Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin


Guildenrich

Guildenrich (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date May 2 2010, 06:11 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]

Added IP evidence, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC):[reply]

well-known Guildenrich IPs
likely block-evading Guildenrich IPs
Evidence submitted by User:Athenean
[edit]
  • Guildenrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was an aggressive Albanian nationalist account who was banned in December of 2009 for repeated block evasion through IPs. I believe Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is his latest sockpuppet for a number of reasons.
  • Very similar interests, almost exclusive focus on articles within the scope of both WP:GREECE and WP:SQ (G:[13] [14], SM: [15]), especially Ali Pasha, Souliotes, Arvanites, Fustanella, Greeks in Albania, Corfu Channel Incident.
  • Guildenrich had a propensity to use obscure, hard-to-find sources from the 19th and early 20th century (mostly in Greek) [16] [17] [18], as does Stupidus [19].
  • Guildenrich was apparently bothered by references to Ali Pasha in Aromanian [20], as is Stupidus [21].
  • The clincher is that Guildenrich had a penchant for scanning pages from obscure 19th century Greek books (of which he claimed to have a library full of them) and presenting them in the talkpage as evidence [22], something which Stupidus does also [23]. This is a dead giveaway if you ask me.
Interestingly, the file Zappa.JPG was recently deleted [24]. An attempt to cover one's tracks perhaps? I would be really interested to find out who deleted it and why. Athenean (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing strange there, just a routine deletion because it had been marked as lacking a source since it was uploaded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this has a bearing on the evidence, but in about a few hours, I expect a group of Albanian nationalists to swarm this page, howling with indignation that I dare yet again file an SPI against one of their own, sling as much mud as possible to try and damage my credibility, and generally kick up dust and make noise in an attempt to disrupt this investigation. Athenean (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the group of Albanian nationalists to swarm this page? In a few hours? Do you mean 14 days? Stupidus Maximus (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I dont know Guildenrich, and the greeks want to ban me because they are nationalists. THey tried also to steal our sea, you know, but the decision of our judges was in our favour. I have interests in articles like Greece, and i see that other people are accused also of Guildenrich.Stupidus Maximus (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
  • I find this report compelling. It was of course plain obvious that "Stupidus Maximus" was some kind of revert-warring-only reincarnation, but I lost sight of which of the usual suspects he resembles most. Suggest blocking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but someone should run the ip check tool admins have to be sure, because common interests are too vague a rationale to assume that two accounts have the same identity. His contributions history shows he actually hasn't been disruptive but even written articles like Pjetër Marubi--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that admins do not have an "IP check tool". Only checkusers are able to see which IPs are being used by an account and whether or not it is the same IP as another user. TNXMan 14:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user came to me to ask who is Alexikoua [28] I think he has nothing to do with Guildenrich. In the past Athenean has accused me of being Guildenrich sock too see here. Please run check user. We can't block new users just because they are interested in Albanian related topics. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the behavior is 100% identical with Guildenrich. However, what's really weird is that if he is really Guildenrich then why he didn't hide any of his tracks, making too much noise from his very start here: especially the obsession in using 19th century Greek books and copy-paste of snippets. I believe he is just a new meatpuppet, activated in order to pretend Giuld and creating all this mess. As already stated it wouldn't be the first one that showed up here the last two months.Alexikoua (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User:Stupidus Maximus, just made an disruptive edit changing an article's name that's on main page dyk section [[29]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a disruptive edit, it's rather a good one, although incomplete because the whole article should be changed into Capture of the Këlcyrë Gorge --Sulmues Let's talk 22:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This report still requires action. While I can't take admin action here myself, being involved, from my previous experience with the rapid turnover of short-term POV advocacy accounts within the Sarandioti (talk · contribs) – I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) – Guildenrich (talk · contribs) forcefield and its aftermath during the last few months, I still find it rather evident that this disruptive account is part of that same story, most likely Guildenrich based on Athenean's evidence, and given the amount of previous and ongoing disruption we should not wait for hard-and-fast checkuser proof in this field (these accounts have demonstrated on multiple occasions that they are clever enough to cover their tracks, IP-wise.) What's worse, as most other players in the field have recently been put on strict revert paroles, this account, being ostensibly new and unwarned, is now the only one that is left at large, free to revert and make provocative POV edits virtually unchecked. This is quite unsatisfactory. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser said that he isn't related to anyone, so why should anyone take action of any kind? If he is disruptive in any way possible he will eventually be dealt with the appropriate measures, but asking for measures against him based on empirical data and personal beliefs isn't reasonable. I was the first one to say that he could have been someone else or not but the CU gave no such data. FutureP when other Albanian and Greek users join wikipedia should they also be put on revert paroles just because some users were disruptive and now are under restrictions? Wikipedia isn't a battleground, where each team should have an equal number of players with equal editing rights.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CU didn't see that "he isn't related to anyone", the CU was inconclusive because data on Guildenrich no longer exist. And per WP:SOCK, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity" – when previous socking in a field is already established, standards of proof for subsequent new incarnations automatically get lowered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no way of being sure about his identiy? If that's the case we'll either block a user who has violated policy or a new unrelated user. I don't want a new user to be blocked because of a wrong decision I might make so I think we should wait and judge based on his future actions.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As we wait and judge I've just noticed additional similarities between the two accounts:
  • tendency to change specific words or parts in the lead of Greek-Albanian related articles in a highly povish and naive way, without giving any explanation or initiating discussion (in some occasions using a 19th century or no source):GUI: Ali Pasha [[30]][[31]], Souliotes [[32]] (as a result of this he received a 6 months topic ban[[33]]) STU: Chameria [[34]], Capture of Klisura Pass [[35]], Christakis Zografos [[36]].
  • Creation of articles that already exist: GUI: Suliotes [[37]] (Souliotes already exist), STU: Paulus Angelus [[38]], while there was already an article about him: [[39]].Alexikoua (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating articles that already exist is something that many new users could have done, so that's additional evidence proving he isn't the same person.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, actually there are the 'only' accounts I know so far that did this. It's extremely unlikely to happen to 'many'.Alexikoua (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It' extemely likely to happen to new users and any admin can confirm this.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why so much obsession on defending him by the way?Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua avoid wp:npa comments, I'm not defending or accusing anyone, but I'm trying to keep the process within guidelines meaning that I won't support any unjustified action. I don't know why you're so willing to support the block of a user with whom your only interaction is in disputes.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another evidence that has became clear the last 2 days (off course by saying that evidence is wp:npa is far from reality): Both accounts have the tendency to use enigmatic riddles that can be hardly understood by others:
  • GUI: In Arvanites, several unexplained edits in talk page [[40]], an Arvanitic poem (God knows what he really tried to prove here) and [[41]]. Because he was too enigmatic, I've asked him to explain what he real means with all this, his response was enigmatic too [[42]].
  • STU:Same situation in Christakis Zografos, he has been asked to explain what he really means here [[43]], but again without any result.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua I wasn't commenting your so-called evidence but your comment towards me.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the spi case is still open, it seems that the specific user has a clear goal in hear: this time we a have revert obsession in Chameria [[44]] restoring a wp:not list again and again, although he has been informed by F.P. that this is a wp:not case. For sure the explanation M.Stupidus gave about this wp:spi case represents the level of his contribution here.Alexikoua (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that, apart from S.Maximus, in this meatpuppetry concert, as Future noticed, additional Albanian spas joined in (both revert-only accounts [[45]] and ips [[46]]) and took advantage of the restrictions imposed to the main contributors. Actually they seem to be well aware of this restriction situation, creating disruption and being revert ready in every article possible.Alexikoua (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is any of this related to StMaximus? Kushtrim123 doesn't qualify as revert only account. Also please don't post here your ongoing content disputes with other editors. The fact that you are currently under editing restrictions of 1RR isn't related to this case.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that's your personal opinion. It's a clear case of meatpuppetry and S.Maximus is involved in this as Fut. informed you, but you mysteriously avoid to accept.Alexikoua (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua the main problem of all your statements is that you have no proof about virtually any of them and in fact they sound more like bad faith attempts to invoke restrictions against him(in addition to misinterpreting FutureP's comment). The main issue is that you have done this before and it has been noted by an admin (Not everyone who disagrees with you is a meatpuppet.). For future reference meatpuppets don't add original content or write articles like S.Maximus does(an admin told you that a month ago).--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every Albanian, especially a southern Albanian and in particular a Cham Albanian would be very interested to defend national symbols, such as the fustanella. FPS, Athenean, and Alexikoua, you are here accusing Stupidus Maximus, but he might have nothing to do with Sarandioti or Guildenrich. As far as I Pakapshem is concerned, he is not banned, but will be back on June 3 (his ban was for 6 months): I doubt that he is breaking the ban. I think you are waisting time to block every Albanian user that has interests that are just intertwined with Greek speakers' interests, but you'll have to be blocking/banning all the Albanian users in the future because they'll behave exactly the same way. I appreciated FPS's participation in the Greek-Albanian board btw to have Maximus explain sources and intent, but these SPIs are completely useless. IMO the contributors have nothing to do with one another. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is simply not the case that "all the Albanian users" will behave the same way. This is not about people defending the same POVs (that's something we unfortunately find on all sides); it is about some very specific, very idiosyncratic behaviour patterns. This habit of throwing around bits of pieces from alleged sources from obscure 19th-century Greek publications, and then stubbornly dodging any question about them with trolling non-answers, is something no other Albanian user that I can remember has ever done, except for Guildenrich and Stupidus. Apart from constituting disruptive conduct all in itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not very talkative, but that doesn't mean he's Guildenrich. Let's punish deeds, not intents, and let's not base decisions on suspect. If he is disruptive, he'll dig himself deeper sooner or later and I'm sure he'll be reported. Just my two cents. --Sulmues Let's talk 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also obvious that both of these accounts share the same level of English language, but this 19th or even 18th century bibliography obsession alone is striking. I suggest he should be included in the same kind of restriction imposed to the rest of the main contributors, since it seems he is interested in Greek-Albanian articles.Alexikoua (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece of evidence: both accounts create very similar articles on minor intellectual figures of Albanian history, sharing the tell-tale mistake of using the present tense in the lead sentence. Guildenrich: "Kostandin Nelko Kristoforidhi (1826 - 1895) is an Albanian translator and scholar" [47]; Stupidus: "Gjerasim Qiriazi (1861 — 1894) is a writer, educator, preacher and the founder of the Protestant Church of Albania" [48]. This is an extremely striking similarity, something I'm pretty sure I have never seen any other editor doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look here. Sulmues asked me to do it. I translated it from Fjalori Enciklopedik Shqiptar. [49] Stupidus Maximus (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic discussion moved to Talk:Gjerasim Qiriazi. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPaS, you've got no piece of evidence for this user whatsoever. Gjerasim Qiriazi, what you call minor figure is the founder of the first school of Albania in 1887 and also the founder of the Albanian Protestant Church. The use of Present Tense is typical in Albanian encyclopedia, and some Albanian and non-Albanian users make that mistake very often in English. I have particularly noticed that in the Italian Wikipedia. Rather than going after Maximus, who has been writing article after article recently, you should help us with your knowledge in the Balkan areas and particularly in the Greece-Albanian topics, no need to help for the Qiriazi family. --Sulmues Let's talk 12:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would grant you the point if you could show me other examples of people making this tense mistake on Albanian articles here on en-wiki, other than Guildenrich and Stupidus. I have seen lots of strange things, but I'm rather certain I've never seen this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted some of my own edits and found this, which is evidence that I too have made that mistake. Jakov Xoxa was dead in 1979 and I made my edit saying is an Albanian writer rather than was an Albanian writer. In addition today I was reading the history of the Protestant Church in Albania and happened to notice how the Albanians translate from Albanian into English maintaining Present Tense [50]. So this is not a peculiarity of Guildenrich or Stupidus, but of all of those foreign speakers who do not speak well English and have interferences from their proper language. At school we learned how present may be used to describe events happened in the past. It is allowed in Albanian language. Same is in Italian. I think I made that mistake quite often actually until I learned. Writing on Wikipedia requires certain skills and if you have not submitted papers in English schools, you will make those mistakes. I learned and Maximus will learn too. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence presented by Athenean
[edit]
  • With regards to my earlier evidence about the propensity towards juvenile trolling by both Guildenrich and Stupidus, compare this: [51] [52]. This is so brazen, it's as if the guy is thumbing his nose at the community and daring it to do something about it.
  • An abiding lionization of Ali Pasha, with a strong willingness to edit-war over it: Guildenrich [53] [54] Stupidus [55] [56]
  • Claim that Theodore of Shkodra is a hoax: Guildenrich [57], Stupidus [58].
  • In addition, I also noticed that Stupidus shows great familiarity with wikipedia, even from day 1. Creates an article almost right away [59], adds images [60], knows how to properly add references [61] [62], and knows about the importance of sourcing [63]. All this, in the first few days of joining wikipedia.
  • His nickname is similar to one of his favorite articles, Maximus the Greek [64].
Response to new evidence by Stupidus Maximus
[edit]
  1. I dont understand, what is your point? Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This doesnt mean i am Guildenrich. It means I am originally from Tepelena. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. i have on the watchlist User:ZjarriRrethues. I saw this [65] I was curios and then I read this [66] and told Zjarri [67]Stupidus Maximus (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia is nothing hard, I am an albanian blogger in blogspot.com and wordpress.com. Codes are easy, no problem. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to new evidence by user:Sulmues
[edit]
  • Juvenile Trolling: There are a lot of people in Wikipedia that have juvenile trolling and that's what they want to put in the talk page. You are accusing both Guildenrich and Stupidus to be young.
  • Ali Pasha: Guildenrich would put references about the book Lion of Janina from Davenport, whereas Stupidus is talking about his phyisical characteristics, using another reference from Fleming. Completely unrelated.
  • Theodor of Shkodra: That is well known hoax from many Albanians because we were very anxious to know about this book that would predate the Meshari of Gjon Buzuku. Every learned Albanian knows that.
  • Fast learner? I would love to have such Wikipedians. They are fast learners and don't spend time browsing but start contributing. It's no big deal: you see a couple of similar articles and you do the same. That's the basic concept of Wikipedia. My first edit was a new article.
  • Maximus connection: Stupidus Maximus is a funny and self-ironic nick name and if Guildenrich made edits on Maximus the Greek, I can't see how you may show evidence that Stupidus Maximus is related to Guildenrich.

These four users (user:Dodona, user:Sarandioti, user:Alarichus, and user:Guildenrich) have had long disputes with user:Athenean in the past, because of their different opinion on Greek-Albanians topics. All of them have been reported and banned from Wikipedia. It seems like there is a tendency to report every new Albanian user only because their edits are in the same articles of the four aforementioned banned users. I don't think it is fair: this is harassment and biting the newcomers. Look at these massive reports filed only on suspected ducks of user:Sarandioti (I was a suspected one and was very hurt by that bad report). It seems like user:Athenean wants to prevent every single Albanian to edit on Greek-Albanian articles. It's disappointing. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sulmues
[edit]
  • There are indeed lots of juvenile trolls on wikipedia, but Guildenrich's trolling comments on Talk:Nektarios Terpos are practically identical to Stupidus' trolling on his own userpage. Weird, huh?
  • So the fact that they use different references proves they are different users? How inane. The point is, both accounts sing praises to Ali Pasha. I have yet to see another user so worshipful and obsessed with praising Ali Pasha.
  • No one else to my knowledge has claimed on this encyclopedia that Theodore of Shkoder is a hoax. In fact, ZjarriRrethues seemed to think he was genuine [68].
  • Uncanny familiarity with wikipedia right away is one of the sure-fire signs of a sock. See WP:SOCK. You yourself have been editing for almost two years, yet as your above comments show, you still have a lot to learn (see below).

*Your last point makes absolutely no sense.

Your mud-slinging is as disruptive as it is inane. Dodona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was an incredibly disruptive user who pushed fringe theories and got what he deserved, after being given numerous "second chances". I had nothing to do with his banning, either. Sarandioti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was another incredibly disruptive user suffering from a severe case of WP:BATTLE, who eventually got banned because he created socks to avoid the blocks he accrued [69]. The link you provide above to a "massive report" is to a valid SPI on Alarichus/Sarandioti. He socked, he got caught, he socked again, he got caught again, he got indefed, simple as that. Somehow it is my bad for reporting him? It's as if you seem to think users who sock are not responsible for their actions and that it is the users who report them who are at fault. As for Guildenrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), he got topic-banned for disruption on Souliotes, got blocked for evading his topic ban, then got indefed for block evasion through IPs. They all got what they deserved, and got it from impartial admins, not me. To suggest that I banned them shows you have no clue how this site works even after all these years, and that you are trying to kick up dust, throw mud, and make as much noise as possible in the hope of disrupting these proceedings, just like I predicted you would [70]. Stupidus Maximus is clearly a sock of Guildenrich, and it more than passes WP:DUCK. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Athenean
[edit]
No they are not identical. This is your opinion. And i thank you for this. You should say According to my opinion, trolling comments on Talk:Nektarios Terpos are practically etj.Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the checkuser will say for S.M. now that FPaS brought new evidence. I was referring to this and this other one, which you could have seen if you had scrolled to the bottom of the link I provided. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aditional evidence submitted by Alexikoua
[edit]

I've noticed that Guildenrich, although blocked from December 09, he was still patrolling various articles he edited, like this. This ip [[71]], obviously one of Guildenrich's, it's quite interesting that he made a revert in Maximus the Greek ‎on April 10. S. Maximus acount was created 9 days after [[72]].Alexikoua (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree the 79.106.1.245 is most certainly Guildenrich, given the fact it edited G.'s user page, reverted on one of his favourite articles, and pasted an image previously uploaded to Commons by G. [73]. If that was him, then 80.78.78.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was very likely also him (same ISP, also reverting to G.'s articles.) Under these circumstances, it might be worth having a second CU run, since the IPs are stable and the first CU failed just because G. himself was stale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more info about known past IPs of Guildenrich at the top. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a few more. This explains a lot of the IP disruption we saw from the 79.106 range in February and March and which has mostly ceased since the creation of the Stupidus account. It all makes sense now. Athenean (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean, 79.106 is Albania's primary range and is used by about 70% of internet users of Albania, so you can't just assume that all 79.106 are in fact one user(in fact if all editors editing from Albania were CU-ed many of them would probably have a 79.106). As an example check this list [74]. Any user editing from Albania can verify this. The CU will give its results eventually. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And 70% of internet users in Albania edit User:Guildenrich or perform reverts identical to him? I know you are trying to defend your homie by any means necessary, but you don't need to embarass yourself. Athenean (talk) 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The IPs labeled as possible socks haven't made edits to his userpage so based on what are you relating them to him? The IP range isn't a good enough reason because that's Albania's primary range.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More new evidence presented by Athenean
[edit]

This is getting more and more interesting. Today Stupidus made some totally weird comments about not being able to view a page's history [75] [76] as if it had been redacted by oversight (which it wasn't). These claims are identical to some totally bizarro statements by Guildenrich shortly before his demise that "someone is doctoring the page history" [77] [78]. I have never seen anyone else ever make such whacky surreal comments about a page's history in the three years I have been editing wikipedia. This is quacking louder and louder. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how related these two edits are, but they're definitely not a wp:duck, so I'll wait for the CU.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Athenean acused me to delete something here [79]. If you have never seen anyone else ever make such whacky surreal comments about a page's history in the three years you have been editing wikipedia, you should look more and more to find it. You have not done a good job. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys please avoid this wp:npa vio campaign. A wp:spi case doesn't mean that we have to launch an accusation concert: several administrators confirm this wp:duck activity and the cu proccess will continue. Anything else has just no sense at all.Alexikoua (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If admins confirmed a wp:duck activity there wouldn't be a CU endorsement and as Shirik (talk · contribs) put it

I feel the evidence is sufficient to warrant a checkuser, but right now I'm not comfortable calling this a WP:DUCK case. And even after the new so-called data again it was endorsed for CU and not as duck case.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you still have yet to master the secret art of the indent (":"). On another note, the comments you are parroting were made long before a lot of critical new evidence was presented. Whether or not you think this is a WP:DUCK case is also irrelevant. Btw, did you edit as this open proxy-based account before [80]? I mean, it's uncanny [81], to say the least. Athenean (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving my accuracy. It seems that you have been using the same comments and users again have been saying that 79.106 is used by many people living in Albania. Quoting myself: Any user in Albania can verify this. I guess they have done it before and you still insist on using that as evidence. Although he is partially wrong because all net providers in Albania have 79.106 IPs not just a particular one. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's wrong (all net providers in Albania?), for example we have 80.78: [[82]][[83]], 95.107 [[84]], 217.24 ([[85]]. In fact many net providers in Albania use diferrent ip range and this is obvious.Alexikoua (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that they have just 79.106 but that they all have 79.106 in addition to other IPs.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All Albanian users share the same interests (because all Albanian users are from southern Albania, northern Albanians do not exist apparently), all Albanian users have the same IP range, all Albanian users know about Theodor of Shkodra, all Albanian users defend the same suspected sockpuppeteers using the same exact arguments... Or maybe there is a simpler explanation: That we are dealing with the same users, the group of 3-4 Albanian nationalists that have been plaguing this encyclopedia for over a year now (Sarandioti, I Pakapshem, Jurgenalbanian, Guildenrich, etc...). Athenean (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your rationale, I just prefer to wait for the CU and apparently he doesn't have to be from southern Albania to be interested in Albanian history.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But only southern Albanian history. He apparently couldn't care any less about the history of the northern half of albania. It's also real interesting that you are so keen on the CU, as you have been throughout these proceedings. Is there something you know that we don't? Athenean (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer following the policy by assuming good faith, which so far has been the most reasonable approach. I don't like assuming the worst scenario for users that have been creative, because he has created many articles like Pjetër Marubi, who isn't related with southern but northern Albania. I guess you haven't been careful enough when looking for evidence.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we have a strange definition of creativity. Suppose Guildenrich was creative too accorting to the same approach [[86]] (Gjon_Muzaka).Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I have been quite assiduous, as reflected by the comments of non-Albanian editors. Creating articles about minor Albanian figures was one of the hallmarks of Guildenrich. As for AGF, I wouldn't talk if I were you [87]. Like I said, you need not embarass yourself or have to have the last word, but far be it from me to prevent you. Athenean (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the link Alexikoua provided they're not minor at all in Albanian history. Half's of MkD edits are reverts of Kushtrim123's edits so there is a certain statistical(and obvious) conclusion. So I'll wait for the CU if it's him he'll be blocked, if it's not he won't.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for this encyclopedia, it is not up to you to decide what happens (contrary to what you seem to think), so "wait" all you want, no one cares. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

80.78: [[88]][[89]], 95.107 [[90]], 217.24 ([[91]]? I think many Albanian emigrants are in Greece or Italy. This dont mean they are in Albania actually. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. So we can't have a CU? Can some administrator then please at least process this on behavioral criteria? Dang, I know it's a chaotic report, but to me as an insider to the field the DUCK quality has become so obvious, the longer I have watched this account, I can only say please please block him already. If Stupidus is not Guildenrich, I'm sure I've never seen a newb account that has so perfectly taken over the precise ecological niche of a banned user as this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More Evidence...
[edit]
  • Both accounts have the tendency to copy-paste material & creating copy-vio issues:

GUI:[[92]] Creating the article 'The Albanian in Medieval Epirus' S. Maximus:[[93]][[94]]

Please give source of materials i copy-pasted. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC) No need, the administrators have already explained you as the diffs prove.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guildenrich was the only Albanian user that mentioned the Massacre of Kodra (or Hormova) (the article was created recently at 23 May), an alleged massacre against Albanians, the event was described in his userpage... [[95]], (Dutch Gendarmerie Officers' Report on the Grare Massacre (2.IV.1914) in Radonin, Hozek, Qinan; :Int. Control Commision's Reports (to respective Govs.) on the Massacre of 217 women and children in Hormova ordered by the Greek Army captain, Sakellaris. (May 1914)) and also supported the creation of an article about massacres against Albanians (mentions -first- Kodra again):[[96]]

St.M.: From May 23, when the article Massacre of Kodra was created and listed for afd, he is very active on creating disruption in the procedure, trying to misinform with 'snippet tricks' [[97]], in order to keep the article.

What's really astonishing is that both accounts used the 'exact' source to support that this event happened: Godard, Justin: L'Albanie en 1921. Paris 1922. Guild.:[[98]] St.M.:[[99]][[100]]. This 'massacre of Korda' obsession leaves no doubts the these two are the same person.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google books on: massacred+Hormovo, Godard is in the first or second page. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[101]] no Godard on both pages... Even if there was the argument is pathetic. Alexikoua (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[102] Mr. Godard dont care what you think of his book.Stupidus Maximus (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence summary
[edit]

Because the report has become chaotic and hard to follow, I am organising all the evidence below.

  • Guildenrich had a propensity to use obscure, hard-to-find sources from the 19th and early 20th century (mostly in Greek) [105] [106] [107], as does Stupidus [108].
  • Guildenrich was apparently bothered by references to Ali Pasha in Aromanian [109], as is Stupidus [110].
  • The clincher is that Guildenrich had a penchant for scanning pages from obscure 19th century Greek books (of which he claimed to have a library full of them) and presenting them in the talkpage as evidence [111], something which Stupidus does also [112]. This is a dead giveaway if you ask me.
  • Same level of English (i.e. bad), lots of typos.


  • Tendency to change specific words or parts in the lead of Greek-Albanian related articles in a highly povish and naive way, without giving any explanation or initiating discussion (in some occasions using a 19th century or no source):GUI: Ali Pasha [117] [118], Souliotes [119] (as a result of this he received a 6 months topic ban [120]) STU: Chameria [121], Capture of Klisura Pass [122], Christakis Zografos [123].
  • Creation of articles that already exist: GUI: Suliotes [124] (Souliotes already exist), STU: Paulus Angelus [125], while there was already an article about him: [126].
  • Both accounts have the tendency to use enigmatic riddles that can be hardly understood by others: Regarding Guildenrich, in Arvanites, several unexplained edits in talk page [127], an Arvanitic poem (God knows what he really tried to prove here) and [128]. Because he was too enigmatic, I've asked him to explain what he real means with all this, his response was enigmatic too [129]. With Stupidus, same situation in Christakis Zografos, he has been asked to explain what he really means here [130], but again without any result.


  • Both accounts create very similar articles on minor intellectual figures of Albanian history, sharing the tell-tale mistake of using the present tense in the lead sentence. Guildenrich: "Kostandin Nelko Kristoforidhi (1826 - 1895) is an Albanian translator and scholar" [131]; Stupidus: "Gjerasim Qiriazi (1861 — 1894) is a writer, educator, preacher and the founder of the Protestant Church of Albania" [132]. This is an extremely striking similarity, something I'm pretty sure I have never seen any other editor doing.


  • With regards to my earlier evidence about the propensity towards juvenile trolling by both Guildenrich and Stupidus, compare this: [133] [134]. This is so brazen, it's as if the guy is thumbing his nose at the community and daring it to do something about it.
  • An abiding lionization of Ali Pasha, with a strong willingness to edit-war over it: Guildenrich [135] [136] Stupidus [137] [138]
  • Claim that Theodore of Shkodra is a hoax: Guildenrich [139], Stupidus [140].
  • In addition, I also noticed that Stupidus shows great familiarity with wikipedia, even from day 1. Creates an article almost right away [141], adds images [142], knows how to properly add references [143] [144], and knows about the importance of sourcing [145]. All this, in the first few days of joining wikipedia.


  • Stupidus made some totally weird comments about not being able to view a page's history [146] [147] as if it had been redacted by oversight (which it wasn't). These claims are identical to some totally bizarro statements by Guildenrich shortly before his demise that "someone is doctoring the page history" [148] [149]. I have never seen anyone else ever make such whacky surreal comments about a page's history in the three years I have been editing wikipedia.
  • I've noticed that Guildenrich, although blocked from December 09, he was still patrolling various articles he edited, like this. This ip [150], obviously one of Guildenrich's, it's quite interesting that he made a revert in Maximus the Greek ‎on April 10. S. Maximus acount was created 9 days after [151].
  • Both accounts have the tendency to copy-paste material & creating copy-vio issues: GUILD:[152], creating the article 'The Albanian in Medieval Epirus'. S. Maximus: [153][154]
  • Guildenrich is the only Albanian user that has mentioned the Massacre of Kodra (or Hormova) (the article was created recently at 23 May), an alleged massacre against Albanians, the event was described in his userpage... [155], (Dutch Gendarmerie Officers' Report on the Grare Massacre (2.IV.1914) in Radonin, Hozek, Qinan; :Int. Control Commision's Reports (to respective Govs.) on the Massacre of 217 women and children in Hormova ordered by the Greek Army captain, Sakellaris. (May 1914)) and also supported the creation of an article about massacres against Albanians (mentions -first- Kodra again):[156] St.M.: From May 23, when the article Massacre of Kodra was created and listed for afd, he is very active on creating disruption in the procedure, trying to misinform with 'snippet tricks' [[157], in order to keep the article.
  • What's really astonishing is that both accounts used the 'exact' source to support that this event happened: Godard, Justin: L'Albanie en 1921. Paris 1922. Guild.:[158] St.M.:[159] [160]. This 'massacre of Korda' obsession leaves no doubts the these two are the same person.

To sum up, when we add the strong behavioral evidence to the findings of the second CU that Guildenrich and Stupidus edited from the same internet cafe, I find the likelihood that we are dealing with two different people extremely small. Guildenrich was banned because after he got topic-banned from Souliotes, he broke the topic ban using socks, got blocked, then evaded the block using more socks. As the activity of the IPs shows, he never really stopped socking to this day. This is not someone who plays by the rules or who is a quitter. Considering this and the fact that we have seen innumerable socks from banned Albanian users (e.g. Sarandioti (talk · contribs), Dodona (talk · contribs), etc...), this lowers the required standard of proof even more. That this report has dragged on so long is astonishing, especially considering Stupidus is being extremely disruptive as we speak. Athenean (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Athenean (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed The evidence shows significant similarities, but I also see notable differences between the two editors, primarily in edit summaries. I feel the evidence is sufficient to warrant a checkuser, but right now I'm not comfortable calling this a WP:DUCK case. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing useful from checkuser (and of course Guildenreich is stale.) --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC), based on new data as explained above in #Aditional evidence submitted by Alexikoua [reply]

 Clerk endorsed These users seem to be on to something here, and the new evidence seems convincing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the only thing a checkuser query could accomplish, assuming that the report is correct, would be to positively connect someone with their IP address when they have not done so themselves. I really don't think I can do this. J.delanoygabsadds 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk declined, per J.delanoy. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-looking at the original case, I think it is probably  Possible that Guildenrich could be the same person as Stupidus Maximus. They both edited from the same internet cafe (static IP) at one point, and to me, it seems somewhat unlikely, but not impossible for two separate people to do this. Also, SM's primary range is a /25, and looking at the logs, it is the same range that Guildenrich used. Still, this is far from conclusive, since even though it is a small range, there are a lot of users on it. J.delanoygabsadds 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Athenean, for the summary. Reviewing the evidence in light of the CU results, I think the best explanation here is that G and SM are the same person. Accordingly, I have blocked SM indefinitely as a sock. The delay is likely due to the fact that this case has entered tl;dr territory a long, long time ago. Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
19 June 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]
Evidence submitted by Fut.Perf.
[edit]

KengaJone appeared with very obvious prior WP experience (e.g. creating an elaborate user page and a user subpage with a technically perfect article draft in their first edits). He continued edits following the same POV agenda as banned user Guildenrich and his latest blocked sock, Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs). In his initial edits he implied he had previously edited on the Albanian Wikipedia, and on being challenged, named a sq-wiki account as being him [161]. On being confronted with various reasons why this identity is implausible (among other things, the sq-wiki editor was known to know hardly any English, unlike KengaJone, whose English is quite advanced), KengaJone stopped editing. The original sq-wiki account (which has been inactive for a year) did not react to an enquiry asking him to confirm the identity. We must therefore assume KengaJone has impersonated that editor in order to create a fake impression of respectability here. While it may not be possible to nail the sockmaster, it seems pretty clear he is a sock of someone. KengaJone was created a few weeks before Stupidus Maximus, became gradually inactive as Stupidus Maximus took over, and then suddenly appeared again (18 May) shortly after Stupidus was blocked (16 May). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
29 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Alexikoua
[edit]

Guildenrich (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was an aggressive Albanian nationalist account who was banned in December of 2009 for repeated block evasion through IPs. He continued edits following the same POV as Stupidus Maximus (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who finally received a sock ban. His latest confirmed sockaccount was KengaJone (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), that was blocked on 15 July.

  1. Interest in Greek-Albanian topics and precisely in articles that there is an ongoing dispute. His very first edit [[162]]: cought the attention of another user that sent him this message [[163]]: obviously believing that he is a reincarnation of an older account.
  2. Use of outdated reference: dating from 19th to early 20th century, especially in Greek: GUI: [[164]][[165]][[166]], ST: [[167]], and also BE: [[168]])
  3. Both accounts have a propensity for juvenile trolling, especially against me (GUI:[[169]],[[170]], STUP: [[171]], BE: [[172]] (he showed up in an wp:ae filled against me, his arguments were considered as ‘nonsense’ by other users: [[173]] & also [[174]] trying to accuse me without results [[175]]).
  4. Beserks shows great familiarity with wikipedia, even from the first edit: Creates an article almost right away [176] which is properly referenced.
  5. Excessive WP:OWN, something that got him blocked in Qeparo [[177]], similar strategy followed in Ksamil, Himara, Autonomous Republic of Northern Epirus.
  6. Using 'riddles' that nobody can understand: GUI: In Arvanites, several unexplained edits in talk page [[178]], an Arvanitic poem and [[179]]. I've asked him to explain what he real means, his response was enigmatic too [[180]], STU: Christakis Zografos, he has been asked to explain what he really means here [[181]], but again without any result. BE: [[182]] trying to accuse me of something, but no wonder User:Ioeth couldn’t understand what this means: [[183]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Alexikoua (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Obsession to change specific words or parts in the lead of Greek-Albanian related articles in a highly povish and naive way:GUI:[[184]][[185]], BE:[[186]]
  8. Close tag-teaming with user:Zjarritheroues: Stupidus Maximus: [[187]] (both users tried to change nationality to Albanian or claiming that Greek nationality is -dubious- [[188]][[189]]), Beserks: ([[190]] support on eachothers version).
  9. Guildenrich had a penchant for scanning pages from various books and presenting them in the talkpage as evidence: GUI:[[191]], ST.:[[192]]. Obvisouly here Beserks in a more 'inteligent way' (since this was a striking fact that got him sock-banned in past) pretents that he can't upload the scanned picture himself and asks for help on how to upload a picture and present it as evidence in talkpage [[193]]
  10. Obsession in disrupting my dyk nominations ST: [[194]] (manipulation of the lead sentence while the article was on main page dyk section), BE: [[195]] trying to use the usual nationalistic nonsense for the same reason in the dyk proposal.

What's realy worthy to add is that the same kind of evidence was also mentioned in the previous report (against Stupidus Maximus), something that lead (together with a 'possible' cu evidence) him sockbanned.

I have also to note that the past spi against Stupidus Maximus was open more than a month because of disruption created by Users: Zjarritoues and Sulmues, becoming that way Wikipedia:TLDR.Alexikoua (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Evidence
  1. against the use of the term 'billingual' in lead of Himare: ST: [[196]], something he changed here (without an explanation) BE: [[197]]. Something that's also striking is that he uses the same 'wrong' spelling of the village 'Ilias' in southern Albania. While the official name is Ilias ([[198]] according to the official site of the municipality) he prefers to spell it Iljas ST: [[199]], BE: created an article about the village [[200]] and [[201]] (contrary to the official name, used as a ref. a travel guide). What's also striking he uses latin numericals for the centuries: ST: [[202]], BE: [[203]][[204]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Following the advice on "Defending yourself against claims", I am not taking the accusations too personally. I have not abused accounts (and I do understand what that means) and I certainly have not breached policy regarding meat-puppetry. I am also accused of using 19-20 century old sources exclusively on Qeparo, sources I first found on Natasha Sotiri's book. I just request more clarification on the check-user process. Also, putting the verify tag, here [205] and then accusing me for trying to post scanned materials [206]... well, I don't know what to say. Beserks (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]
Comment by user:Sulmues
I didn't want to intervene here, but Alexikoua couldn't help but accuse me of disruption, although I am not the party in question, so I feel that I must say that I have been very much annoyed by the following two false accusations:
  1. User:Alexikoua has falsely accused am of being the sock of user:Sarandioti (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Report_date_September_13_2009.2C_04:52_.28UTC.29_2);
  2. User:Athenean has accused me of being the sock of Guildenrich. User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich

These two accusations have really disrupted my enjoyment of Wikipedia. Just run a checkuser and you'll see whether Beserks has anything to do with Guildenrich. The other accusations are useless. All the Albanians have the same interest in Albanian topics, it's more than natural, but it seems like they all have to go through the SPIs filed by our dear Greek neighbors. Is that probably why we have so few editors in Albanian topics, because they have to go through the same investigations? --Sulmues (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add something else and I am very serious about this. I was reviewing the accusation that Athenean made in his comment on how I would have been Sarandioti's sock or his meatpuppet, because before Decemeber 2009 I was interested in soccer topics (exclusively and sparsely), and after that I started to edit in Greek-Albanian topics (intensively and heavily). The reason why that happened to me is that I thought then that the Greek editors at that time had baited, reported, and gotten banned every Albanian user (with a couple of exceptions), so I felt like I had to give my contributions in protecting articles that were at the mercy of non-Albanian users. I also assisted ZjarriRrethues and Kedadi revive wp:WikiProject Albania, by having it go independent (of course we were the last WikiProject Country of Europe to go independent, because we were so few). With this behavior of reporting every single Albanian that contributes in Greek-Albanian topics, Athenean and Alexikoua are simply preventing the Albanians from editing their own topics, which is disruptive. I really wish they could focus more on collaboration and content provisions rather than on reports. --Sulmues (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the comments of Athenean below: The old Christian figures venerated by the Albanians are covered very well by Robert Elsie, who is a good source in English and all the Albanians are interested in them, besides it is easy to bring them to the English project because Elsie is accepted as a reliable source, in addition they are part of the Albanian culture. On the other hand, how Nectarios Terpos, a 18th century scholar, has to have anything to do with 2nd century saints, is really beyond me. I have edited in almost all of those articles btw. Furthermore Albania is a small country and it's normal that an erudite editor, such as Beserks seems to me, be interested in such figures. Besides, he brought to Wikipedia, a character who is completely unknown such as Salomon Goldstein, who eventually was a successful DYK co-nom. I doubt that any of us had any clue about Goldstein and his role in the history of Albania, Bulgaria, or Switzerland for that matter. I pray to God that we may have contributors such as Beserks every day, because these are the people who truly enrich this project. They bring obscure topics and make them available to everybody. This is exactly what Wikipedia needs and Beserks needs to be helped and encouraged in his endeavors, not bullied and harassed. Another thing: Guildenrich was very arrogant, whereas Beserks is really responsible and collaborative in comparison. Besides wasn't Stupidus Maximus sock of Guildenrich? I find Beserks very fluent in English as compared to each one of the prior (although I must admit that I was never convinced that SM was a sock of Guildenrich) --Sulmues (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by User:Athenean

I find the similarity between the two accounts quite striking. I too am convinced this is a sock of Guildenrich. Specifically:

  • The reliance on old sources (100 years and more) is the most striking similarity: In all my years on wiki, I have never seen a user so insistent on using heavily outadted, obscure sources as Guildenrich [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212], no doubt because he has a whole library of them according to him [213]. Beserks shares this propensity to an astonishing extent [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] (from the 16th century no less!) [220]) [221] [222] [223].
  • An interest in obscure Christian figures: Beserks: [224] [225] [226]. Guild: [227] [228] [229]. Albanian cuisine too: B[230] G:[231]. This goes beyond the "all Albanian editors shame the same interests" mantra.
  • A really annoying habit of following me around and reverting me using bland edit-summaries apparently only to get on my nerves: Beserks: [239] (admonishing me to "reach a consensus" while all he does is revert). Guild: [240] reverting a perfectly good copyedit of mine for no other reason and then mocking me on top of it: ).
  • Fondness of using Roman numerals to denote centuries, which no one else does: SM:[256] B:[257].
  • Beserks also does not reveal any info about himself, his very first edit was in what was then an ongoing dispute between Greek and Albanian editors, uses edit-summaries from the get-go, all tell-tale signs described in WP:SOCK.

Because the last SPI involving this user degenerated into a circus, I ask that users limit themselves to a single statement and that any disruption of these proceedings (e.g. adding indented comments to other users statements) be treated with the utmost severity. I regretfully note that at least one participant has used these proceedings as a platform to attack editors of a prticular nationality, rather than comment on the evidence of this case. Athenean (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZjarriRrethues

At first I thought that Berserks could have been an old user, but after these months I don't think that he is an old user. The so-called evidence is weak and similar edits can be attributed to many Albanian users. Both Athenean and Alexikoua edit frequently Albanian related articles, so they shouldn't consider it as evidence that an Albanian editor reverts their edits. Most Albanian editors more or less edit similar pages, so that can't be used as evidence. If there's no CU evidence then this should be closed. Btw many of Alexikoua's arguments are irrelevant with each other like the diffs of 7, while others are very common like using outdated sources, which Alexikoua has done too.

  • The new arguments of Alexikoua are weak since now he's using as evidence the fact that Albanian users edit Albanian-related articles and tend to agree with each other, but on both articles Alexikoua provided as evidence almost all Albanian editors have been involved [258][259] adding the Albanian name of the person or Albanian toponyms, while on ARNE [260] yet another Albanian editor seems to agree with other Albanian editors. The argument that both users scan pages is also weak because if a user has an offline source when verification is asked, then he'll probably decide to scan the page like I've suggested for myself in similar cases [261]. Please don't use weak arguments in a serious issue like sockpuppetry. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Fut.Perf.

Just in case I didn't make this clear earlier, I too find this sock case compelling, like several before. We've all come to recognize this user's personality and style, through all his sock reincarnations. I would strongly urge a block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - The last confirmed sock edit was back in June which makes this  Stale for checkuser purposes. CU data is only held for three months, so there is no way that a CU could confirm or deny weather this user is the puppet. If there is another account it needs to compare to, then we can check between those accounts, but the rest is up to admins. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some of the CUs might have relevant data stored somewhere – I seem to remember I talked to one of them (J.Delanoy?) back during the latest case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, CUs are not supposed to retain copies of the Checkuser results. The privacy policy does not allow for this. "This Privacy Policy, together with other policies, resolutions, and actions by the Foundation, represents a committed effort to safeguard the security of the limited user information that is collected and retained on our servers." Also the on-wiki interface does not store the info. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what CUs have told me, I am pretty certain they have always individually kept key information about known long-term sockpuppeters around for later cases. Socks of prolific puppeters have been checked against their known IPs even years after the master account went inactive. And, fortunately, there is in fact nothing in the policy that prohibits this; I just checked. (And it would be pretty dumb if there was.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My appologies, I forgot that the logs contain some limited information and they are kept indefinitly, sorry about that. -- DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can say is  Possible. I would certainly welcome a second opinion from another checkuser, but the data from the logs is limited and I can't draw any unambiguous conclusions. TNXMan 17:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Guildenrich/Archive

Leave a Reply