Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Bonaparte[edit]

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

Bonaparte

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 1 2009, 18:11 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

For code letter F see [1] Some more recently blocked sockpuppets of Bonaparte include Ourscrazy2009 (talk · contribs). Every2river (talk · contribs), Little bird from montana (talk · contribs) Praktiker iunie (talk · contribs). Please refer to the list of Bonaparte sockpuppets for further sockpuppets. Best4all and Carpaticus were created around the same time (2008 july, compare with date of prev. CU) but Best4all was dormant for the most part to suddenly return to the article recently edit warred on by Carpaticus. Carpaticus' editing also includes some Bessarabian/Moldovan issues a favourite topic of Bonaparte according to an earlier CU request but is mostly used as an attack account with very limited discussion talk page posts, mostly reverts. The sudden reactivation of Best4all suggest that there may be many more inactive accounts that need to be detected via CheckUser.

Evidence submitted by Hobartimus (talk)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is a false accusation. Maybe this is a "favor" returned due to a recent edit warning I made against a friend of User:Hobartimus, please see the link:# Squash Racket reported by Carpaticus. I am totally receptive and willing to settle the case. Carpaticus (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Hobartimus (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk endorsed To check these, and for possibly other sleepers. Synergy 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
Both of the accounts are now blocked by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 6 2010, 16:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]

For code letter F see [2] Some more recently blocked sockpuppets of Bonaparte include Carpaticus (talk · contribs) Best4all (talk · contribs) and Iasi (talk · contribs). Please refer to the list of Bonaparte sockpuppets for further sockpuppets. Very familiar disruptive edit pattern with Bonaparte (talk · contribs). Iaaasi (talk · contribs) edits are focused on Hungarian/Romanian issues which include: pushing Romanian POV, edit warring (first block for 3RR second block for 3RR), promoting anti-Hungarian statements like: "Sins are born in Hungary", "Where there is a Slav, there is song; where a Magyar, there is rage." "The Poles and Czechs are like two close leaves, But when joined by the Hungarian, they make three fine thieves." and others. Accusing other users being anti-Romanian after they warned him for disruptive editing, and pushing political accusations. Furthermore, i would like to repeat that Bonaparte (talk · contribs)'s previous sockpuppet was Iasi (talk · contribs) (closely matches).

Comment: User Iaaasi (talk · contribs) blocked by admin.--B@xter9 17:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence submitted by Baxter9 [edit]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. I am blocked right now so i will post from my ip.
I am quite new on wikipedia and don't know very well how I could prove that I am a completely new user.

I was accused, based on the ortographic similarity between the usernames "iaaasi" and "Iasi" that my account is a sockpuppet of User:Iasi

False, because i have many id-s wih this name; one example: the youtube acoount http://www.youtube.com/user/iaaasi, created in 2007

And my ip is from Craiova, not from Iasi


About G. Dozsa page [3]:

The original form contained the Romanian name and other user deleted it from the lead, I only reverted his edit, adding back the name which was deleted from my POV without reason. Anyway, a heated debate has started on the talk page, where there are also other users who consider that the Romanian name should be kept


EVEN IF I AM ALREADY BLOCKED, I WOULD BE PLEASED IF THE INVESTIGATION WILL COONTINUE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT I AM NOT BONAPARTE. THIS WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT FOR THE DEFENSE AGAINST MY BLOCK [4]

(79.117.159.41 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by B@xter9 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk note: just to clarify, Baxter9, did you wish to withdraw the request for checkuser? Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please scan this user. The IPs listed here are still acitve, thus Iaaasi (talk · contribs) is evading the block. See the history comment of this revert by another user, or this post.--B@xter9 11:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 08:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that every other account listed on this page is at least one year  Stale, so this isn't likely going to produce much more than "yes they're evading the block" or "no they're not"; I have no way to compare this user to Bonaparte. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind. I see no reason to conduct a check when the blocked user has self-admitted to evading the block with the comment they made while logged out above. Unless there is reason to believe there are other accounts being used here, this is no Declined. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only active IP remaining is 71.192.241.118, but the recent edits I'm seeing doesn't seem to fit Bonaparte's MO. I think it's likely an uninvolved person using that IP now. All the others hasn't been touched. –MuZemike 20:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 17 2010, 17:32 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by Tim Song [edit]

Empty case for formatting purposes. See below. Tim Song (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users [edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

Based on editing patterns Umumu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was later identified and blocked based on checkuser evidence. Fred Talk 22:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date May 8 2010, 18:41 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by Rokarudi [edit]

Amon Koth has edit practices are identical with those of the above-mentioned proven sock-puppets: Two object of interest is common: John Hunyadi and Hungarian-related issues in Romania, especially usage of Hungarian geographic names.

Iaaasi also as different IP's : Template with Hungarian placenames at Mures county

Amon Koth has no article edits, he is spared for disputes and voting.

His first appearance was at John Hunyadi supporting POV of Iadrian yu. His page was created on 15 March, 2010 soon after the ban of Iaaasi, while [User: Umumu|Umumu]]'s page was created 23 March, 2010.

Apart from the John Hunyadi discussion, he participated together with Umumu supporting Iadrian yu at votings in cases started in by Iadrian yu and Umumu against Rokarudi: [5] [6]

Now, he that Umumu was blocked he is participating again on the side of Iadrian yu in a Template discussion about Hungarian placenames at Mures county against Rokarudi at: [7] 1.4. [8] 1.5.

More than that during the above disputes, Iaaasi appeared on my talk page here [9]

I am convinced that the topic ( John Hunyadi, Hungarian placenames in Romania), the involved person (Iadrian yu vs Rokarudi), together with the fact that these topics were sphere the of activity of Iaaasi and Umumu enough evidence to think that Amon Koth is sockpuppet. He only appears when a vote is needed in sensitve issues raised by Iadrian yu.

I reported Umumu for being sockpuppet here [10] However, I was accused of bad faith. The only mistake I made was that Umumu was not Iadrian's sockpuppet but that of Iaaasi. It would be useful to establish whose sockpuppet Amon Koth is.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want boasting, but my instinct was correct last time too, First Umumu SPI as Umumu was found sockpuppet of Iaaasi shortly afterwards. Amon Koth put up a basic English sign on his page, so he must have a good teacher as he has made a good progress for the last two months. He is a voting puppet, he never edits, so can not be easily identified from edit practices, but immediately appears when Iadrian yu has a dispute with me on Hungarian placenames. It tells a lot that practically no one else edits these articles, and according to the statistics me and Iadrian might be the single readers as well. I have no doubt Amon Koth is a sockpuppet, the only question is whose sockpuppet. We are all here, like in And Then There Were None. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

The accusations brought against me by User:Rokarudi can be rebuffed in several points:

  • The fact that my opinion may coincide with that of Umumu on certain topics can hardly be considered evidence. It may, however, be based more on User:Rokarudi's activity concerning the editing of some articles which I do not consider proper for the English Wiki and are in fact quite disruptive.
  • The chronology of account creation on wiki presented is rather fortuitous and I am willing to think that there are other users that have created accounts at a time where they may be caught up in someone else's accusations.
  • I believe User:Rokarudi's attitude thus far suggests a battleground mentality WP:BATTLE. Even more, he has already accused another user, User:iadrian_yu of being a sockpoppet in a similar case which proved to be false. Just because an editor has a different opinion than that of User:Rokarudi's does not mean that he is automatically a sockpoppet of someone else.
  • It is interesting to note how convinced User:Rokarudi is that I am a sockpoppet of someone else based only on a few obscure happenings. He does not even take in consideration the fact that I may not be one at all: It would be useful to establish whose sockpuppet Amon Koth is. Another clear example of WP:ABF on his part?

I would also like to express my willingness at full cooperation on this matter as I am very curious what user will next be accused by User:Rokarudi to be a sockpoppet of Umumu. I really do not want to offend anyone but isn't this called paranoia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amon Koth (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rokarudi always accuses a certain number of accounts of sockpuppeting. And since sockpuppet accounts do exist, when accusing a sufficiently large number of accounts, a few will be revealed to be sockpuppets. Regardless of the number of accusations, if a positive is confirmed, then Rokarudi was 100% right (how could the instinct of a superior entity be wrong after all?).
  • Rokarudi has stated about me: []...he never edits, so can not be easily identified from edit practices. However he is the ultimate analyst on the matter concluding that Amon Koth has edit practices are identical with those of the above-mentioned proven sock-puppets. Even if at odds with himself, his instinct is never fractured by his contradicting interpretations, and proves to be the ultimate deciding factor in such an instance because so far no other evidence has been provided.
  • Not only do I see irrelevant how do I choose to rate my own English speaking skills but at the time when Rokarudi mentioned the basic English knowledge user box on my account, that user box was already changed. Another example of his inability to evaluate a simple situation. His statement is technically, a lie, and a silly one even.
  • The behavior of Rokarudi in our interactions has been at all times a hostile and aggressive one. Considering that he has ruled out any possibility of my account being that of a new user (superior instinct argument) it might be explainable. However I am glad I can see what kind of behavior Rokarudi encourages on Wikipedia. The occasional defensive, "friendly" post, full of false pretensions will follow at some point or another, because his continued editing is assured by such falseness.
  • If a clerk or admin is reading this (I really doubt it) I want to stress that the accounts under investigations are accused of being sockpuppets of Bonaparte, and not a single piece of evidence has been brought so far to sustain these accusations. I am wiling to do a chekuser even if it is not necessary just to get this over with more quickly.
  • I am also curious how is an editor supposed to defend himself in this kind of accusation if his account is blocked for any reason.

Amon Koth (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users [edit]

This is just another attempt to scare some users from comment on matters where User:Rokarudi constantly violates[11],[12] some wiki rules we are discussing so he is clearly trying to do anything to justify his actions by this sockpuppet investigation he started. It is a false report and i would really liked for User:Amon Koth to do a check user so Rokarudi`s "tactics" could be proven (beyond any doubt) that he is trying to avoid things he has problems with and not my POV. Last time i checked wiki rules are nobody`s POV(certainly not mine personal since i didn`t wrote them), all of us must respect wiki rules if we want to be a part of wiki community, Rokarudi just think that doesn`t apply to him. iadrian (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

I don't think the behavioral evidence here is strong enough for me to comfortably block. No action taken at this time. –MuZemike 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
31 December 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I'm not too familiar with Bonaparte's style, but this one seems to be WP:DUCK.

  • Edits Transnistria [13] [14]
  • Pro-Romanian anti-neighbor POV-pushing, with cut & paste page moves [15][16]
  • Likes to promote Romanian names of historical persons [17][18] No such user (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2013 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bonaparte/Archive&oldid=1142567870"