Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjecina/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rjecina

Rjecina (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 January 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Per WP:DUCK both users edit the same articles. The same strong Croatian nationalistic POV changes are entered in a great number of Croatia/Croatian related articles.

  • When editing as User:Rjecina (July 24, August 23, September 9 and 12), he was not editing as User:Kennechten (July 13, August 1, September 15, 17, 22, 29).

This user specialty is Croatian history whitewash. Both User:Rjecina and User:Kennechten followed the same behavioral pattern:

  • calling and marking others (anonymous and registered users) as sockpuppets before entering into a serious discussion

as User:Kennechten see, here, here and Purger,welcome back! as User:Rjecina attack on User:Bizso SPA account

  • multiple edits of the cases in a span of several weeks

MagnumCrimen (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

User:MagnumCrimen is probably sock of User:Velebit- Serbian anti-Croatian SPA warrior

His fixation is Ante Starčević, Ante Pavelić and some other Croatian people from history.--Kennechten (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]



from time to time he registers new [1] and does the same thing. Some examples to be done


Reinserting identical article subsections "racism and antisemtitism" in the Ante Starčević


also others with similar pattern


--Kennechten (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do that, Purger! You will make me cry! LOL. Kennechten (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC) This IP 166.32...... from Verizon (somewhere from Washington area ) is also probably one of the Velebits sock puppets.[reply]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Velebit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennechten (talk • contribs) 14:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Rjecina watch out! You badly referenced your past "achievements" (see your link above): 66.217. ... belongs to PAETEC, not to Verizon. Guess who actually reported 66.217.... as socks? Of course, you Rjecina and you Rjecina again! How you did it?

    Here is a 'wise' Rjecina's attempt to prove that 66.217....is a sock and here is Ironholds response to Rjecina who says:

    "I initially got involved on the other side of the argument (supporting the IP) because from what I could see Rjecina was removing valid information and contributions. The edits were well thought out, useful and explained on the articles' in questions talk pages. Rjecina seems to have something of an obsession following this sort of edit around wikipedia, and i'd advise that such ferverent "vandal"-chasing is a bad idea; when you have a hammer, everything looks like a spade, and I can see people getting wrongly nominated and accused of sockpuppetry as a result"

    So, Rjecina, thank you for helping me to better identify you.

--166.32.193.81 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


mr. 166.32.193.81 ... could be more nice and tell use all what username(s) you used before you were blocked forever??? --Kennechten (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - The data for Rjecina is stale, so we can't run a CU. We'll have to evaluate this on behavior. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this was a bad faith report opened as a response to being accused of sockpuppeting or what, but I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm not really seeing the connection, I guess, so I'm closing for now with no action. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are apparently not working for Wikipedia. You are working here for your friend Rjecina. You acted promptly to prevent CU here despite the fact that both Rjecina and this Kennechten edited in the span of few days. Then you apparently advise your friend to open another case against MagnumCrimen which you handle the way Rjecina suggested. Now many articles will be heavily damaged, full of nationalistic propaganda and nonsense. This childish way of 'discovering' Velebit's socks shows me that Velebits were 'discovered' in New York, Colorado, Virginia and Maryland, judging by the IP addresses reported as socks.--166.32.193.81 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, HelloAnnyong is not officially working for Wikipedia, he is a volunteer for Wikipedia like many others. He declined the CU correctly because CU would get 0 results because of the amount of information they can see. Now, he has come here to solve out the behavoiral on these/you and to make the best decision he can. If you weren't causing the issue in the first place, he wouldn't have to be here 'playing administrator' to solve out the socking that's going on here. He made the best decision he could, you can't ask for more.
Now on to a more clerk stand. I see a
  • Wikistalk full of similar articles
  • Removal of identical changes
  • Definitely not a new editor on edit #3
  • And a few more little things.
My recommendation here is a block per WP:DUCK and let's close this.

-- DQ (t) (e) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note I've looked into this case a lot more closely and conferred with another clerk (as seen above). Based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked Kennechten as a sockpuppet of Rjecina. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rjecina/Archive&oldid=1069902570"