Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Vujkovica brdo

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

29 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Two accounts and one IP who all have a particular interest in mathematician Stevo Todorčević and who have both a similar pattern of finding published material glowingly describing Todorčević's research and adding half-digested chunks of it to the article: Vb [1] [2] etc; AP [3] [4] etc; IP [5] [6]. Also A. Perun admits on his user page to not being a new user. All this would be non-problematic (the IP could just be forgetting to log in and the two editors haven't been doing any tag-teaming on the Todorčević article) if not for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Sekulić, an AfD opened by Vujkovica brdo on which A. Perun has commented. Checkuser needed to verify the identity of Vb and AP; of course, the IP can only be identified circumstantially. David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: thanks! So no further action needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2016 (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]

  • CheckUser says they are Red X Unrelated. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

27 January 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

User: Vujkovica brdo "retired" from en WP on 17 November 2016 after an editing history that started on 7 February 2016. Articles that featured heavily in his editing were B. Wongar, an obscure Serbian-Australian anthropologist (nine watchers), and a number of mathematicians, notably the Croat Josip Pečarić (which he nominated for deletion, and was involved in an edit war over on 20 June) and French-Canadian-Serb Stevo Todorčević.

In November 2016, his editing of Stevo Todorčević got to the point where he was warned several times by different editors for 3RR and WP:OWN [7] [8] [9] [10] He then “retired”.

However, on 23/24 June 2016, Serbian IP 178.223.78.167 was involved on the B. Wongar page and talk page, and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić, and on 11 August 2016, Serbian IP 109.245.101.74 edited the B. Wongar page. On 25 December, Serbian IP 178.221.134.32 edited the B. Wongar article and deleted a reliable source from Milorad Ekmečić here and on 18 January, Serbian IP 178.223.93.49 also edited the B. Wongar article.

On 26 December, Serbian IP 109.92.171.133 began editing, during their activity to 8 January they edited a number of articles, including Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, Stevo Todorčević, and Banjica concentration camp. In the latter case, they initiated a discussion of a book by Philip J. Cohen. Given their concerns, I initiated a RfC about its reliability, and they !voted that it was unreliable. On 6 January, they added a blog as a source at Philip J. Cohen which I reverted based on WP:BLOGS. They edit warred, so I initiated a second RfC there to resolve the dispute. In that survey, a Serbian IP 178.221.137.49 !voted, followed by another Serbian IP 109.92.70.39. 178.221.137.49 also tagged the article background section that I had added at Banjica concentration camp as overly long. I removed the tag.

On 9-11 January, Serbian IP 178.221.148.19 edited Catholic Church sexual abuse cases.

On 19 January, a new account User:KanteP appeared and immediately began to edit Banjica concentration camp, and got involved in the RfC there. They retagged the article background, and when I referred them to another article Kragujevac massacre (with a similar amount of background, which was currently undergoing GAN), they then tagged it as well, and made comments on the article criticising the use of Cohen as a source.

On 21 January, KanteP deleted Cohen and other sources from Judenfrei here, and edit warred the deletion here and here. Same day, KanteP deleted the whole background section from Banjica concentration camp here. On 22 January he deleted Cohen from The Holocaust in Serbia here, and Edmond Paris here

Also on 22 January, a Serbian IP 178.222.141.169 edited Edmond Paris and Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, and on 24 January, Serbian IP 91.150.92.1 again deleted Cohen from Edmond Paris and continued to edit war at Judenfrei. On 25 January, the same IP edit warred again on Judenfrei here and on 26 January on Edmond Paris here. On 27 January, the same IP edit warred on Emanuel Schäfer here.

All of the IPs (except 91.150.92.1) appear to be dynamic Serbian IPs between Novi Sad and Belgrade, which are only 1 hour apart, so it is feasible that the sockmaster works in one location and lives at the other. They are linked by edits on common articles, most of which have very few watchers. The behavioural evidence that Vujkovica brdo has not in fact retired but continues their edit warring behaviour and deletion of sources as KanteP as well as using a range of IPs is, I believe, sufficient to show that their retirement was not in good faith and therefore not in accordance with WP:Clean start, and that their editing while logged out is an abuse intended to avoid scrutiny of their actions, not only of the editing history of their "retired" account, but the current one as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 27 January 2017 (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]

 Confirmed, blocked and tagged. no No comment with respect to IP address(es).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The IPs are blocked or are not currently active, so closing. GABgab 00:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

01 July 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

[11] obsession with Arthur Rubin's CV and BLP violations on Talk:Arthur Rubin.  Looks like a duck to me Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Certainly I am not Vujkovica brdo.

I'm not obsessed by Rubin. I just posted a little bit comic (but accurate) comment based on the information coming from Rubin's LinkedIn CV and a New York Times article mentioning Rubin as a first year law school student. Duck behaviour: It's too obvious that this Eggishorn is a Rubin's alter ego. The other two are Softlavender and Johnuniq who are vigorously guarding Rubin's Wikipedia biography.--178.222.144.138 (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

03 September 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I have serious reason to believe that user:Taribuk is the latest incarnation of Vujkovica brdo. His previous acount Bojan12345 was blocked in June or July -- Bojan  Talk  05:52, 3 September 2017 (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]

  • @BokicaK:  Additional information needed. In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. ~ Rob13Talk 01:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was sent the evidence via email. I do not find it to be enough to consider the two accounts behaviorally similar. Closing for now without prejudice against refiling if new information presents itself. ~ Rob13Talk 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 February 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Newest re-incarnation.Heavily interested in promoting Stevo Todorčević. ~ Winged BladesGodric 17:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Thanks, Winged Blades, for opening this. The basic behavior has improved compared with some earlier editions, but compare (for example) the leading paragraph here with the one here, including the obsession with certain sources, and with Todorčević's PhD students. Also the decision to archive the talk-page to obscure past renditions of this nonsense. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

information Administrator note Indef blocked and tagged. Ben MacDui 15:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08 March 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I am not requesting a checkuser because I think this is likely stale and the IP-hopping behavior of the sock has thwarted past checks, but the behavioral evidence is strong to me.

  • Taribuk was already accused of being a Vb sock last September but without adequate evidence so nothing was done.
  • Both Vujkovica brdo and Taribuk are interested in Serbian content and edit with a Serbian-nationalist point of view (this in itself is not enough similarity for an SPI, but setting the context). They have both edited Talk:Nikola Tesla (6 recent edits by Taribuk, 2 older ones by Vb) but this could perhaps be explained by the prominence of Tesla among Serbians (or maybe-Serbians; stay away from Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity if you value your sanity). They are also both interested in attacking certain non-Serbian mathematicians, a much more specific interest unlikely to overlap with most other Serbian nationalists.
  • Both Taribuk and Vb have edited Josip Pečarić, a somewhat obscure Croat mathematician (1 recent edit by T, 8 older ones by Vb), and Talk:Josip Pečarić (4 recent edits by T, 19 older ones by Vb. Vb created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić. See this recent attack-edit to JP by Taribuk, the same material added earlier by Serbian IP 109.92.67.23, two similar 109.92 IPs from past SPIs [12] [13], and very similar attacking comments in Talk:Josip_Pečarić#POV, not notable by Vb.
  • Another interest of Taribuk is Catholic sexual abuse cases in Australia (many edits on article and talk around December 15; many more edits on related topic George Pell). Compare to accused Vb sock 178.222.141.169 (one of three edits is to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases), 78.221.148.19 (all three edits on that article or its talk), etc. (I think the connection to Australia runs through B. Wongar, another Vb hobbyhorse.)
  • Taribuk recently started a (6th) AfD on Arthur Rubin, who also contributes as an editor here. Taribuk has no obvious reason for any interest in Rubin, but Rubin and Vujkovica brdo interacted at cross-purposes on Stevo Todorčević in November 2016 (interaction analyzer finds huge numbers interacting edits on the article, article talk, both editor's talks, ANI, and other pages including my own talk). Interaction analyzer also finds an edit by Vb sock A. Perun within one hour of Rubin [14]. More recently BTZorbas (yet another Vb sock) has been editing the Todorčević article.
  • At Talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 1#Article content and notability issues, three Serbian IPs, 93.86.33.191, 178.223.64.26, and 178.222.184.163 tag-team to raise exactly the same argument that Taribuk is making in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination), that Rubin's discovery of list coloring should be discounted because (the argument goes) it would be impossible for Rubin in California in 1979 to be unaware of an article on a similar topic published in an obscure Soviet journal in 1976. Note the resemblance to IPs 178.223.67.126 (blocked in February 2017 as a Vb sock), 178.223.74.168 and 178.223.71.245 (more stale Vb socks, editing on Stevo Todorčević, clearly the same as the blocked one as they performed the same edits in roughly the same time period, but not blocked). In June 2017, yet another similar Serbian IP, 178.223.237.210, edit-warred to attack Arthur Rubin and was blocked for the attacks. In April 2017, Serbian IP 93.86.33.191 (the same one as on talk) removed information about Rubin's Putnam exam results [15].

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

The connection with B Wongar (a Serbian literary fraudster) is curious and I have had suspicions about this page for a long time. I have noted that that page is edited mostly by IPs with external editors popping in to oppose any unfavorable edits. I have suspected sockery there. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 April 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Restored[16] edits of the master[17], and removing mention of this SPI from talk page.[18][19][20] D4iNa4 (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2018 (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]

17 May 2018[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Same obsession with stalking Talk:Arthur Rubin and questioning sources and notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (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]

  • IP edits too old. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

31 May 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Reporting for the record. edits on B. Wongar exactly replicate those of earlier socks (e.g. [21], [22], etc. JBL (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Not exactly and completely covered by refs. Fully explained on talkapge--178.222.208.165 (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • IP blocked for edit warring and presumptive block evasion. The IP is from the same range as some IPs that have previously been blocked in connection with this case, and the subject matter interest is the same - but I haven't looked too deeply into the history of this case beyond that. Just saw the edit war on B. Wongar and associated talk page and wanted to put an end to it. We can consider semi-protection or range blocks if he comes back with another IP. Based on case history, this range appears to be a /14, so semi-protecting the article is probably the better bet. ST47 (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


I'm nominating Justi Rino based on the pattern of shared interest in biographies of mathematicians working in Ramsey theory, including Justin T. Moore and Ilijas Farah (both created by previously-blocked sock BTZorbas and edited by Justi Rino), Martino Lupini and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martino Lupini (article created by Justi Rino; Lupini is the student of Farah), and Stevo Todorčević (advisor of both Moore and Farah edited by both BTZorbas and Vujkovica brdo but not so far by Justi Rino). Also based on the pattern of attacks on my professional expertise (by Rino in the Lupini AfD and irrelevant to the AfD) shared by earlier socks. Moore, Farah, and Lupini are all plausible candidates for G5 speedy deletion. David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Notrium and RadioElectrico based on their nationalistic attack-edits earlier this year on Josip Pečarić, another past habit of Vujkovica brdo. Note that in recent confirmed incidents of sockpuppetry, Vb has compartmentalized their editing to different subjects, so I don't think it's informative that Notrium and RadioElectrico have different topics of interest than Justi Rino. However the case against Notrium and RadioElectrico is weaker because the similarity of editing patterns is weaker and the same pattern might be attributed to other Serbian nationalists. It wouldn't be surprising to find a different set of socks concentrating on B. Wongar or catholic sexual abuse, other topics of interest to Vb. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination), the sock Taribuk invoked being published by Springer as a sign of great repute, as does Justi Rino at the Lupini AfD. This feels both oddly specific and at least a bit fringe-y. Generally, serious math and science people care more about the content than they do about what company happened to publish it. Publishers crank out books, many of them forgettable, and while appearing in a particularly well-esteemed series might be a reliable stamp of quality, merely being in print isn't.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josip Pečarić, Vujkovica_brdo worked hard to sell the value of the Sacks Prize, an award for PhD-thesis work that we don't even have a dedicated article for. Rino does the same in the Lupini discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Guidance it was stated, 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.

There no a single piece of evidence about the account abuse given under this SPI.

@David Eppstein. False statement: the pattern of shared interest in biographies From their CVs we can easily learn that these four mathematicians cannot be classified as "working in Ramsey theory". I never edited Todorcevic's biography, I only updated Farah's and Moore's biographies and wrote the Lupini's one. My primary interest is in set theory and mathematical logic.
False statement: pattern of attacks on my professional expertise (by Rino in the Lupini AfD and irrelevant to the AfD) There was no attack on Eppstein's expertise in the AfD. However, there was my comment on the Martino Lupini talk page about his advisory work which I was not ready to accept as a background of an ultimate judge about the Sacks Prize Award notability and academic level. The comment is fully professional and not attacking.

@XOR'easter. False statement: Taribuk invoked being published by Springer as a sign of great repute, as does Justi Rino at the Lupini AfD. In the the Lupini AfD I just added the world renown attribute to Springer Verlag. Where and what Taribuk wrote, I have no idea.
False statement: Vujkovica_brdo worked hard to sell the value of the Sacks Prize. Vujkovica_brdo merely mentioned the Sacks Prize "Notable:Todorcevic's two PhD students got the world-renown Sacks Prize and Goedel Prize for their PhD work." My opinion about the Sacks Prize is elaborated in the AfD and on the Lupini's bio talk page.

Bottom line. All accusations against me posted by these two users are sensless, not giving a single piece of evidence about the account abuse given under this SPI.--Justi Rino (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Justi Rino is  Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I don't see sufficient evidence for the other two suspected puppets. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


[23] is characteristic of abuse of a report I made regarding Velebit who Peacemaker blocked on that report as similar to this user. I make no comment about the other edits.

I think a CU might be worth it but feel free to shoot me down. :^) Izno (talk) 14:42, 27 May 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]

This case is being reviewed by RoySmith as part of the clerk training process. Please allow him to process the entire case (including admin actions against suspected socks) without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on his talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

  • @Callanecc: I think we need to get MoreInfo on this before we can do anything. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, the evidence is the addition of the copyrighted lyrics in to the Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara article. Given that they haven't used sleepers before I don't think a CU check would be super useful for that. At best a CU might be able to give a possible result. Whether there's enough behavioural evidence to block the account, my opinion at the moment is that there isn't. Moreinfo might be useful or there might be no other information available anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action taken, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07 October 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Obsessive addition of puffery to Ilijas Farah and S and L spaces, as is typical for the master. Indeed, both articles were created by User:BTZorbas, another Vb sock.

The locus of disruption is things related to Stevo Todorčević (Farah is a student of Todocevic). For example, [24] is an example of an earlier sock, with identical style to [25] from the reportee. (Oh also there's the characteristic obsession with Arthur Rubin because who knows why.) I'm sure David Eppstein will confirm. JBL (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other loci (sexual abuses by the Catholic church hierarchy, Croatian deniers of anti-Serb war atrocities, and Serbian-Australian pseudo-Aborigine novelist B. Wongar among them) but the sock activity tends to be partitioned by different interests and puffery of the mathematics of Todorčević and his students is definitely a red flag as a likely sock. I think the combination of peacock language and reference to Rubin in this diff is particularly telling. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • (Personal attack removed) leads him to attack everyone he does not agree with. He suffers from irresistible urge to judge the references contents and statements and replace them by his POV, i.e. in the case of mentioned biographies to validate Todorcevic's and Farah's research ignoring references and impsing his POV. Meeting his requests will only damage our efforts to make Wikipedia articles better and trully encyclopaedic. Oh yes, identical nonsensic behaviour of these two, Rubin and Joel B. Lewis-now JayBeeLee, makes me to think of the same person using two different user names.--109.92.168.41 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 November 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Essentially all IP edits in the last 5 years have been the same obsessive puffer-upper; it's hard to make a concise story out of that, but: here's the latest; we've got the master fiddling with them, here's one from 2019 (note the same charming edit summary style), here they are in 2020, etc. The article was semi-protected for a year, maybe that should be extended. --JBL (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC) JBL (talk) 11:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • If I'm reading this correctly, this is the same guy who's also preoccupied with Stevo Todorčević, and a pblock would certainly be needed there as well. Paging David Eppstein. EEng 21:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same guy (also Serbian nationalism and Catholic nun sexual abuse scandals) but he long ago learned to compartmentalize his socks into distinct interests. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I don't see grounds to lengthen the protection beyond the year the article already has, but the page history (500-edit view)does bear out that this /16 has been editing the article since September 2014, disruptively since July 2017. They've already waited out one year-long protection, so it seems likely they'll wait out this one too. I note that most of the history of this SPI predates the advents of pblocks, and a lot of the disruption here seems like it could be resolved by a few well-placed pblocks with near-zero collateral damage (only affecting people who happen to share those range and happen to share those same rather niche interests, and any other such person would be indistinguishable from a sock anyways). To that effect, Pink clock Awaiting administrative action: Please block 178.222.0.0/16 from pages <B. Wongar|Talk:B. Wongar> with expiry 4 years (anon. only, account creation allowed). Other ranges can be added, and/or other pages can be added to the pblock, if the scope of the disruption expands. (Of course half of this is redundant with the protection, but it seems silly to tell JBL to come back in a year and hope they remember.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EEng: The archive documents disruption at a number of pages, including the one you reference, but I don't think there's much benefit right now in blocking ranges that haven't been used recently and/or blocking them from pages they haven't targeted recently. Otherwise, when the pblocks expire, we'll have no real reference point for whether to renew them. Plus there is still that nonzero collateral damage risk. I'd rather block narrowly (just this one /16 from just these 2 pages) and then expand as needed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note:  IP blocked clpo13(talk) 01:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

26 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Standard modus operandi for Velebit and Vujkovica brdo, who are apparently operated by the same person: opening an edit request on Talk:Ivo Andrić with fake evidence. Vanjagenije, Peacemaker67 and Joy are admins familiar with the case. No such user (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on talk:B. Wongar should dispel any doubt that this is Vujkovica brdo. I rolled back his edits as a matter of routine, but he reinstated some, and I don't feel playing whack-a-mole for too long. Whether Vujkovica brdo and Velebit are the same person is of academic interest, since both are community-banned, prolific sockpuppeteers. No such user (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note per suggestions by Joy and David Eppstein below, I moved contents from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Velebit to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo for archival. No such user (talk) 12:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Attributing my edits arbitrarily to some old account is outrageous. Opening an edit request on Talk:Ivo Andrić with fake evidence? Absolutely valid and verifiable evidence. All I did was added valid comments and references, therefore improved discussion and article's content, not breaking a single Wikipedia rule. --77.46.199.108 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC" @Joy [shallot] All my edits are transparent. Please show us which way I abused Wikipedia rules and where.--77.46.199.108 (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

05 July 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This IP address is currently partially blocked. This range has long and detailed history of obsession of stalking and questioning sources and notability. This IP should be banned too. Please see:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vujkovica_brdo
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive

@Peacemaker67, @David_Eppstein These Catholic Church articles related IPs are back here again:

@David_Eppstein As you suspected (appears to have some animus against the target), I am suspecting the same here appears to have some animus against these too: Philip Isely (1915-2012), Margaret Isely (1921-1997) and WCPA[1] [2]

@Graywalls, @MrOllie, @DanCherek, @Penny Richards

--BeLucky (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (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]

  •  Clerk assistance requested: - This should either be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo or deleted per WP:G6 because only one of the three IPs has edited recently, and that one was a couple of days ago. Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the IP's all clearly inactive, there's nothing more to be done here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The obsession with Stevo Todorčević and Josip Pečarić is characteristic: the talk-page Talk:Josip Pečarić is littered with past VB comments, but if you want to look at just one thing compare the old section Talk:Josip_Pečarić#POV,_not_notable with the new section Talk:Josip_Pečarić#Notability_-_new_and_old_unanswered_questions. The slightly older edit [26] at Talk:Stevo Todorčević follows the standard ranting by VB IPs on that page that has been going on for years [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] etc.

The /64 was recently blocked for a month for unrelated reasons and came back almost immediately afterwards, so it would be great to have something longer-term. JBL (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (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]

16 January 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The same behavioral evidence as usual: obsessive concern with promoting obscure Serbian-Australian memoirist B. Wongar (many edits 2020–2022, most recently diff) and with badmouthing obscure Croatian mathematician and revisionist historian Josip Pečarić (most recently today; diff). Another nexus of activity that I didn't know about until doing more searching today is Serbian mathematician Milan Raspopović, formerly edited by Vb sock Taribuk (blocked 2020) and more recently by Bocin kolega (most recently February 2023; diff). Much of the evidence is stale and past checkusers have failed to confirm socks that were later confirmed behaviorally, so I don't expect a new checkuser to find much. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

There is a multitude of socks centered around the B Wongar BLP pushing Eastern European Nationalist issues. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

David Eppstein and I independently came to the same conclusion for the same reasons (I just dilly-dallied before bringing it here, and DE beat me to the punch), so I think at this point a block per WP:DUCK would be reasonable; but I also hope that a checkuser will take a look for other accounts / sleepers, since often Vb has used several socks simultaneously. --JBL (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time for a block. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
See this diff[32]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]


My editorial work on all Wikipedia articles is transparent. I always strived to improve the articles' content, did not break a single Wikipedia rule ever.
  • As to the "obsessive concern with promoting obscure Serbian-Australian memoirist B. Wongar"? Sreten Bozic Wongar is a world-renown antropologist and writer, celebrated worldwide. He does not need my promotion. During his lifeteime, B. Wongar was promoted by four great men of the world literature, all Nobel laureates: J.P. Sartre, H. Bell, S. Beckett, and P. Handke. I tried to fix many issues found in the text of this bio, and each time all my fixes were removed even if it was just spelling issue. Tried to resolve all disputes with the opposing side (three of them are Eppstein, JBL, and Xantippe) - see here. The opposing side just mounted ad hominem attack on me blindly rejecting huge number of reliable sources I provided to support my cause.
  • As to my comments I left on the Josip Pecaric talkpage, I gave just a few constructive suggestions how to improve the existing version of this article. There was no single badmouthing there. See here and here
  • As to the Milan Raspopovic biography, it was taged (not by me) as the one promoting the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information, and where the major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I've stepped in in order to fix the detected deficiencies and my edits there are justified on the article talkpage. See my comment Autobiography, full of unsourced content there.
  • A question to Spicy (talk). The Vujkovica brdo dumping ground made visibe many ISP/IP. There are three non-Serbian ISP/IPs (Canada, USA, Germany) and five Serbian ISP/IPs. Majority of them were not blocked nor marked as puppets. As to the accounts, all of them edited last time in the past older than 90 days. That means that you cannot say anything about these accounts' ISP/IPs since all their ISP/IPs associated to the edit time stamps are deleted for good. For the last 90 days I used only one ISP and three different dynamic IPs. What is the meaning of yours "this account is using the same ISP and range as past accounts"? Where am I now and which of the eight different ISP is the incriminated one?--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Based on historical data, this account is using the same ISP and range as past accounts. No other accounts seen. Spicy (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged. Closing. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Christian Soldiers at War With One-World Group".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "Philip Isely and Margaret Isley respectfully demand damages".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vujkovica_brdo/Archive&oldid=1199266661"