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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

13 November 2012

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• UrbanVillager (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cinéma C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bože pravde (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bolonium (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I've been looking into the previous Boris Malagurski SPI case. And there are some suspicious things I've discovered through viewing contributions of the relevant accounts that were overlooked. First, a little background: it is known that Boris Malagurski has a history of stockpuppeteering and thus a predisposition to using sockpuppets. To expect that behavior not to continue would be naive. His previous accounts (that were discovered) include

• KOCOBO (talk · contribs)
• WikiMB (talk · contribs)
• TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs)

In addition to the previous suspected socks I've included a new one called Bolonium that was previously not looked into:

• On 16 April 2006, Boris Malagurski contacts Bolonium [1][2]
• On 21 October 2007, after Bormalagurski's block in September, Bolonium removes Malagurski's name from the Portal:Serbia/Portal info page [3]
• On 31 December 2007, Bože pravde replaces any traces of Malagurski's name with something else on his banned account's talkpage. [4] Who would bother with this?
• On 12 May 2009, Bolonium uploads the Kosovo movie poster to the Serbian wikipedia [5] two days later Cinema C uploaded the Kosovo poster to Serbo-Croatian wikipedia [6]
• In February 2009, Bože pravde edits numerous articles relating to Vojvodina and obscure villages near Subotica where Malagurski was born for the entire month [7]
• On 10 November 2011, a single purpose account, Charly Hofmann, created a Boris Malagurski article and Weight of Chains article on the German wikipedia [8] That account seized all activity on the same day and two days later on 12 November 2011 the page began to be maintained by UrbanVillager from then on. [9]
• On 10 November 2011, a single purpose account, Dknez15, created the Boris Malagurski article on the Spanish wikipedia [10] That account seized all activity on the same day and two days later on 12 November 2011 the page began to be maintained by UrbanVillager from then on. [11]
• On 29 November 2011, 178.148.12.58, a single purpose Serbian IP originating from Vojvodina (again where Malagurski was born), created the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? ‎article on the Romanian wikipedia. [12] That IP seized all activity on the same day and UrbanVillager resumed its work there on 2 December. [13]
• On 13 November 2012, Bolonium reappears to vote keep on a Malagurski article after a year long hiatus. [14]

To date UrbanVillager's editing continues to revolve solely around the work of Malagurski: whether its adding links from interviewees of his film or creating the article of newspaper for which he writes. It is worth noting that when he created his account he immediately knew to make a userpage and talkpage. [15] There are many instances of the same POV pushing of the accounts in their editing is present on a number of very obscure articles

• The very rare moment UrbanVillager edits something not related to Malagurski it's to push the same exact edit Cinema C did before his departure on the Nikola Tesla article.
  • Cinema C: [16]
  • UrbanVillager: [17]
• It's an interesting thing that they are all obsessed over Tesla's ethnicity:
  • KOCOBO:[18]
  • Boze pravde: [19]
  • Bormalagurski [20]
  • Bolonium [21]
• Push a Serb POV on the Kravica article:
  • Bormalagurski [22]
  • KOCOBO: [23]
  • Cinema C [24]
  • Bolonium [25]
• Same support to an article to Đakovica:
  • Edited to preferred name by Boris: [26]
  • Moved by Bolonium: [27]
  • Supported by Cinéma C: [28]
• Same support to an article to Uroševac:
  • Moved by Bolonium:[29]
  • Supported by Cinéma C: [30]
• Same Kosovo/Serbia reverting on Đakovica Airport:
  • Bolonium: [31]
  • UrbanVillager: [32]

In many instances after Cinéma C reverts twice, Bolonium is used for the third

• Kravica:
  • Cinema C: [33], [34]
  • Bolonium: [35]
• Kosovo: Can You Imagine?:
  • Cinema C: [36], [37]
  • Bolonium: [38]
• Tuzla column case:
  • Cinema C: [39], [40]
  • Bolonium: [41]

I strongly believe that this is Malagurski and a buddy of his that he met on Wikipedia and that they are working in concert to push a Serb POV and promote his work. How these accounts are divided isn't exactly clear and a checkuser is necessary. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanVillager's blanking of the SPI certainly isn't helping [42] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that UrbanVillager is as keen as the TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs) sock and IP 99.244.247.108 (talk · contribs) about writing about Malagurski's last name heritage. [43][44][45] The IP mimics Bolonium editing pattern. It initially added the Malagurski info [46] which Bolonium later modified [47], edited Novak Djokovic on September 17 while Bolonium did on the 15 [48][49], removed infoboxes from the KOCOBO sock [50][51], frequents the Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport article like Bolonium [52][53], wants to get rid of the "Serbian" article like him [54][55], even the obscure Đakovica city again pops up. [56] This is in addition various other airline related articles. [57][58] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

You may already have come across this page - it includes the opinion of other administrators and editors that Boris is unlikely to change his malpractices (as well as the cheerful support of friends, most of whom clearly aren't bothered):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bormalagurski/archive_5&diff=58649657&oldid=58144190 Opbeith (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krytan, one of the Bring Back Boris petitioners above, is in fact User:Bolonium. Opbeith (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone looking at Bolonium and found two amusing items:

• Their and Cinema C's attempts at non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski - [59] [60]
• Their !vote to object to desysopping Bormalagurski from sr:wiki

That latter discussion (its final state) also brought up a link to User:C-c-c-c, who is in turn blocked for being a sockpuppet of another user. I still say they should all be axed under the provisions of WP:MEAT. It's all been a horrible waste of time, that could instead have been spent on actually improving the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's another Boris identity that you may not come across that may be worth looking out for, because it still crops up in Histories even though it's "Not registered", User:Serbiana:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CrnaGora&diff=prev&oldid=60594836

That's just a piece of signature text, it's not an indicator of an actual changed username. Any user can change their signature at the user preferences. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here he's boasting under that identity that he's blocked User: Crna Gora at Serbian Wikipedia. Does that mean he would have been an administrator there?

I'm puzzled by this "Not registered" business. I come across this from time to time even when the name was obviously an active user previously. It seems to me as though users are helped to delete/hide embarrassing identities.

Certainly there appears to be an ability to get previous edits hidden. Someone involved in The Weight of Chains discussion seems to have edits quite frequently deleted from their list of contributions - of course I've only spotted apparent deletions fleetingly with a line through them.

I'm also puzzled how someone can transform one identity into another and prevent that former identity being disclosed when that former identity is described as the "sock-puppeteer" of a permanently blocked User on the blocked User's User Page. I thought "sock-puppeteers" were blocked along with the "sock-puppet". I've been told forcefully by the "sock-puppeteer"'s current identity that I may not disclose the concealed identity as it would be "outing" and not permitted by Wikipedia rules. I don't know whether that's bluster. I'd be grateful for advice as my impression is that this User is an ally of at least one of the Malagurski-linked User identities discussed here.

Sockpuppeteers are indeed blocked along with sockpuppets, but they may be unblocked if they repent, so to speak, or their blocks may expire. The {{sockpuppeteer}} template has various options to that effect. The outing that you mention does not refer to this situation, it refers to the situation where a user formally rescinds an old account and everything that's related to it, and starts anew; provided that they follow the rules, particularly that they don't repeat any abuse that they may have committed under the old account, they are indeed allowed to be disassociated from the old account. BM is not such a case. But if you're still having doubts, you may send an e-mail to an administrator (not a user talk message, but a private e-mail) to verify that you wouldn't be outing a legitimate user. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You look for one and more suspect names turn up. It's impossible for this to be dealt with by normal people without systematic input from Wikipedia administrators who aren't concerned with quick closures and turning a blind eye. Opbeith (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy: I find that evidence very disturbing. It's obvious that Malagurski and either his buddies from Serbian wikipedia or from his little Serbian Youth League organization (an article created by Bože pravde with original research and edited by Bolonium by the way) are behind this charade. I agree that such meatpuppetry should not be tolerated.

Opbeith: That's the name Malagurski adopted as his signature in place of his real account's name at some point in time. That's the same one that Bože pravde used to replace Malagurski's real account name almost two years after his sock was indef blocked. [61][62] It's most likely a copy of the nationalist "Serbianna" website. His openness about "eliminating" other people is troubling and again evidence of the lengths he will go to get his way on Wikipedia. It does appear Malagurski blocked Crna Gora on the Serbian wikipedia with admin powers. [63][64] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if someone wants to rename this case to "Serbian Youth League", that would work, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see here, the only "evidence" provided that is supposed to prove that I'm Bormalagurski's sockpuppet is that I edited the Boris Malagurski article on Spanish Wikipedia a few times, edited the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles on German Wikipedia a few times, edited the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? article on Romanian Wikipedia a few times, added reliable references to Malagurski-related articles, "showed knowledge of creating a userpage and talk page" by clicking on the red links and writing "My username is a paradox" on my userpage and "You. Message. Now." on my talk page (I took a 10-week course for that one), and reverting one page to a version of some other editor before me. I fail to see how any of this constitutes any kind of evidence for anything at all, really. My comments on this whole issue are in the section below. --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "From what I see here" was carefully inserted. You selectively omit a fair amount of information provided earlier and elsewhere, so I'll just sum up what I've mentioned previously again.

As noted previously your contributions began at the time The Weight of Chains was being promoted for imminent release, they are almost entirely on Malagurski-related subjects (even for no explicit reason removing someone else's reference to Malagurski in the Bunjevci article about the non-Serb community in Malagurski's home town of Subotica).

The articles you have created are on Malagurski-related subjects - Malagurski's film The Weight of Chains itself, created prior to release, Nova Srpska Politička Misao, a journal that publishes articles by Malagurski, and Jože Mencinger and John Bosnitch, both of whom are featured in The Weight of Chains. As PRODUCER pointed out, after Psychonaut's listed your contributions in the attempt to show that your edits weren't almost entirely Malagurski-related, almost all the exceptions turned out to be edits to articles about other persons featured in The Weight of Chains - Slobodan Samardžić, Srđa Trifković, Škabo, Branislav Lečić, James Byron Bissett, Scott Taylor (journalist), Vlade Divac and Lewis MacKenzie - noting their appearance in the film.

Your edits at the articles inflate the significance of trivialities, slide over negative issues and show an extraordinarily determined commitment to excluding balancing cricitism of Malagurski and his works (basically the reason why we're all here).

You're selective in the references you cite of the scope of your commitment to the grooming of Malagurski-related information across a number of national Wikipedias. Now I note you are avoiding mention of your activities on Serbian Wikipedia that I mentioned in the Conflict of Interest discussion. Your contributions there are again almost entirely Malagurski-concerned (no fully Romanised version accessible - the title remains in Cyrillic but the names of the contributing editors are shown in Roman characters:

(Apologies, problems of accessing Serbian Wikipedia due to Cyrillic alphabet problems in URLs - an alternative but more complicated route is as follows. First go to Serbian Wikipedia [65], then look for the Search box in the usual place - it's obvious but with the Cyrillic "Претрага"instead of "Search", then using Roman characters as normal key in Boris Malagurski or The Weight of Chains. The layout of the Article Page is very similar to the English WP, so find the downward arrow between the Watchlist Star and the Search box, click and take the History option, the uppermost of the two, Историја - that will produce the listing of edits with contributors; if it's still in Cyrillic, click on the Latinica tab on the top line. To get to UrbanVillager's contributions either go from one of the edits in either article following the same procedure as with English and clicking on the second word in the brackets after the username - доприноси, ie contributions - or go to UrbanVillager's User page by keying Korisnik:UrbanVillager and follow the English procedure via the sidebox of selecting Toolbox - апати and then User contributions Кориснички доприноси - the third down; or enroll a Serbian-speaker to help)

Boris Malagurski article (principal editor, carrying on from Cinema C)

The Weight of Chains article (creator and principal editor)

UrbanVillager History of UrbanVillager contributions on Serbian Wikipedia (Cyrillic only, but Борис Малагурски is Boris Malagurski, Разговор:Борис Малагурски is Talk:Boris Malagurski and Тежина ланаца is The Weight of Chains - accounting for almost the entirety of your edits on Serbian Wikipedia)

(If still having trouble, go to one of UrbanVillager's edits at either article

Even on Malagurski's home Serbian Wikipedia you are clearly making heroic efforts to ensure Boris and his work are regarded as meeting the criteria for inclusion. The main concern on BM's Serbian WP talk page is whether he's significant enough to warrant an article. You follow previous editors who've sought to defend BM's inclusion.

It's this less than straightforward behaviour, repeated time after time after time, in relation to a character confirmed to be a fraud from the record of his involvement in Wikipedia itself and works that have been pointed out a number of times to be untruthful, that would make all our doubts about you perfectly understandable to an alien from Mars, let alone anyone from the real world. But somehow Wikipedia is a bubble of unreality to which you are allowed to continue contributing. Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WhiteWriter

This was again opened, but nothing really new was presented. I am afraid that this is only part of a WP:DISRUPTPOINT violation by User:PRODUCER on the User:UrbanVillager edits, including AfD nomination, and COI noticeboard thread. Nothing really convincing was presented, and no clear evidence is given in this again. Some years old diffs are no good for us here. By that logic, you can merge me with numerous other accounts, and ask for my sock puppets, or anyone's, at the end. This is not the solution to the dispute resolution from Boris Malagurski article... --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from you is hilarious. [66] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as i said. Instead of logical arguments for this, only skirmishing... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, you seem driven by a sense of urgent righteousness. Are we to understand that the use of "sock-puppets" is a matter of time-limited relevance? Where do you consider the cut-off point for the statute of limitations stands? You also seem to be saying that having other accounts that may have "sock-puppets" shouldn't be a subject of interest to anyone. At how many identities' remove from the current identity would you say "sock-puppets" cease to be a matter of concern? You're dimissive about the legitimacy of our concerns about Malagurski gaming the system. So do I assume you have no Conflicts of Interest, either here or at the Serbian Wikipedia, that would undermine your credibility in dismissing other people's anxieties about the way Malagurski and his associates have used and abused Wikipedia? Thank you anyway for that declaration that your own reasons for changing identities (and removing edits?) are entirely legitimate whatever Malagurski may get up to. Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by UrbanVillager

I find it very odd that I'm accused of being a sockpuppet of Bormalagurski (presumably the account of Boris Malagurski) after the previous case was closed by AGK, and a Conflict of interest case was just closed as well by Uzma Gamal where he concluded that "UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic. Accordingly, editors should refrain from asserting that UrbanVillager has a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic." And all this in the middle of a dispute resolution case I filed in regards to how several editors are attempting to bring in POV, original research and blog references to Malagurski-related articles. Very strange indeed. I'm certainly not a sockpuppet of anyone and I've hand enough of these personal attacks from editors who are upset that they can't circumvent Wikipedia guidelines to impose their own opinions on the disputed articles without providing reliable references. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for everyone. Everyone is entitled to fair treatment. If Wikipedia editors provide evidence and effort, Wikipedia administrators should not be entitled - as they routinely do where you and your friends are concerned - to treat us like fools and incompetents who require no explanation of their arbitrary rulings and should be expected simply to shut up in the face of the continued system-gaming they choose to turn their eyes away from. I've said before and I'll say it again, this is a scandal. At the bottom of it all is a very serious issue, the determined attempt to propagandise the denial of mass war crimes, which is why it's important to waste our time on someone like you, but of course, as we're told so often, at Wikipedia the real world is meaningless. The scandal for Wikipedia is that this serious issue has been raised so many times with no sign of serious thought has been given to dealing with the fundamental problem of how tricksters can manipulate the system time and again. Malagurski has shown himself to be a fraud here on Wikipedia let alone anywhere else. His films are manifestly deceitful. You puff articles about them that exclude all criticism. Wikipedia then promotes your articles. Why do you think it odd that people should feel that something is wrong?Opbeith (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment, per the second paragraf of this section. --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I should I have checked first. At Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/P-Z#U Uzma Gamal isn't even listed as an administrator. If the person deciding has no status of authority and can't be bothered to explain the reasons for the decision, the whole process might just as well be assigned to a random outcome generator. Opbeith (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments