| Revision as of 05:48, 5 May 2013 editStaro Gusle (talk | contribs)173 edits →Comments by other users← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:50, 5 May 2013 edit undoStaro Gusle (talk | contribs)173 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| Point of interest: I was mentioned here by more than one user yet none bothered to inform me that the discussion was taking place. I never had a proper chance to defend myself and all because my supposed alter-ego has involved himself on an article I have not previously touched. So disciplinary is required there. But now I shall take this opportunity to divulge the following: I '''have not watched''' ''Weight of Chains'' therefore am not well placed to comment on what should and should not feature in the article. I do know who Malagurski is however, and I am also familiar with the now rotten and ongoing arguments between pro- and anti-Yugoslavs the world over so I know what to expect, and given Malagurski's tender age and the nature of the cast and plot, I am sure there must be flaws in the movie therefore I '''support''' the inclusion of a sourced criticism paragraph. No way would I have continuously removed it. I am furious that the matter passed and I never contributed, but somebody should have told me. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | Point of interest: I was mentioned here by more than one user yet none bothered to inform me that the discussion was taking place. I never had a proper chance to defend myself and all because my supposed alter-ego has involved himself on an article I have not previously touched. So disciplinary is required there. But now I shall take this opportunity to divulge the following: I '''have not watched''' ''Weight of Chains'' therefore am not well placed to comment on what should and should not feature in the article. I do know who Malagurski is however, and I am also familiar with the now rotten and ongoing arguments between pro- and anti-Yugoslavs the world over so I know what to expect, and given Malagurski's tender age and the nature of the cast and plot, I am sure there must be flaws in the movie therefore I '''support''' the inclusion of a sourced criticism paragraph. No way would I have continuously removed it. I am furious that the matter passed and I never contributed, but somebody should have told me. ] ('''Евлекис''') (]) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Have you read "defending yourself against claims"? It says- 'If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.'. No need to panic now is there! :) ] (]) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | :Have you read "defending yourself against claims"? It says- 'If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.'. No need to panic now is there! :) ] (]) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::FTR, I located this talk because I received notifications that two users mentioned me the past 24 hours. Evlekis and Joy. Nothing further to add. ] (]) 05:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ||
Revision as of 05:50, 5 May 2013
Evlekis
Evlekis (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive.
Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:
04 May 2013
– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Staro Gusle (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.
- Editor interaction utility
This was suspected by User:PRODUCER at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Deleting sourced material the Weight of chains a few days ago, and I told him to write it up here, but they didn't. I wasn't initially convinced, but today I saw this edit. I find it exceedingly unlikely that an actual new user would just so happen to match Evlekis' topic area so diligently. In addition, the username means old gusle, so it sounds somewhat self-deprecating and very much on-topic. Either that's him, or they could be some other old user who's been active in the topic area, or they've wikihounded some of us others around. Or it's an actual newbie whose learning curve is apparently a very steep angle, in which case I'm ready to apologize. I hope a simple checkuser can clear this up. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comment from Evlekis
The appointment of that editor coincides with my topic ban but I vehemently deny any association with the account. Many of the Yugoslav-related pages remain on my watchlist and I am poised and ready to revert by the bucketload where users have messed about while I am out of reach, so nobody is doing my bidding for me (for example, this would have provoked rollback had I been allowed). Furthermore, I am not in total agreement with every edit submitted by Staro Gusle. So to clarify, no that is not me, nor am I acquainted with the account holder. Disbelieve me of you will though I maintain this to be the case. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Please also note that this user has knowledge that I admit I did not know, example. Compare this related edit to what on my part is ignorance, embarrassing too. But if you want a radical inconsistency, check this comment by Staro Gusle which could not remotely be related to me in light of this comment I posted a year ago. We may have edited most of the same pages, I can see this being an editor I can work with without conflict, I have no issues with his editing and I suppose he would be all right with me too, but we are not the same. I might be able to find more proof if the admin dealing with this requests so. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Another: PRODUCER is pleased with himself on thinking he's caught a WP:DUCK. However he is not the disserning editor he believes himself to be. He cites this removal of "Ferizaj", Albanian name for Uroševac by Staro Gusle. Well how about this from March 2012? In it I evidently endorse the Albanian name display in dual form for precisely the fact that the entity of birth was disputed since it was World War II when international order had collapsed. See the link I produced for country of birth. Staro Gusle is even less like me than I first thought. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Point of interest: I was mentioned here by more than one user yet none bothered to inform me that the discussion was taking place. I never had a proper chance to defend myself and all because my supposed alter-ego has involved himself on an article I have not previously touched. So disciplinary is required there. But now I shall take this opportunity to divulge the following: I have not watched Weight of Chains therefore am not well placed to comment on what should and should not feature in the article. I do know who Malagurski is however, and I am also familiar with the now rotten and ongoing arguments between pro- and anti-Yugoslavs the world over so I know what to expect, and given Malagurski's tender age and the nature of the cast and plot, I am sure there must be flaws in the movie therefore I support the inclusion of a sourced criticism paragraph. No way would I have continuously removed it. I am furious that the matter passed and I never contributed, but somebody should have told me. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Have you read "defending yourself against claims"? It says- 'If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.'. No need to panic now is there! :) Staro Gusle (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- FTR, I located this talk because I received notifications that two users mentioned me the past 24 hours. Evlekis and Joy. Nothing further to add. Staro Gusle (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- In terms of a technical match, definitely
Possible and looks 
Likely. WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories: