Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Crovata

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

09 June 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

In January 2017, Crovata was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. SerVasi appeared in November 2019. Both Crovata and SerVasi have edit-warred over some of the same relatively obscure articles, most notably Branimir Štulić, over a period of several years, and have assumed the exact same POV (regarding the subject's ethnicity). See [1] [2] Additionally, they both seem to have a grasp of Russian, as evidenced by their edit summaries. [3] [4] [5] [6]

The Pax ominam account was created a little over a week before SerVasi. Both accounts edit-warred over the Ante Starčević article, maintaining the same POV (arguing that the subject was not racist and anti-Semitic). [7] [8] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Based on some behavioral evidence (ask me off-wiki, per WP:BEANS), I'm convinced Pax ominam is not Crovata. I'm unsure about SerVasi, but given that they still have two months to run on their edit-warring block, there's no urgency here. Closing with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17 August 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

In January 2017, Crovata was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. SerVasi appeared in November 2019. Both Crovata and SerVasi have edit-warred over some of the same relatively obscure articles, most notably Branimir Štulić, over a period of several years, and have assumed the exact same POV (regarding the subject's ethnicity). See [9] [10] Additionally, they both seem to have a grasp of Russian, as evidenced by their edit summaries. [11] [12] [13] [14]

Back in June, the attending admin didn't wish to perform a CU because SerVasi had already been given a two-month block for disruptive behavior, and hence there wasn't any "urgency". Given that SerVasi's block expires in a few days I'd like to put this matter to rest. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Clerk/Admin section: A CU wasn't declined the last time because the evidence was insufficient. It was declined because the case supposedly wasn't "urgent". So why would new evidence be required? I wonder if the master was stale two months ago? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 07:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus, Stale in the context of SPI means "hasn't edited in 90 days", since that's how far back the CU log data is kept. And, SerVasi still has time to run on their block, so nobody's going to even look at this. What is so important to you that you felt the need to bring this back to SPI? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Unclear why you're bringing this up now, as there's no new information since the previous SPI, and the master is quite stale. They are a very weak  Possible based on log data alone. ST47 (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02 January 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The Miki Filigranski account was activated on 27 March 2017, mere weeks after Crovata was blocked. [15] [16] Miki has since been blocked over half-a-dozen times for edit warring and harassment.

Crovata speaks Italian. [17] Miki claims to be a citizen of...Italy. [18]

On Branimir Štulić, Miki reverts to a version previously written by Crovata almost 2 years earlier. [19] [20] Both Crovata and Miki dispute the fact that the goalkeeper Danijel Subašić is of Serb descent, and instead claim his father is a Croat of the Orthodox faith. [21] [22]

Both Crovata and Miki have made multiple edits to Paul L. Modrich. All the edits pertain to Modrich's personal life, specifically his Croatian lineage, rather than his work. For example: [23] [24]

Both Crovata and Miki refer to en.wiki policies, guidelines and rules as "principles". Crovata: "NPOV principles" [25] [26] "Wikipedia principles" [27] Miki: "Wikipedian editing principles" [28] "principles of NPOV" [29] "NPOV principles" [30]

Both Crovata and Miki are incredibly fond of the word "twist" and its multiple variations, and use them liberally. Crovata: "You're twisting the scope of what "origin" means" [31] "Again you're twisting the facts and making a fool of everbody and everything." [32] "...twist the facts" [33] "You're twisting the meaning of the principles." [34] "Yet you twist census and source data." [35] "Don't twist things over and over again." [36] "You're again twisting the "point"" [37] Miki: "Do not twist that fact" [38] "No worth commenting and counterarguments because these are twisted facts and considerations." [39] "You're intentionally twisting what I said" [40]

Both Crovata and Miki refer to an article's lead section as its "intro". [41] [42]

Both Crovata and Miki write "straw man" as two separate words instead of one. Crovata: [43] [44] Miki: [45]

Both Crovata and Miki use the term "Wikipedian" as an adjective (i.e. "Wikipedian principles", "Wikipedian policy"), rather than a noun (i.e. "she is a Wikipedian"). Crovata: "...understand that Wikipedian principles here are respected" [46] Miki: "According to which Wikipedian policy it can be considered as unreliable?" [47] "I advise you to read Wikipedian editing" [48] "Wikipedian articles" [49] "Currently am interested to edit Wikipedian articles" [50]

Both Crovata and Miki discuss hitting, or not be willing to hit, their head against a wall (whatever that means). [51] [52]

Both Crovata and Miki sometimes end their paragraphs with the words, "Do you understand that?" [53] [54]

And finally, both Crovata and Miki have been known to use the phrase "the end" when closing a line of argument. Crovata: [55] [56] [57] Miki: [58] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • It is a "bad faith" accusation related to recent events in which the reporter actively participated (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sadko ARBMAC issues, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Poreklo, AE etc.). It is a conflict between Croatian and Serbian editors about the neutrality of specific articles and reliability of sources, of which I do not want to be a part but seemingly it is impossible not to be drawn in by editing any article related to the former Yugoslavia. The claims are completely random and related to real-world events that sparked my interest (like the 2018 FIFA World Cup). I am neither a native Serbo-Croatian speaker, a male editor, nor else.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously your recent behaviour prompted me to closely examine your editing history and look for any indications of sockpuppetry. You haven't offered a single argument to refute any of the numerous similarities between the Crovata account and the Miki account (WP:DUCK).
The Serbo-Croatian point at the end is a non sequitur. Knowledge of BCS isn't one of the pieces of evidence against you. Whatever the case, you clearly have a highly advanced knowledge of the language, specifically the variety spoken in Croatia. Example: [59] The male editor remark is also a non-sequitur, as that also isn't mentioned in the evidence against you. However, like the Serbo-Croatian claim, it is also clearly false. Here is an example from hr.wiki that demonstrates you are a male (Ja nisam kršio pravila). [60] If you were, say, a female, this would read, ja nisam kršila pravila.
Your edits to sr.wiki are disproportionately to the Branimir Štulić article, an area both the Crovata account and the Miki account have been worked up about for the better part of a decade. [61] Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor from ex-Yugoslavia has edited Branimir Štulić at one point or another. You can't pick one article which has been the focus of many editors - including you - and try to link two specific accounts based on that one article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to "defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them". I have better edits to do (like at Talk:Višeslav of Serbia#DAI where you were involved or at Talk:Pannonian Slavs#New article scope and merge and Talk:Slavic migrations to the Balkans#Map) than wasting by replying to editors who are WP:NOTHERE using Wikipedia as a nationalistic battleground to deal with "enemies". This is already the second or third attack on my gender. The number of female editors is minimal exactly because of the environment full of toxic masculinity, especially on the Eastern European topics with patronizing behavior and animosity. I never learned to properly speak Serbo-Croatian in a female voice and as if you never heard of speaking in third. Štulić's band Azra is one of the most popular Yugoslavian bands. There isn't a single person from both older and younger generations who did not hear about it or become a fan. There ain't many notable and cult rock figures like Štulić from the region of the former Yugoslavia. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the first time Miki has claimed gender-based attacks when it suited them. See [62] This is odd given that though no one brought up anything related to sex or gender at this SPI or at the recent ANI. Desperate strawmanning.
There are plenty of other parallels between Crovata and Miki. As Sadko noted, Crovata and Miki's tones are almost identical. Both are quite aggressive and rude, and call other people "liars" when it suits them. Crovata: [63] Miki: [64] Both have also been known to describe opposing views and statements as "bullshit". Crovata: [65] Miki: [66]
Some more telltale phrases. Crovata: "Just... what's wrong with you?" [67] "Guys, what's wrong with you?" [68] Miki: "What's wrong with you?" [69] And yet more of the same grammatical mistakes. Crovata: "Yours nationalitistic (Serbian) POV", "yours editing" [70] Miki: "including yours revert" [71] I can keep going all day and all night with this stuff. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with you? - although it's not something I would use, it's an extremely common phrase across wikipedia. You can go all day and all night with phrases that are common to all editors, but they don't necessarily link these two specific editors. (Irrelevant) Side comment: the "yours" misspelling is interesting because it's a common mistake people from the Balkans make when they use possessive pronouns in English. It's a translated Balkanism in fact.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Maleschreiber[edit]

Amanuensis Balkanicus - the only editor in this discussion who has been blocked for operating sock accounts [72] - has filed a number of bad faith SPI reports which targeted editors with whom he was involved in content disputes as he is now with Miki Filigranski[73]. In 2020, he tried to link me to three accounts with very weak "evidence" like claiming that the use of common phrases is proof that two editors are the same person [74] The CU showed that there was no relation whatsoever and the report was closed.

In terms of writing quality and use of bibliography, Miki Filigranski and Crovata stand miles apart. They have contributed to articles about early South Slavic history with rigorousness and a very good overview of bibliography[75]. Most of Crovata's edits are about Japanese pop-stars, Japanese culture and hip-hop music Talk:GZA#Image. The fact that they and Crovata have made edits to an article about a very well known football player from the Balkans is a very circumstantial and cherrypicked example.

The other "evidence" provided by AB are either cultural elements which are common among people who have a cultural background from the Balkans or common phrases. What is supposedly so special about the fact that Both Crovata and Miki refer to an article's lead section as its "intro" or that they both have used Do you understand that? or that they have referred to policies as "principles"? Nothing at all. It reminds me of the SPI which AB filed against me and tried to link me to another account by claiming that Both Maleschreiber and Atlonche have referred to other users as "friend".

If I understand how CU functions, does it mean that we can't actually get a CU because Crovata's IP is stale? If so, then this report should be closed because no further comparative evidence can emerge. Editors who are involved in content disputes shouldn't file SPI reports against their "opponents" with "evidence" about how both accounts refer to an article's lead section as its "intro"--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did a comparison between this report and the previous report which involved User:SerVasi (not pinging) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crovata/Archive. The behavioral evidence provided by AB was similar (Both Crovata and SerVasi have edit-warred over some of the same relatively obscure articles, most notably Branimir Štulić, and the report concluded with the same no-block/no-relation result. I think that as a community we should be 100% certain when such reports are filed. I have filed a report which was a mistake and thinking back, I probably should have been more careful.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sadko[edit]

This is way too many similarities to be a coincidence.
Crovata also used the same harsh language when dealing with people who have an opposite stance, which is the same manner in which the reported user operates.
The comment above my own is nothing but spin in attempt and it means to diminish the seriousness of this report, which is indisputable.
Note that Filigranski is a part of the title of one popular Yugoslav album by the same group Azra. [76] This group and its frontman have been a subject of great interest to both accounts. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadko is involved in many content disputes with Miki Filigranski and their editing is - as we're speaking - the subject of possible sanctions by an admin. They know very well that there's nothing here that can even be called a "similarity" between two specific editors that isn't also shared by many other editors. Trying to use common phrases and one article which has been the interest of many ex-Yugoslav editors (including you) as "evidence" is instrumentalization of the report in order to create a specific narrative about Miki Filigranski. Finding one article in a hundred that both editors have edited is not "proof" that they are the same person. It only highlights that if you want to create a narrative about someone you can cherry pick even the weakest proof and then base a report on that.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, so what? If I have a content dispute with somebody I am not allowed to comment on any report made or my comments are somehow less worthy? The last time I checked - that was not the case. I did and I always will post my opinion, this is the free encyclopedia after all. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CU obviously can't do anything here. I find this to be interesting, and some of the similarities signaled by the filer are noteworthy as well, esp. in terms of typography. But while all that may rise to the level where we can safely make such an identification, it hasn't risen to that level for me. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13 February 2022[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I am filling this report to see did the previously blocked editor MF/Crovata edited during their block phase, there are several ip accounts that showed same behaviour pattern as the stated editor, this one being the most obvious, like this example [[77]] which is correspondent with previous editing of the same editor [[78]], the behaviour pattern is the same with the same language/insults level [[79]] for which is this editor already blocked several times examples [[80]] or this [[81]], the ip showed the same interest in the themes like MF did example white Croatia or white Croats as did MF who contributed a lot to the page [[82]] the ip was active September 2021 during which phase MF was still under indefinitely block phase [[83]]. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:39, 13.February 2022 (UTC) Theonewithreason (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. Spicy (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - while I figure out how to handle this. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miki Filigranski was blocked for socking about 9 months ago, but was unblocked a couple of weeks ago after an appeal to arbcom, "subject to a one-account restriction and one-revert rule". I'm not seeing anything that indicates they have violated those restrictions since the unblock, so I'm closing this case. After an off-wiki chat with a current arb, I'll add that implicit in the one-account restriction is a prohibition against logged-out (i.e. anonymous, i.e. IP) editing. I don't see any evidence that they have been editing anonymously since then, but just want to mention it to eliminate any potential ambiguity.

-- RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Crovata/Archive&oldid=1071965796"