Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.75.24.245

User:72.75.24.245

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.
Suspected sockpuppeteer

Velebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.217.132.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.217.131.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
66.217.131.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
J. A. Comment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

71.252.83.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.252.102.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
71.252.101.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Brzica milos etc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
PravdaRuss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

--Rjecina (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

user:72.75.18.173 and user:72.75.5.121 are banned puppets of user:Velebit aka user:Purger. It is possible to see that only edits of this 2 accounts are about Croatia WWII, Neo-nazism in Croatia and who is and who is not Croat. [1] [[2] .If we look IP range and article edits user:72.75.24.245 is 100 % puppet of this users [3]

Connection between user:72.75.24.245 and user:J. A. Comment are words of user:72.75.24.245. He is claiming again and again that checkuser has rejected my accusations [4] [5] [6] [7]. There is only 1 small problem. There has never been checkuser report about user:72.75.24.245, but only report for user:J. A. Comment .Maybe I am making mistakes but with this statements user:72.75.24.245 is declaring that he is user:J. A. Comment. Final checkuser report is here but because it has not been very clear there has been demand for explanation which is very clear:J.A.Comment IP is few minuts away from other banned IP [8]. Now we can say that J.A.Comment is connected with banned IP and user:72.75.24.245 is calling his IP check that he is cleared. This other banned IP near which J.A.Comment is coming on internet are:user:71.252.83.230 and user:71.252.101.51.

This user is having very great knowledge of how wikipedia work. Like I have been saying earlier J.A.Comment is knowing rule about 10 edits and semi-protection so his 10th edit [9]. has been demand for lowering protection level from full to semi [10] so that he can edit.

On other side user:72.75.24.245 has started discussion about Wikipedia talk:Verifiability [11]

I do not know new users which are having so great wikipedia knowledge to know semi-protection rule or which are starting discussion about Verifiability. Maybe administrators are knowing this sort of new but for me is hard to believe in that.

Editorial style 1:To explain his POV edits this user:J. A. Comment is writing on talk page "books" pages [12] . This editorial style is copycat of banned user Velebit and his suspected banned puppets Smerdyakoff and user:Stagalj. Examples of banned users:
user:GiorgioOrsini (confirmed puppet of Velebit): [13] [14]
user:NovaNova (confirmed puppet of Velebit) [15]
user:Stagalj (banned puppet of Velebit):[16]
banned user:Standshown: [17] and [18]
user:71.252.83.33 (from Velebit IP range):[19]
To tell truth I do not know any other user which is writing like evidence book pages on article talk pages.

users 66.217.132.152, 66.217.131.125 and Brzica milos etc are on this list because only edits of this 2 has been revert in support of user:72.75.24.245 . Name of this last "user" is combination of names of 2 Croatian WWII criminals Ljubo Miloš and Petar Brzica.

Users 71.252.102.163, 71.252.83.33 and 71.252.101.67 are on this list because they have edited only Croatian WWII articles like user:72.75.24.245 and user:J. A. Comment and they are from another confirmed user:Velebit IP range (see User:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51)

It is time for me to end this, and I will say must important things with small number of questions because decision is very simple.

  • It will be interesting to hear explanation how 72.75.24.245 knows Future perfect words from 22 April [20]. For me this answer will be very interesting ??
  • I am sure because of 72.75.24.245 IP range and sort of edits that he is connected with banned Velebit puppets user:72.75.18.173 and user:72.75.5.121
  • 72.75.24.245 has spoken many time that he is innocent because checkuser raport about user:J. A. Comment. Maybe I am mistaking but with this words he is saying that 72.75.24.245=J. A. Comment. All other stuff like Editorial style and wikipedia knowledge is only in support of this 2 must important facts.
Comments
  • The comment about the J.A.Comment checkuser is thus; the checkuser doesn't clear the IP address from being a sock, it just proves that the "sockpuppeteer" wasn't using this IP address at the time. Checkuser proves guilt, not innocence. I have noticed a large amount of crossover in the types of edit by the IP in question and by other banned IP addresses and users, but i'd point out they all seem good quality edits. 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. Ironholds 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A checkuser was requested already on this group of users, and no connection was established to Velebit. I need to understand something, seriously: what is the problem here? What was Velebit even banned for? Can Rjecina please explain what, if any, actual disruption is being caused here? Are these multiple IP addresses representing themselves as multiple users with independent opinions in an attempt to influence things? Are they edit warring? POV pushing? Mangojuicetalk 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm staying neutral here, but the checkuser policy itself: checkuser can only prove guilt, not innocence. Rjecina claims that the editors are POV-pushing; he's the one edit warring with them. From what I can determine, the contributions they are making are valuable. He seems to take any contribution to one side of the argument as a "pro-nationalist" agenda. Ironholds 15:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checkuser has never controled User:72.75.24.245 but it has controled similar IP range and confirmed that it is used by banned user:Velebit [21] [22] . If this is not enough we are having editorial history of this 3 accounts which is enough for blocking this account.
      • In article Magnum Crimen User:72.75.24.245 has been helped in edit warring against 5 other users (edit warring) with only edits of user:66.217.132.152 and user:66.217.131.125 and if we look statements of this "users" they are representing themselves as multiple users. In the end if we look edits in this article we will see clear POV pushing.
      • After reading book advice of Mango there has been interesting finding about article Srbosjek where POV pushing by user:J. A. Comment , "User:72.75.24.245", "User:71.252.83.33" has become clear. Book "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican:" which is only english language source for this article about this "knife" is failing Wikipedia:Verifiability rules. English language publisher of book are Prometheus Books which are publishing dissenting books [23]. German language publisher is Ariman publishing house which is controled by radical atheists movement. It is interesting to notice that respected German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung has refused to publish an advertisement for publisher of this book in Germany because they publicize intolerant and aggressive nonsense [24]
      • For the end to say something about user:Velebit. He has always used multiple accounts in writing his POV pushing. If there is need I will give more data about user:Velebit on users talk pages--Rjecina (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The religious viewpoint of a publisher should not infringe on the books notability in this situation, where religion is not an issue. And by "dissent" Rjecina evidently means books about religion, as the link he inserted states. Again, religion is not an issue here. The IP ranges are not at all similar; 71.... and 72....? there's a dissenting seven digits there. I'll be putting in a request for admin intervention after this with the aim of getting Rjecina to back away from articles like this. Ironholds 16:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some facts. 72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the 71.252 addresses all, according to Whois, are IP addresses from Verizon in or near Reston, VA. The 66.217 addresses resolve to New York. The previous Checkuser request said that J. A. Comment is not linked to the Reston, VA addresses but resolves to the same region. I want to point out that the information in Whois about the 71.X.X.X addresses say that the ENTIRE range 71.0.0.0 - 71.255.255.255 all belong to Verizon; this suggests to me that Reston, VA is just the address of Verizon itself, not of the local ISP router near the user. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you getting the "intolerant and aggressive nonsense" quote from?
    • You shouldn't obsess over specific users. It leads to you accusing users of being sockpuppets without even checking if this is true because you're so caught up in chasing down one person.
      • "They succeeded only in drawing some degree of attention when the Munich "Süddeutsche Zeitung" daily refused to publish an advertisement for "Ariman" editions, explaining that they evidently publicize intolerant and aggressive nonsense" [31]
    • That translates as "one particular newspaper believes they publish intolerant and aggressive nonsense", and does not imply that the book itself is such. Ironholds 20:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but not. We are having this words about Ariman editions, we are having Prometheus Books which are publishing dissenting books and in the end we are having Amazon which is putting book in question in category of strongly POV (pro Serbian) books (Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought...) [32] . After looking all this in my thinking nobody can say that this book can be used like source for wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amazon does not put the books in that category. It is based on, well, what customers who bought X ALSO bought. The quality of the sources does not reflect on this case; you are accusing him of being a sockpuppet, which is something totally different to using inproper sources. Ironholds 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • user:Velebit is using multiple accounts and IP address for anti Croatian POV pushing.
      • We can see in articles Srbosjek, Magnum Crimen, Ivo Andrić and Ante Pavelić multiple IP accounts which are writing anti Croatian POV pushing. They demand that we accept very suspicious books for references, but they delete respected internet sources. For me best example of POV pushing is in article Ante Pavelić where user:Velebit and all his puppets are demanding (edit warring) that it is writen how Ante Pavelić is leader of national socialist/fascist Ustaše movement. I have never heard of similar definition for any movement but this is definition of users 72.75.24.245 , 72.75.43.59 , 153.39.144.157 (blocked), 71.252.101.51 (blocked), 72.75.21.12 (only 2 edits so he is not blocked , Stagalj (blocked), BarryMar (blocked). From this it is possible to see that must of account which has not ended edit warring in this article has been blocked like puppets of user Velebit. If this edit warring has been earlier good enough evidence for blocking then user:72.75.24.245 need to be blocked !
  • 1) Multiple users making edits on the same topic is not in itself proof of sockpuppetry. 2) Other editors (who may/may not be blocked) making such edits is again, not proof of sockpuppetry. I'll draw up lists on either side to make this all easier to read:

"yes this IP is a sockpuppet"

  • It has a similar IP to the blocked users/IP's
  • It makes edits on the same/similar topics
  • It is pushing the same viewpoint
  • It is putting in edits from a controvertial set of books

"no, this IP is not a sockpuppet"

  • The similarity is the same first two digits, something millions of internet users share. While they resolve to the same address, they resolve to the Verison servers; thousands of users/IP's would do so, it does not prove that this IP is linked to the others, only that it shares the same internet provider.
  • Simply proves the IP's have the same interests; again, not proof of sockpuppetry
  • Simply proves the IP's have the same opinions; again, not proof of sockpuppetry
  • This does not relate to the topic. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and the quality of the users' edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry, although it might show vested interest.

Comments

  • A piece of advice to Rjecina: After this case is over, regardless of the outcome, stop chasing after "sockpuppets" of the banned user. Without even consulting a checkuser account or filing a sockpuppetry case you accused this IP of being a sockpuppet, a serious accusation, and reverted his/her edits. You seem to be obsessed with chasing down socks of this particular user, and when you've been using a hammer for long enough everything looks like a nail; you can end up accusing innocent IP's, which as well as making it likely they'll be scared off also creates a large mess, as this shows. Ironholds 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP's you're accusing of sockpuppetry appear to be divided into two groups; 66.X and 71.X. This suggests two seperate editors. You'll also note at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Velebit that most of them appear to be 4.X IP addresses. Make your mind up; where is this user coming from? And an important comment; the request(s) for checkuser showed that "IPs are Unrelated but geographically similar." for all the 71.X addresses; how can you accuse IP's of sockpuppetry after they've been shown to be completely unrelated? Ironholds 00:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me see ....user:72.75.24.245 has made to 2 reverts in article Ivo Andrić after which he is helped by user:66.217.131.60 (his only edit). user:72.75.24.245 has made 3 reverts in article Magnum Crimen after which he is helped by "users" user:66.217.132.152 and user:66.217.131.125 (only edits). All 3 66.217.13x.xxx are of PAETEC Holding Corp. All 72.75.xxx.xx are from Verizon Internet Services (they are blocked by checkuser decision), user:64.18.16.251 (banned by checkuser) is from Baltimore Technologies. We can say that this vandal is very, very lucky for recieving help from IP of PAETEC Holding Corp or ....It is known by checkusers that user Velebit is using different proxy to edit wikipedia.--Rjecina (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open proxies are quickly found and blocked. And my suggestion is this; have you considered PAETEC may be a different user to the Verison account? "only contribution" means nothing; IP addresses change constantly. Ironholds 01:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because only edits of PAETEC are in support of user 72.75.24.245 edit warring (not only against me) this is hard to believe. For this and similar reasons we are having WP:DUCK--Rjecina (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? It isn't an edit war if it is against multiple people, it's promoting a particular view. PAETEC supporting Verizon does not make them the same person, it means they share the same viewpoint. And WP:DUCK is an essay: "It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". If you are following it then note the line "remember to remain civil, and to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia". Your handling of the case so far has been way out of line. Ironholds 01:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If PAETEC is having other edits then they are not same person. If PAETEC is acting only in support of Verizon and very short time after Verizon edits then they are the same person. For me is very hard to defeat this argument--Rjecina (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a logical fallacy. If I contribute to an article about teeth, and a user living in montenegro does the same 3 hours later, are we the same person? And explain, then, why if it is the same person the internet provider changed between edits. Ironholds 01:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 3 hours or 10 minutes ?? For other question you need to ask user Velebit because he is changing internet providers between edits. On 17 October 2006 he has demand unblock of accounts 72.75.5.121 (Verizon) [37] and 64.18.16.251 (Baltimore) [38]. 2 edits from 2 different providers !--Rjecina (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please protect Wikipedia's integrity and credibility - not my rights to speak and edit articles

From the above

Some facts. 72.75.24.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and the 71.252 addresses all, according to Whois, are IP addresses from Verizon in or near Reston, VA. The 66.217 addresses resolve to New York. The previous Checkuser request said that J. A. Comment is not linked to the Reston, VA addresses but resolves to the same region. I want to point out that the information in Whois about the 71.X.X.X addresses say that the ENTIRE range 71.0.0.0 - 71.255.255.255 all belong to Verizon; this suggests to me that Reston, VA is just the address of Verizon itself, not of the local ISP router near the user. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

is clear that

  • there is no way to claim that the same user had available 72.** and 66.*** IP addresses - also I seriously suspect that this 66.*** anonymous user 'supported' me is a Rjecina's friend helping him in this smearing campaign against few of us
  • checkuser quite clearly separated user:J. A. Comment from the Verizon ISP
  • user: Brzica milos etc had only five edits which are ok by all Wikipedia standards

'POV-pushing' Rjecina's false accusations exposed

I fixed the Biography paragraph based on strong scholar references - Introduction by William H. McNel, Translator's Foreword by Lovett F. Edwards - both from Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andric, Presentation Speech (at 1961 Nobel Prize awarding ceremony) by Anders Österling, and the biography of Andric written by Milan Bogdanovic. So, all four people were Andric's close friends: Edwards - Andric's book translator and close friend from the times when Andric was a diplomat in London, McNeil - a world-renown historian of the 19th and 20eth century European history and professor at the Chicago University and a man who was Andric's friend sharing interest with him in the Balkans history of the 19th and 20eth centuries, Österling - Permanent Secretary of the Swedish Academy, Bogdanovic - writer and close friend of Andric - see

[39] My full explanation of this improvement was regularly removed from the talk page by Rjecina [40], [41], [42]

Contrary to valid and scholar references I've used - Rjecina is pushing links claiming baselesly that Andric' parents were Croats. Stressing that the same information comes from New York Times is pointless - the NYT does not treasure Andric's biographical data nor it references any valid document as its primary source. The same case is with other Rjecina's 'references'.

I and other three editors were providing valid scholar references and citations. Rjecina removed many times these references or citations - as he does it now - claiming inacurracy and new citations - not supporting these claims by any valid knowledge. On the talk pages one of editors gave list of books supporting text - which Rjecina simply ridiculled claiming nonsense: 'Ulmost all this books are speaking that Srbosjek knife has been used by Chetnik forces to kill Serb' see [43]. Whoever had ever these books in hands can testify that Rjecina's comment is nonsense.

I removed two primitive disqualifications of this great book - telling absolutely nothing about the book content. Bear in mind that this book can be found in the world-renown unversities and academic libraries, referenced and quoted hundreds and hundreds times. This way I was defending Wikipedia's credibility and accuracy

Bottom line - this Rjecina acts against the very letter of Wikipedia. Needles to say that he was warned by many editors and administrators already against this uncivil behavior and false accusations. Stop him in damaging further Wikipedia!--72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I demand ultimate checkuser on all listed above IPs and user accounts. I see that this slandering campaign goes on and on.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/72.75.24.245
Marcações: