" Borsoka is mentioning, since they reacted to it. Norden even called me an idiot :). This "detailed" report was actually a complaint on the Admin boards that was quickly deleted because it did not respect the format (even though at least the two previous complaints did not respect the format either...). In any case, that is info here on Wikipedia and a lot of people were pinged and were aware of it. I never made it a secret, and even some admins were aware of at least parts of it.
Oh, about my "reactivation". Nope, I simply got a notification the Kiengir's talk page was changed - and saw the perma ban. That was very interesting to me and afterwards I posted this on Swarm's page. If it were the other way around (say I would be Borsoka), Tgerogescu would appear as if by magic, as he always does, to explain how all the things that I am accused of are some sock puppet's fault. Oh wait, that's exactly what Tgeorgescu did recently (and in the past) :))

::Oh, and by the way, how does Tgeorgescu have access to such information - "especially public proxies of the European Community."? This is quite interesting to me. How does mr. Tgerogescu have access to whatever IP I'm posting on on Wikipedia - be it especially public proxies of the European Community or not?

Anyway, I'd like to ask the admin/admins that pick this one up to contact me and I can provide the info needed to clear this quickly. One last thing - is there a way for a user to physically confirm his/her existence/profile? I'm very much up to this :) Cealicuca (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that the other discussion was closed. I guess it served it's purpose (initiating this one) so luckily I saw that i's closed before posting. In any case, here it is:
Disclaimer: Yes, I'm a paranoid SoB. But by the nature of my work I tend to see patterns on an otherwise large amount of data. And certainly I see a pattern (patterns) here.
Well, I didn't want to react the first time Norden pinged me. Really didn't want to go through this exquisite experience again but Norden, Borsoka and Tgerogescu (of course) seem hell bent on hits. Ok then...
Yes, I fully agree with the OP. Myself I have posted a similar report years ago, to no avail of course. Personally I find it curious for an admin to dismiss it out of hand because heck, it's "too long". We're talking about several users here who have been engaging in "un-Wikipedian" conduct for the better part of a decade, with complex interactions between them and so on. Of course it's going to be long.
In any case, I don't know the OP, I don't think I have ever interacted with him/her, however I fully support his/her report. Oh, and I don't really care how the OP got the info presented here (as I said I posted a similar report years ago - and didn't quite make a secret of it...). But I can alway add to it since I can always go back to the Wiki page containing my own report...
Anyway, to sum things up a little bit:
(1) The whole groups masks this by having a rather large number of legit edits, most of the times unrelated, beside their common goal. This IS the strategy that allows them to operate - do you want to manipulate some Wikipedia subjects? Well, have several people (or maybe several accounts) doing legit stuff for a while to build up some reputation (or even in parallel with the main objective), and otherwise focus on what you want to manipulate. Wikipedia, as well as other open-source consensus-centric spaces, are particularly vulnerable to a dedicated, well coordinated group. Like this group, and I must admit there's a certain admiration on my part for their dedication to pull this off (just to be clear, from an organizational and strategic/patience to do it sort of way).
User Norden1990, Borsoka, Fakirbakir, (late) KIENGIR, Koertefa and others have been pushing a (Hungarian) nationalist "version" of the "truth" here on Wikipedia for years. Tgeorgescu has often played the role of enabler, meaning that whenever those users would get into serious trouble (being reported for example - even KIENGIR mentions "poor" Tgeorgescu in his plea) he pops in to offer his "neutral" and "expert" opinion (I'll get back to that in a bit as both are just for show). All those users share a common interest - that is history that is "controversial" on the Hungarian side, be it Romanian, Slovak, Serb. Their stated mission is to spread the Hungarian Truth and make sure that those articles (which were biased, in their opinion, before their intervention of course) are modified to reflect this Hungarian Truth. Anything controversial (from their perspective) related to Hungarian history shared with Slovaks, Romanian and Serbs is up for grabs.
Whenever an admin takes action and sanctions one of them, they all jump on that person (in support of the "offended" party), probably in the hope of intimidating the admin. I have no idea if they also intervene in terms of sending private messages, maybe they do, but I am pretty sure there's plenty of admins here who have had this experience with this lot. Of course, the admins do not understand their plight...
A lengthy conversation on how they must fight against Slovakian and Romanian editors, on how KIENGIR is admiring Borsoka, Koertefa, Norden and Fakirbakir for doing the "right" thing, about how the administrators cannot understand their fight, about how the Balkan and Eastern European mentality needs to grow up and lots of other exciting stuff. About the mission, in general. Very nice read until Borsoka reminds KIENGIR that maybe this is not the right place for.such a conversation (obviously).
Here Fakirbakir flat out juxtaposes their (presumably Hungarian's) "dear neighbor" historiography as being used as a political tool. I mean seriously, that's their central belief for crying out loud? I don't even understand why we have this conversation, just go to their talk pages and take a look at the things they're sharing with each other. And then consider they are editing sensitive subjects in tandem. How can anyone be surprised that they are in fact pushing a specific PoV?!?!
And yes, I have a whole collection of them mentioning this kind of "cleansing" and this whole "us" vs "them" mentality. Shared between them all... Here's a little sample of it.
Go through their posts on those subjects - they are basically interchangeable. Of course they are, since they really represent the same PoV. They are less interested in representing what a source says, more so in gathering "evidence" for their common PoV. A good example is what Borsoka/Fakirbakir did with Posner by adding in the article related to Re-latinisation of the Romanian language (and other articles) what Diez, a 19th century linguist, thought of the Romanian language: that is' a "semi-Romance" language. What is interesting is that Posner, one page below where Diez's statement is presented, clearly states that no modern linguist shares this and other of Diez's opinions anymore. Yet despite this, the article references Diez 7 times. 7 times he is brought up :) I thought this example is funny in the context of Tgeorgescu presenting here, on this very topic, his opinion about the Romanian language. As it happens - no modern linguist is sharing his opinion, but of course this doesn't stop mr. Tgeorgescu to post all kinds of weird stuff, under the guise of a neutral and expert editor, to somehow "show" that whomever says otherwise is a nationalist (even if what the other person basically presents a PoV that is suported by an overwhelming number of sources).
See this for example. It starts with Fakirbakir's "We should try to demonstrate somehow the state of the Romanian language before re-latinization.". Pretty much exemplifies their objective - they have a specific idea in mind and then find sources, of parts of sources - whatever sources, to support that specific PoV. Does the source say anything inconvenient to the desired outcome? Flat out omit it. Now, finding sources to support a specific point is not in itself necessarily bad, but couple it with their love for the "Hungarian Truth" and how the sources are manipulated and you get the picture.
On another note - I would also like to challenge mr. Tgeorgescu on another interesting statement - that being the Romanian language is thought in "many" Universities as a Slavic language. As it so happens I have plenty of friends who have studied/do study in plenty of those Western universities and nope, Romanian is usually not part of the curriculum (for obvious reasons) or, in the best case and for specialized studies, it is bundled with other Romance languages. But I'll let mr. Tgeorgescu illuminate us.
Going back a bit to the FNB2K group (Fakirbakir, Borsoka, Norden, Kiengir, Koertefa) they themselves, or part of them at least, have been accused and investigated as being sockspuppets of Stubes99. Funny how Tgeorgescu is not concerned about this, but I guess in hi neutrals stance it's normal not to take this into consideration :). They have been accused and investigating, repeatedly, for all sorts of behaviors (integrated into the Borg mind, right mr. Tgeorgescu? That's how it's supposed to work?) stemming from the above mentioned behavior. I mean it's not that difficult, one only has to try and they jump on you. Someone else supports your PoV? No problem, another one jumps in. And so on until the whole thing, whatever is that they do not agree with, becomes impossible to settle. Most of the times they present this as a "consensus".
Those users support each other, and it's not uncommon for one or multiple of them to pop up in a debate where they have previously not been involved. Of course, whenever this happens, they basically agree with each other always and they flood the whole discussion with those agreements, sometimes to the point where most of the conversation is made up of their own posts. Like this one...
Other ways of getting "undesired" people out of their way is to trigger an edit war. They don't like what other editors contribute to a subject? No problem. Start reverting. Does the target-editor revert the reverts? No problem, another steps in and reverts and at some point report the target editor. And so on. Easy mode.
(2) Now, onto Tgeorgescu. As I said above, he pops in whenever there's something crucial. Usually at the behest of Borsoka, but not always. Borsoka alluded in some conversation with Fakirbakir if I remember correctly (the link is somewhere in the long list of "wrong" stuff they like to talk about... in Hungarian of course) to having an "admin" alt. I do suspect that this is actually Tgeorgescu, also I suspect him/her of "buiding" a fake profile (or at least partly fake) in order to convey authority to his opinion as well as allow him to pose as a "neutral" person.
