Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:10, 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:

• Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive/1

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Evlekis

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)

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)

Comment from Staro Gusle

1. @ Evlekis. 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)
2. @WillianH. 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)
3. @Joy. Very well observed, my user name is "on-topic". Why, did you think I am trying to conceal coming from ex-Yugoslavia? Staro Gusle (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To admins and assessors from Evlekis.

Dear all, I accept that "likely" stops short of "definite" though there is a way I can prove there are two human beings involved, provided Staro Gusle continue his daily editing in like manner to what we have witnessed since his inception. At the moment, if Producer's observation is correct then the two of us edit from Britain, then take notice that on Wednesday 8 May 2013 I am scheduled to fly to Belgrade as I shall be in the area for a few days. During that time I have no intention of editing since I focus on Balkan subjects and I cannot touch most. Upon arrival, I shall send an IP note here, then I shall log in to confirm the authentication of the IP, all within the minute. With hope, Staro Gusle will be editing from a British address and then the idea that this is not one and the same person will be unequivocal. Is that fair? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can log in and leave a message from at least three different US cities without using an open proxy today from the comfort of my home, so from a technical perspective, it can't prove innocence. Proxies and VPN make doing this trivial, as would simply giving a distant family member or friend my login information and having them post for me. Not saying you would do this, I'm just saying it is very easy to do, so it isn't likely to convince anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course I wouldn't do it Dennis! If I'd wanted to get a friend to log in for me then I wouldn't have had to wait until the day I fly, I could just do it now. To William, I don't claim to be innocent, only a small child can be innocent, where you're concerned I am not guilty and I'll still be not guilty if I get the block, and even ten years from now I'll be not guilty then. Well I suppose if it's possible with proxies and computer magic to operate from a Norwegian IP whilst in Samoa then we have no evidence that Staro Gusle or I for that matter are geographically close-by - let alone the absurd and disturbed suggestion despite my evidence of different nature as people that we are the SAME person. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:10, 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)

Evlekis has posted a note on my talk page, categorically denying any association along the lines of the above messages. I stand by my original technical assessment - that from the technical side of things, these two accounts are most likely operated by the same individual - and I'm happy for another CheckUser to review my work. Marking as relisted. WilliamH (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Looked over this at WilliamH's request. I'd call this  Likely. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I too would call this  Possible bordering on  Likely. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: to admins and assessors — this will not be considered. CheckUser is never used to prove innocence, because it cannot prove a negative. WilliamH (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases CU complete