Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:55, 5 May 2018

Iaaasi

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

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

A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi.

04 May 2018

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Iovaniorgovan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cealicuca (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Copy/paste from WP:ANI:

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

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCK and WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by other users

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

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

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

1. I am a "newb" in what Misplaced Pages editing means.

2. When I first posted I did not intent to be dragged into a debate. Nevertheless it did happen.

3. I did post without creating a user (which I admit was a mistake). Nevertheless I am confident any reasonable person could clearly see that all the posts were made by the same person, following the natural flow of the discussion, without any hint of actually hiding the fact or making it seem like there are several people involved. There was never any intention of Sockpuppet or otherwise creating a false impression that there were several people responding to the thread. I sincerely believe that this is clearly reflected by the content itself.

4. When Iovaniorgovan brought it to my attention I tried to rectify my mistake (see point 3) ASAP - as such I have edited the debate and signed ALL the posts (in case I missed one I will gladly take responsibility for it and sign it).

5. I do not have another wiki account but this one that I have created as a result of point 3 + 4.

6. On a more subjective note - I find this discouraging. I actually tried to rectify this mistake in a transparent and honest way, and as a result of that this happens. I thought editors were supposed to "guide newbs"... but anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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

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

There we go - Iovaniorgovan said:

"I agree. And you can clearly see the double standard applied between the Origin of the Romanians page and the Origin of the Hungarians page. Where's the consistency? Even though I also see Tgeorgescu's points, in some ways, it's just a matter of emphasis. As is, equal weight is given to both theories, which is not fair by any standards of proof. On a side note, you might want to sign your comments here because Tgeorgescu reported me for "At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan," etc. In other words Tgeorgescu appears to lump together everyone who contests the "immigrationist" hypothesis or his way of handling the page content and is trying hard to get us blocked. Nice guy otherwise.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

to which I respond:

@Iovaniorgovan, @Tgeorgescu Yes, my bad. I apologise about this, never meant to be drawn up in this.There we go, I hope I signed all my statements (hope I didn't miss any).Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases for pre-CheckUser review
• SPI cases requesting a checkuser