What raised my suspicion on him is that Tgeorgescu "sports" a Mensa on his profile. As it so happens I was engaged in a conversation with him where he unequivocally stated that "all it takes to show that all swans are black is one black swan" or something along the lines. This was extremely surprising for me, especially coming from someone with parading a Mensa on his profile, and I did point out to him the basic logical error. Yet he persisted on it. So I did point out this to a friend who actually has a Mensa, and he flat out laughed at the idea that anyone having this would say such nonsense.
I also believe that Tgeorgescu tried to frame/discredit me by having some random IP posting a highly inflammatory message on a talk page basically praising me for "my work", a "true Romanian", while at the same time bashing him. As it happened, I basically just posted something on my own talk page, immediately, as an "insurance" to what I instantly recognized as being a directed attempt to harm me. Keep in mind that at the time I was involved in various disputes with Tgeorgescu as well as him having already reported me as a sockpuppet (cleared afterwards). In any case, obviously Tgerogescu immediately took notice of that and as expected started accusing me. The funny thing is that if I were indeed a sockpuppet of whomever, why in the world would I post such a message referencing myself? And if I weren't a sockpuppet but some whomever really loved my work (presumably this Iaaasi/whatever-alts-he-had guy, with his long interaction with Wikipedia and Tgeorgescu) why in the world would that person draw attention on me knowing that such a message would most likely garm me. I mean seriously, the message itself was saying something along "you should probably delete this" - which I didn't. You can find the whole thing here. His and Borsoka's immediate accusation, because of course :), as well as some follow-up discussion with an admin.
Interesting, at the time Tgeorgescu was inviting me to reflect on why I "draw" such posts, with the obvious implications. Now, with KIENGIR taking one step to far, and being an integral part of this group (just check his interaction with others), I cannot help but return the favor to Tgeorgescu. Theese guys repeatedly demonstrate bad intent, bad behavior, manipulation of the Wikipedia rules and building consensus, cherry-picking sources, constructing a specific PoV based on "evidence" etc. One of them really going overboard and gettign banned in the process. Maybe you'd like to reflect on that? Maybe the reason me and others are pointing this out repeatedly is that they there is truth to it? It's rhetorical, don't worry, I wager you won't respond to this (except maybe to deflect yet again).
Moreover, in the same link as the one above I actually point Tgeorgescu to some interesting posts he might have missed. That he "missed" them is entirely OK, but I found it disturbing the way he characterized them (as a legitimate PoV).
Another technique Tgeorgescu is implying is to portray "neutrality" by adopting a king of "all PoVs are equal". Well, I have no problem with him holding that belief, but when forcing that belief against what sources say (in this very thread he peddles the half Slavic/half Latin idea for the Romanian language - which is thoroughly contradicted by... well, by basically any Western modern linguist), and by that I mean sanctioning drafting articles that instead of reflecting what sources say they reflect this kind of "neutrality" by giving all PoVs, no matter their support among academics, the same weight.
But this ties in nicely with other stuff Tgeorgescu did - once called me a nationalist based on me editing the Romanian language article. I changed one of the chapters, from "Slavic language" to "Slavic influence". In the whole context it made perfect sense. Just as it woulld make perfect sense, for example, for someone to correct "Germanic language" to "Germanic influence" for the French language article. Nothing nationalist about it - except for Tgeorgescu making it so. Tgeorgescu turned a perfectly fine edit (which corrected a very obvious error) into "Explanation why that diff is nationalism, broadly construed: it basically says "We're not Russkies."". That's Tgeorgescu in a nutshell.
(3) Of course, all of the above won't probably matter, since admins want TLDR version. Handwaved as a "wall of text" :)) Well, what can I say, there is no TLDR version for this. In any case, as stated above, condoning this situation is an open invitation to a any well organized group to push any PoV they desire on Wikipedia. And obviously FNB2K is not the only group doing so. Yeah, of course, focus on the individual cases for sure, but that's not where most of the damage is done. The lasting, true damage comes from those groups.
Cheers.Cealicuca (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cealicuca, your statements about my years old comments are utter nonsense. When you attempt to understand (my) Hungarian text pls do not use Google translator, because you have no idea what you are talking about... You blame everyone but yourself. You make false accusations on highly esteemed users just to prove yourself right. For instance, I do like and respect Borsoka's and Tgeorgescu's editings because their approaches are one of the best examples of NPOV editing. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KIENGIR. Sorry to disappoint you.. oh wait, it's Fakirbakir. Yeah, I think you need more epithets to make your statement seem even more forceful. That should do the trick! also, I thought Norden1990 or Borsoka said you were... inactive? Hmm, guess not.

Also, since you seem to disagree with Google Translate, would you be so kind as to actually translate? I mean as far as I know Google Translate does a pretty good job translating Hungarian to English (while admittedly not the other way around). Also, I seem to remember you guys bein warned, multiple times, to actually use English. I understand it's easier for some of you at least to talk in Hungarian, because English is difficult for you - but in this case how can anyone trust you to actually translate properly from Hungarian sources to English or even properly understand English sources?

Google Translation (yes, we all know that Google is part of the conspiracy to smirch the Hungarian "real" history!):

Hi, I’m glad you’re back, I know it’s ridiculous, but I just leave it at it because lately - until you were - they’ve been trying in every way to provoke and pull you into conflict, e.g. you see, if you look at the article on Szeklerland and the series of provocative talk pages, even Borsoka was started plucking, even though he didn’t even take part in that discussion. Unfortunately, everywhere they aggressively portray their unilateral declaration as a merger, which is fake, but no matter how hard I try, it always gets there somehow because it’s such an important element of propaganda. So even though I have corrected the facts, I leave it in this way if there is a reference to it, not to accuse me of covering the event, even though it has nothing to do with the Trianoni decision. We hope he doesn't start the provocation game with you either. You will throw your brain away if you look at what he forced in the article about Szeklerland, of course he also screwed it up, since he also included something that is not in the source, the facts do not matter much to them neutrally, the anti-Hungarian emotion is always cool. You see, I just put it up that the massacres were because of incidents with the military that they usually want to shower out of the story. Tiring. ( KIENGIR ( talk) 20:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, slow everything down with an accurate source display, they can't really dig into you. Yes, the presentation of "unity" is unfortunately propagandistic and biased in most places. Roman tortenetiras is much stronger than Hungarian, which is no wonder, since with our dear neighbor, historiography has always been a tool of politics. Fakirbakir ( talk) 11: 16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So please, feel free to correct it. I for one would love to correct the typo that was translated into "tortenetiras" as well as removing the "i" after Trianon... And of course, ask Tgerogescu to create another post - I'm at fault for you posting this (and all the other similar stuff you guys have been throwing at one another...).

As for NPOV, there's plenty examples of the way you "behave" even on your talk page. Let's take a random one, from one of your favorite hobbies. Drawing/discussing maps in an, of course, NPOV way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fakirbakir#map_of_Poland

As you yourself stated (and if I haven't provided the link I can if necessary) basically stated that hey, it doesn't really matter that you base your maps on known biased sources. You simply don't care and dismiss it (even when Borsoka, Borsoka for crying out loud! points out that it's not OK!) as, well, it's "scientific". While at the same time any other perceived bias (towards your cherished PoV) you and the rest of the team go full guns blazing.

So in the example above basically two editors (PANONIAN and Volunteer_Marek) tell you to stick to the sources while you and Koertefa just go on and on about "falsifying history" because, well... you and Koertefa simply don't like what the source says. Period. Therefore, it must be falsification of history. It is irrelevant if afterwards you sorted it out or not. What IS relevant is your reaction to what those two people said.

You go on to say:

"What if I find some reliable sources to justify my version? I am sure I can find academic sources about Polish occupation of "Upper Hungary" in the era of St Stephen. Actually I think you disregard "the historical accuracy" in this case."

and

"This case is typical falsification of history. This debate is senseless. I am going to make a good, accurate map with reliable sources in the close future."

and Koertefa, because of course he pops up in the discussion, because he is totally not supporting the same PoV as you do generally. So you say:

"I concur "Upper Hungary" may sound anachronistic, however a simple geographical term "Northern Kingdom of Hungary" seems to be fine in my opinion."

and then, shockingly, Koertefa says:

"Yes, that's fine with me, too.".

Well, that was cringy... For anyone who is familiar with your interactions, it simply sounds pathetic.

The point is that it's not about reliable sources and accurately transposing what those sources say on Wikipedia, it's about actually advancing a specific PoV and finding the sources to support it. That's the issue. You guys have a mission here and your whole editing revolves around this mission. You got some ideas in your head and then you do find the sources (or manipulate the sources, as Borsoka and you did with Diez referenced from Posner because you just had to demonstrate the Slavic, but leaving aside Posner's own assessment of Diez - that no modern linguist agrees with Diez).

As for Tgerogescu's NPOV... all I have to say is that in his majestic Mensa holding one black swan proves all swans are black NPOV this and this is just a "Hungarian PoV" while this is "OMGOMGOMG!!! Nationalist! Rusophobia!". If it were to Tgeorgescu I guess we'd all have to start referencing World War 2 as the "Great Patriotic War" since hey, it's an equally valid PoV (Soviet / modern-Russian history whitewashing FYI) from his perspective and of course we all know the Poles faked the Sovied invasion of their homeland in '39 and of course USSR was NOT a "de facto" ally of Nazi Germany. And it's not me who's saying that - it's just insignificant authors like Martin Gilbert or that poor old deluded "historian" Indy Neidell (to keep up with the younger generation). But Tgeorgescu will certainly find that, coming from me, as "we're not Ruskies!!!".

P.S. 1: Nope, still no puppet. Not of Iaasi, not of Out Slide, not of whomever you'd think of tomorrow that would suit your agenda. Just plain old paranoind me :)

P.S. 2: Mr. Tgeorgescu - considering that at the time of your posting of me allegedly using a specific IP/domain the CU investigation was not done, how did you come by such information? Or maybe some Admin can help here, maybe, I don't know, one of them gave you this as-of-yet-unverified info? Cealicuca (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot that you edited from several IPs, then asserted you are the author of all those edits by signing them with your own username. Well, the IPs are not hidden, and when I checked these resolved to EU proxies, also to a German open proxy when you were on holiday. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you are correct, on both accounts. Marked both instances of my question accordingly as this is sorted out.Cealicuca (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Cealicuca, Yes, I've become quite inactive recently.. As I see you are still on rampage...Fakirbakir (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Fakirbakir. Norden1990 saw fit to ping me on 09:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC). I did not reply, I did not want to again enter into debates with him or you or Tgeorgescu. This however doesn't mean that I don't believe you guys are an organized group whose main purpose is to PoV push on Wikipedia, with Tgeorgescu as enabler. Certainly I've made no secret about that, not before nor after I tried to report you.[reply]
It only means that I decided to ignore it since even though I would have wished for action to be taken against you by the admins - which I fully believe would be justified - I would do more harm than good given our previous civilized contacts. After all, it seems I don't have to do anything but trust the system. Somehow KIENGIR was outed for what he was, just as you and the rest of the team will at some point. You're bound to break one too many rules one too many times. But maybe this is why you've become inactive or suddenly changed focus from history articles, if what Borsoka says has any credence whatsoever.
Certainly having one of your closest collaborators with whom you share the same PoV and the same behavior on Wikipedia and whom you supported wholeheartedly all those years and because of whom who knows how many editors were turned off or even banned from Wikipedia (with your full support) is not a good thing, is it? All those years in which he wasn't less of KIENGIR, he was the same KIENGIR doing the same stuff, enabled and supported by you and your colleagues. Yes, certainly it doesn't look good.
By the way, if I were to somehow "reactivate", that would have been a good moment. Not a week later when everything was settled. No, adding fuel to the fire... that would have been the opportunity. But as I said, I did not seek this opportunity actively. I found out about KIENGIR by accident (again, a week after it happened I think) and yes, I did feel like there was some justice done.
Speaking of interaction with you, actually the last interaction that I remember with any of your team members was related to an article where both me and Norden agreed that it needs improvement so I did start to improve it - with no objection from Norden. So bummer.
But then Tgeorgescu, because of course, one day later decided to ask (again I might add) another CU investigation (referencing the same one that he asked for and DeltaQuad closed years ago). With you, Norden and Borsoka closely following - reminiscent of pack behavior. Same behavior displayed on the false and totally baseless report the other poor fellow, whomever he/she is, decided to bring up on the Arbitration page (false and completly baseless report on you and Borsoka, until Norden showed up as if by magic and Tgerogescu responded to Borsoka's request of "what do you think?"). Please...Cealicuca (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very interesting and amusing to see that you are watching with such devotional zeal the careers of editors with whom you allegedly have never interacted. Until you made your hysterical report mixed with grave lies and slips this year (April 2021), I had never heard your name or any contribution to the project which would have caught my attention. The voluminous monologue above, which is full of paranoia and inferiority complex, is already boring to read. A CheckUser and SPI will decide the question of your identity. If you no longer make a substantial contribution to the actual edits of Wikipedia, at least let the other editors work and not bother them at times with your compulsive lies and manipulations, or at least do not let you appear as a tool of a primitive and outdated extremist banned user. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Norden1990, please chill. It's not good for the heart. If I were to return the same curtesy you're showing me I'd suggest you wipe the froth from your mouth. Fortunately, I'm not necessarily into that. I know you think I'm an [idiot] but really, you could mimic at least some civility. Thank you though for your assessment of my voluminous monologue, but it can't hold a candle to the combined powers of all of you. Just imagine how absolutely glorious your "work" on this would have been if KIENGIR were here. I'd wager he'd be here to support you in this endeavor. Can you imagine? I certainly can, got loads of samples you call "work" and "contributions" containing it.
Talking about lies, false accusations and slips:
"The first sockpuppet, User:Cealicuca "registered" in 2018 in order to comment a previous sockpuppet investigation related to sockmaster Iaaasi, details Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#02_August_2018 here."
No, I was determined not to be a sockpuppet of Iaasi. See [here]. I created the account precisely to take ownership of the posts I made, just as Tgeorgescu pointed out (and yes, I did forget I made those unsigned posts before creating the account). The actual investigation is [here]. In any case, you could at least have the decency of doing what Tgeorgescu did repeatedly - first accuse me of being a sockpuppet and then refer to me of "previously being accused of being a sockpuppet" whenever it feels like you need some extra ammo to discredit what I post, even if the investigation determined otherwise.
Feel free to delude yourself in relation to my "inferiority complex" or whatever else fancies you. As for my "compulsive lies and manipulations" I wonder which exactly are you referring to? Is it, for example, my last remark towards Fakirbakir that you, Borsoka, Tgeorgescu and others supporting KIENGIR wholeheartedly all those years (and him supporting you just as much), an editor because of whom most likely many other editors were turned off or even banned from Wikipedia, doesn't really reflect good on you (and that's an euphemism)? So you think this is a good thing? Interesting...
@Admins: Please, do this user check as soon as you can and stop this charade. As I said, I reject the accusation, I am open to anything you'd like to know and again I ask - isn't it possible to get some sort of permanent confirmation on my account, provided of course that I give sufficient and convincing evidence that I am who I say I am? Tgeorgescu will never stop harassing me with this, and the others will take his lead. It'll get old soon, if it hasn't already.Cealicuca (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

8 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Iaaasi is a long-term abuser in Wikipedia, who was banned from the project a decade ago, because of his persistent extremist and disruptive edits. Since then, this user is appealing to the method of persistent sockpuppetry and canvassing from time to time. For further details, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi. User tends to create sockpuppets that are keeping inactive or with few edits so as not to attract attention. A registered user on July 1, 2017, Mestter (i.e. a Romanian word ("meșter") of Hungarian origin which means "expert") became active from 2021-2022 on Iaaasi's favorite topics, in this case those referring to Roman settlements in Szeklerland, Aromanians/Vlachs and others. See the activity of the old Eurocentral sockpuppet for more examples. For the first time in recent years, however, it has become active on the Romanian Wikipedia again. Another novelty this time is that he did not write in the talk pages here or at ro.wiki.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

In response to EdJohnston's querry, and based on Mestter's activity in English WP, I am not convinced that Mestter is Iaaasi's or Eurocentral's sock. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi/Archive&oldid=1142567276"