Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anastan

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

21 March 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Axiomus stays inactive for considerable periods of time just to appear again to back Anastan on his fights. The latest case was yesterday. Anastan started a war [1], [2] and Axiomus returned after a month of sleep to continue it [3]. Both accounts have showed a large interest in Belgrade, indicating that both edit from the same area.

  • Another shared interest of them that is untypical of Serbian editors is editing articles of national libraries of countries. Examples: Anastan [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and Axiomus [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Axiomus adds "Start date and age" [29] and after a part is removed, Anastan readds it [30].

Since I and other editors have expressed worries about Anastan's combination with other accounts during his fights, a CU could confirm these two accounts with each other and look for other possible socks. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

@ Bbb23: Thanks for CU, nice findings. I started to suspect that Axiomus is a sock after I noticed that he started to use Twinkle and make redirects in his first few days, unusual of newbies. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Some other similarities between Anastan and Axiomus:

omg... Ok, first of all, i know who user Axiomus is. We were both on the same wiki workshop here in our country where we learn to edit, and we were beside that on the same academy. We do talk and comment together off wiki, and as you see, sometimes when i mess up something he come by to fix it and vice versa, but that doesn't looked like to me that our collaboration is questionable, as he is very rarely online, as you may see... Now i look, he had less then 40 edits in the entire last year... Now i feel sorry that this is opened, as i unfortunately only see a revenge from an editor who was blocked several times for its nationalistic disruptive edits after my reports, Ktrimi991. If admins finds acquaintanceship between me and Axiomus troublesome, i would gladly agree on any proposition you may have. I dont want to create a problem for any other editors. I will tell Axiomus to write down comment also. we are living in the same city and have the same provider (as 90% of the city, at the end...) As you already see, i am ordinary editor who follows guidelines, and i do not need sockpuppets for those minor pointless subjects i edit. Again, i am really open for any advice you have on this, as this report by Ktrimi is unfortunately founded on dishonest foundations. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 22:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Two friends can back each other only in current fightings. Anastan and Axiomus accounts make exactly the same edits not only hours, days or weeks after each other in a clear attempt to force their POV over other editors, but also make exactly the same edits even months or years after each other. One can not protect an edit that his friend made years ago. Some examples: Anastan [100] and Axiomus [101]; Axiomus [102] and Anastan [103]; Axiomus [104] and Anastan [105]. Axiomus edited about the destruction of the monument [106] and almost two years later Anastan updated the article with the restoration of the monument [107]. The cases belong to articles that are not among the most preferred for Serbian editors; the articles of the National Library of Australia and the monument in Syria must not have been edited by Serbian accounts other than Anastan and Axiomus since their creation. How can two people syncronize their work so perfectly? How can two people have the same style of editing? How can two people have exactly the same interests? How can two people be so dedicated to placing the note on the status of Kosovo everywhere it is mentioned? How can two people insist in the same way in the Serbian names of settlements and other geographic features in Kosovo? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Nothing less expected from a problematic editor as Ktrimi but to present all of those things so wrongly. We finished architecture!! Its obvious that we edit article about monuments, library buildings and architectural styles that we love!! We talked about that article, and how images were completely wrong to represent style. And yes, we edit the same subjects from time to time, and yes, we have the same wiki preferences. Same as our instructor showed us during course. Same as rest of the group. :) If editing same subjects is forbidden, we will obey the administrators instructions. But we didnt find that problematic. Nevertheless, your editing style Ktrimi is still very problematic, and your constant removal of sources and references, every single one reverted as vandalism by many editors ( 1, 2, 3, 4...) will still get you in problem, no matter who is looking on those articles. But, unlike you, i dont want to make problems for Anastan, as our main goal is to create encyclopedia, and to expand nice subjects, and not to use wikipedia for political struggle of your people. Its not ok to remove everything you dont like to see about your nation. You are only trying to discredit editors with whom you are having problems.
At the end, I am very rarely on Wikipedia, as a semi retired editor, so whatever admins propose, i will follow. If they dont want us on the same subjects, i agree. Really, all of this is not that much important for me, as i am very busy in real life, so, this editing is just a bypass station for me anyway. I am from Beograđanka building, and that may explain other accounts, as everyone are on the same network here. if administrator need any document or anything else to prove my identity, i will gladly send that to someone who needs to see it. -- Axiomus ( talk) 15:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Bbb23:, Ktrimi's report and additional findings are compelling. Anastan already has admitted to knowing Axiomus and that they have edited from the same place, the wiki academy in Serbia. It can also be a defence to try and blur the lines that they are in fact one and the same person. The editing style and interests of both editors bare this out strongly in their behavior that Axiomus is the sock account of Anastan. Resnjari ( talk) 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You presented most of the things falsely, and digged years behind. God help you if someone diggs your edit history. Anyway, all of those things are the way we are thought. Its stupid to compare the way they showed us, as that is the way they told us to always do. They thought us to always ask editors to go to talk page no matter what if we have dispute, and to add Kosovo note as neutral info for dispute near the word Kosovo in all articles, to add article name first in line as the article title is, and to ask for protection if article is abused by revert warriors, such as you. And you actually presented this falsely, as you usually do. they told us that in infobox name should be only article name, and next below, official name should be with both languages, first again the article name. So that was standardisation with the rest of articles already in line. So Albanian name should not be first if article is not at all named like that! Thats obvious. And in links you falsely presented as similarities can see that Axiomus actually didn't do it like it should in all edits. He left both names in first name section. ( diff, diff) If you push Albanian name instead of common English name in all articles, than that is not removal of Albanian, but restoring original article name. Beside the dispute about content, all of those things mentioned are the proper way to edit Wikipedia. I have already told you that two of us talked about articles here, and again, everything we did was in line with guidelines. I can list other editors who were with us on the same academy, and you will see the same editing pattern with them, and i guess the same address. But they are almost not active, and you are not in conflict with them, so they are not here. They do not stop your agenda. And again unlike you, we add sources about true sourced Kosovo history, instead of remove them as you do, and other editors you invite off wiki. And you know that we saw your agenda here, and that's why you are trying as hard as you can to discredit us, inviting other editors that support your POV even here in this request. You have 0 other edits during this so you can give your full attention. We would not need to ask for protection of articles you mentioned that Hakuli, you and other editors dont push their pov and remove sources, and present Kosovo political questions as your only way of editing. They have also thought us one more thing. That editors who edit only one subject, only political subjects and only one political view such as you do actually do more harm then good to wikipedia. Administrators should know that you would now post forever comment after comment, repeating the same arguments over and over. This discussion would never end, but you dont have anything to revert now, so its different. I have already said, and i would said again. If this was the same account, then i must say that would be the dumbest possible person alive, editing the same articles, same subjects in similar way and not expecting to get seen. Dont you think it would be obviously different if the same person have two accounts? Also, if you haven't notice, our usernames are also similar. Yes? That's not because we are the same person. Its because we are friends in real life, we talk and consult each other about this, share watchlist, and we edit wiki together as one smaller part of our friendship. Obviously that is forbidden in your strict world of using wikipedia as political agenda. I would now expect some more pro-kosovo editors just to randomly reappear here to give comment how you are completely right. At the end, i already talked too much. You didnt mentioned we have also edited Vojinović Tower together. You wouldn't know that was one of our thesis we worked together during studies, and planed to work here also, and to expand article together. I will not share here nothing personal anymore. Already talked way too much, and I do not have to justify myself anymore to the person who has evil intentions, not to expand encyclopedia, but to use it for its own selfish political goals. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 00:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As soon as i saw this discussion I was ready to !vote for indef ban of Anastan and to congratulate editor who reported her here. Then, I went to sr.wiki to check their contributions and saw that they indeed edit architecture related topic independent from each other. ( link to contributions of Anastan at sr.wiki) and link to contributions of Axiomus. Apparently, they indeed edit architecture related topic and in several occasions when there was some editing dispute between them and other editors they did not collaborate. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I've read this page word for word to this stage. You cannot begin to list the number of fallacies committed in what is clearly an attempt to "kill two birds with one stone". The similarities at best affirm the consequent rather than provide a sound argument as to how one individual can be abusively operating two accounts. Anastan had already provided an explanation as to how and why technical data matches even before CU information came through (i.e. the two persons are acquainted), therefore the rejection of this premise is more argument from incredulity than a satisfactory testimony that one person is using two accounts. As my languages are Ukrainian and Russian (asides English), I confess my knowledge of Serbian and South Slavic is rudimentary but I note the sr:Wiki citations from Antidiskriminator which clearly show that the two editors have been on opposing sides of an editing dispute. Although any CU ruling is appeal to probability anyhow, I'd say that Antidiskriminator's findings profoundly shatter that probability. The selected "timings" argument is mere Post hoc ergo propter hoc and not an explanation as to how it is impossible for two persons to frequently edit the same time. I am also very suspicious that all of the editors to push in favour of the banning of the two accounts are unequivocally partizan on Kosovo-related matters and this would explain to me as a complete outsider why none is prepared to accept that Anastan and Axiomus may be genuine and playing fair. Apart from that, the rest of the similarities are wholly generic and are practised by multiple editors. For such inductive reasoning, I wouldn't waste my time with this accusation. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 20:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Editors that suggested a ban are going on the evidence provided and its detailed. If editing Kosovo related articles is considered "partizan", then editors who edit Slavic and Serbian related articles calling for no sanctions can equally be considered partizan. Antidiskriminator has presented edits where there was dispute between the two accounts. If indeed these are two separate editors, Anastan and Aximious have admitted that with they know each other personally and that they have edited from literally the same place, and the evidence above confirms they have helped each other on articles, in some cases during disputes. This goes against Wikipedia policy and is also considered sock puppetry (see: WP:MEAT). Resnjari ( talk) 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Editors should know that this is not a voting process, and not a forum. Personal attacks on me do show the real intentions of those who make them. Anyway, Coldtrack needs to present diffs for their claim. As far as I can see, both accounts have never been part of any content dispute on srwiki. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 07:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If you dont understand language, of course you wouldn't see it. We had several discussions on sr wiki, and we had somewhat different attitudes about several things, but mostly content and technical disputes. Also, i must state that we didnt edited "from the same place" as falsely represented above, just from the same town where we live, and we didnt "helped each other", we just edited subjects we were both interested in. You are trying to represent our relationship as wrong hidden intention again, but i will repeat, you are all making this far more important and planned then it actually was. We didn't have any intentions with editing wikipedia, we are just friends edited subjects we wanted, Axiomus rarely, and that's it. I was not aware of some of the guidelines i know now, but anyway, that is the way to become a proper wiki editor. Again, despite massive false representation and discrediting, we didn't "planned editing", and as far as i remember, we didn't ever edited from the same place. Why would we do that? Editing Wikipedia should be a pleasure and learning, not a struggle, political battle, history falsification, planing and lies. Unfortunately, only that was a problem here. Its not problem that we edited our minor non-important person, architecture and history articles, but that we edited Kosovo related articles, and accidental stepped into someone's systematic political agenda, so we must be removed quickly, before some other point of view is reveled. Well, congratulations. I am certain that i will not edit those dirty political rags again, and Axiomus can speak for himself, if he even care at all anymore to reply. So, whatever is a administrators decision, you have fulfilled your plan. That you really care at all about wikipedia, you would stop User:Hakuli blatant misrepresentation of sources, edit wars and other things on Kumanovo Agreement, and talk to him, but no. You support his POV and without editing the article you are hunting down editors who oppose him and report them to administrators, because they are in the way also. Are you talking off wiki? The same reason you reported us here? That much about your intentions and your editing style. You should read one great guideline i was thought on wiki academy. Its called " Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 10:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Pointless debate + repeating the same arguments over and over. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Anastan, i speak and read Slavic languages (i.e Serbian and Macedonian) so i read it. The evidence here is overwhelming of socking. As i said before if indeed both accounts of Axiomus and Anastan are separate (and both wiki accounts admitted that they know each other personally and have edited from the same place), that edits are so similar that they are identical in style, manner and even timing points to socking behavior which is clear and falls under WP:MEAT. Resnjari ( talk) 11:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You didnt read my post again... I said we never edited from the same place. And they are hardly identical "in style, manner and timing", you are just inflaming it to present it falesly. We edited the same subjects, so, yes, its the same in style. And i guess that's enough for you. Timing? That's a lie. I cannot recall a single article we edited and it was closer then a day difference, and that can be verified. Closest i seen was more then 16 hours in difference. Misrepresentation by you. And unlike you and Ktrimi who regularly edit articles together within minutes, and now voting in the same Hakuli's proposition that ignores common name... Again, i dont want to explain, you obviously concluded already, so that's clear for me that its pointless to explain anymore, as you and your team will just repeat again and again. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
So its all just coincidence ? Come on, the evidence is huge and detailed that points to socking behavior (see: WP:MEAT). Resnjari ( talk) 11:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
There is no coincidence at all. We are friends, we know each other, we studied and finished the same faculty, we have been to the same wiki academy course, and we edited the articles we both found interesting or in need of expansion, and we shared our experiences of editing wiki with each other. Now i know that the proper way would be to ignore each other here, but that's irrelevant now. Please lets stop with this rotational comments, i really dont want to expand this explanations anymore. All of importance is already said. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The report here outlines in clear detail that your editing has fallen under WP:MEAT. Even if both accounts are separate you ought to have read Wiki policy because such close cooperation in instances to the point of being identical and also in disputes is just clear and plain socking. Resnjari ( talk) 12:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:MEAT is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel out of sheer desperation to eliminate the accounts. This began as an SPI and when it became clear that there is one person per account, it became MEAT. I said in my comment that a bundle of editors clearly object to the contributions of two separate accounts, and all are fully aware that there is no violation that they can convey to ANI since it would be dismissed as content dispute, and so they go down this route. Resnjari's observation is that if the three editors petitioning to block Anastan and Axiomus are partizan on Kosovo-related matters (it's bold where they are concerned, no "scare quotes" needed since it is unequivocal), then editors who work on Slavic articles but call for no sanctions can be the same. This has three problems: 1) It begs the question since only the petitioning nexus views/viewed Anastan and Axiomus as one person and they had hitherto failed to demonstrate their claim (in short, editors not convinced of MEAT or SOCK have no reason to scream for sanctions against them - whether the observer edits Slavic topics or not); 2) It attacks the straw man since nobody is calling for sanctions against any of the petitioning nexus, and 3) "If we are partizan then so are they" is a fallacy of relative privation and not a premise which denies the biased aspects of the author's editing, nor that of his two counterparts. With regards Ktrimi991's point that I need to present "differences" for my claim. This is not so. In the first place, nobody dealing with the SPI has asked me for this. In the second place, I am non-Balkan citizen who found this page and I am not advocate for one side: I have merely listed the problems with the accusation; it is also clear that any examples would be rejected by the petitioning nexus- but as I said, it would not be them that I were attempting to convince. I've already said that I do not speak Serbian, therefore with my Ukrainian knowledge it would be a laborious task to draw comparisons but I believe that Antidiskriminator has already done this in his own post. So returning to the issue at hand, if Axiomus and Anastan find themselves editing from a single computer then canvassing would not even be required: it just needs two separate people with similar ideas. Of course, if the duo are some distance from each other, then evidence is required that communication has taken place between the individuals, otherwise it is not canvassing which warrants MEAT. And to be honest, given two people know one another, I hardly think there requires any MEAT activity since one can view the other's contributions any time he chooses. From a non-Balkan perspective, I think this is a lost cause for the petitioning nexus. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 19:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a SPI because similarities were identical and detected in the style of editing, behavior and mannerisms. If such a thing was not evident a checkuser would have been done. Moreover the administrator who did the checkuser had a similar view about the accounts being from the same source. What the checkuser revealed is that they are not from the same source per se. That still does not omit that socking happened as that behavior can also be done by two editors coordinating closely with each other, as per wp:Meat. These two editors did not disclose their relationship or even location about conflicts of interest -and only did so here reluctantly. Had they consulted wiki policy on socking (as they have been around for a while now) they ought to have avoided editing where one did editor did and not to have partaken in disputes where the other was involved. Yet they did this and the evidence above shows it. They socked. It does not matter that Antidiskriminator showed a instance where both editors had a disagreement on Serbian Wikipedia (ok that might show they are two people), what is important is that in other instances they have socked and their behavior fits wp:meat. This SPI here is about them socking. As issues of being "partizan" etc were brought up i would like to note that it was not i or Ktrimi who went down that road but other editors here. You can't have it one way without there being another from others. So for the record i note i'm a non-Balkan citizen and was born and still live in Australia. That said i am proficient in Slavic languages, i.e all forms of Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian (including their alphabets, speaking, reading and writing) and even Bulgarian to a extent as well. Anastan came to my attention sometime back with his problematic editing on a article he tagbombed (i cited this above) and his presence kept coming up on other articles on my watchlist and disputes with other editors over them. That i comment here is a culmination of observations as a wiki editor due to those matters. In the end, editors need to adhere to rules and not distort or bend them when they see fit. The evidence is the evidence and is there evidence of socking. Looking at the evidence above, it fits wp:meat. Resnjari ( talk) 03:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Your claim of "evidence" and in particular your line "they socked" is argument by repetition since you have singularly failed to demonstrate that one person is handling two accounts. For the record you can count yourself lucky that I am not an admin or CU as I would have laughed your ass out of this project well over a week ago. Also "fits wp:meat" and "sock" are mutually exclusive, and this is where it is patently obvious to outsiders such as I that dirty colluding is the object of this exercise. For an Australian, you are very well versed in Kosovo-related matters, but without meaning to be incongruous, I know there is a sizeable Kosovo-Albanian diaspora in Australia, and anyone to have lived in Kosovo - over a certain age and before 1999 - will know how to speak Serbocroatian and that is close enough to both Bulgarian and Macedonian much as I have a full grasp of Belorussian, Slovakian and Polish (and bout 60% of Czech). The only error of the editors is non-disclosure and for two clearly positive contributors, I see no reason that a warning and some form of disciplinary should not resolve the matter amicably. I am of the opinion however that there are three editors to this page who wish for more, and it is blatantly obvious why they would want more. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 18:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I was lucky to have received a university education and be taught by some really great academics, so as a consequence the Balkans and Turkey have become a focus of mine. Personally I am not of any Kosovo heritage. My grandparents back in the early 1970s arrived to Australia after leaving Yugoslavia from Macedonia from villages on the border with Greece. They settled in an area where there are many Macedonians etc so their friends, my friends, as i mix in those circles i picked up the languages. Now on the matter of the two editors. Non-disclosure is an issue because their editing in many instances was the same (in even style and wording, not to mention very close timing) and also they followed each other i.e in instances of disputes, votes or contentious edits on certain articles, so its not a one off needing a warning or a stern talk to. I don't need to demonstrate anything as the case has already been laid out. Just because those two editors have done positive edits here or there (although there are examples to the contrary) still does not omit that they socked and that their socking falls in line with wp:meat. They have been around for a while and are not newbies, wiki rules apply if they broke them. Resnjari ( talk) 15:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I'll take your word for what you say about your background. Socking is using more than one account, MEAT is basically canvassing and is inapplicable where two people know one another and use the same IP, etc. or whatever it means to be technically indistinguishable, therefore wp:sock and wp:meat remain mutually incompatible. Non-disclosure is the key issue. The edits from these editors are 100% positive contributions; the whimpering seems to come from editors who object to their viewpoints. If an edit is wrong then it can be corrected. If it is nonconstructive then it requires disciplinary warnings and the two editors are not guilty of this wrongdoing. Once a disclosure is made then there are no further issues with voting the same way or making similar edits. The bottom line is given the opportunity, two human beings may step forward in public and say, "look this is me, here I am logging in, here I am editing" followed by the same of the opposite figure. As for canvassing: if I watch the activities of one editor with whom I agree on some things, he would not need to call me to offer assistance where I see he is positive contributions are being rebuffed by trolls who game the system. So the accusations of sock and meat remain argument by repetition. To this end I am not budging on my position that harsh measures should be avoided. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:MEAT is regarded as socking. Ii am not going cite chncks of the policy here, but i can. Going over all of this, Anti produced diffs where the two accounts have been in dispute with each other. That can be a real display or one for show. The other many, many diffs and examples here by Ktrimi show similarities to the point of it being identical over and over agian that in the end warranted an administrator to look into it further. Socking has taken place, whether its one person or two acting in unison with one acting as a meatpuppet for the other that's where the crux of the matter lies. The polices on socking state that regardless if an editor is new or been around for some time, if they socked, they socked. In the end its up to an administrator to decide here, but the evidence is plenty and very detailed. I am going by what has been presented above. Resnjari ( talk) 09:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Your comment "whether its one person or two acting in unison with one acting as a meatpuppet" commits a false dilemma fallacy as it dispenses with Option 3 which is that two individuals are legit and acting independently of one another - but why should I be surprised? The entire petition is fallacy-ridden as I pointed out in my first post. The example provided by Antidiskriminator of the two editors being on opposing sides supports the third assertion, while the idea that "it might be for show" is totally negligible since there is zero evidence of this absurdity, and furthermore it was observed by a different editor rather than one of the two accused parties, and is also shown to have happened where the English speaking community would never have otherwise found the information (note also that a ban from English Wikipedia will not warrant a ban on any other language Wiki site where the editors are registered, yet the same rules apply across the foundation). What one thinks Antidiskriminator's example "might have been" doesn't cut the mustard. The MEAT accusation is without merit and should be struck out forthwith. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 19:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I searched the history of the two accounts on srwiki, and they have never opposed each other. They have actually never had any dispute with any editor on srwiki, be it on content or other issues. Antidiskriminator did not claim that the two accounts have had any dispute with each other, as a matter of fact. Anastan and Axiomus accounts make exactly the same edits not only hours, days or weeks after each other in a clear attempt to force their POV over other editors, but also make exactly the same edits even months or years after each other. One can not protect an edit that his friend made years ago. Some examples: Anastan [176] and Axiomus [177]; Axiomus [178] and Anastan [179]; Axiomus [180] and Anastan [181]. Axiomus edited about the destruction of the monument [182] and almost two years later Anastan updated the article with the restoration of the monument [183]. The cases belong to articles that are not among the most preferred for Serbian editors; the articles of the National Library of Australia and the monument in Syria must not have been edited by Serbian accounts other than Anastan and Axiomus since their creation. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Still, blind repetitions, false information's and lies. I am sorry to state that, but you are lying Ktrimi. Actually, "we did" opposed each other, and at least i "had disputes" with several editors on sr wiki. It was about using talk pages, as far as i remember. Also, its irrelevant for this language Wikipedia where we had disputes on other language projects. Is it forbiden to have content dispute on other Wikipedia? Its shameful how you lied here now. Again, (you dont listen, but again for other proper editors) we are interested in the same subjects we studied, and we edit those. We are not "protecting anything", what that even means? Protecting different edits in different time on different subjects? We edited the articles and subjects we talked about or we were interested in. Your links, as concluded even by other editors, prove nothing. We edited the same articles? O, can you imagine! Maybe its because we have similar watchlist, received on wiki academy, because we went on same faculty, and we are interested in the same subjects? As i already said numerous times? Maybe it should be repeated again, as you are all ignoring it. Also, it is shameful that you distribute editors by their nationality, so you obviously know very well nationalities of other editors editing the articles, so you can confirm we are the only Serbian ones. Again, that only talks about your true intentions here, nothing more. Your joint agenda against us here is painfully obvious for quite some time. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Ktrimi, your right regarding Antidiskrimintor. Reading all of this i had check this one by one. I went into Serbian Wikipedia, went through their edit histories, had a good look and there are no examples of them being in dispute with each other to show independent behavior as has been claimed. The evidence gathered above points to Anastan and Axiomus being controlled by one person who edits with the same style, wording, topic interests and so on. Clear case of socking. Resnjari ( talk) 11:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Looking at the examples provided and the counter response, I am unsatisfied that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry have been substantiated. I am able to see from Serbian Wikipedia (I am a speaker of Serbo-Croatian) that the editors have appeared on opposing benches of disputes, whilst their editing style in Serbian (as a first language) immensely differs. As nobody there has implied that there exists a suspicious association between the accounts, and whilst nobody anywhere in this project page can adumbrate how and why it is impossible for two individuals to have fallen victim of circumstance (in collapsed section), all I am seeing is a campaign of obvious bamboozling. -- Juicy Oranges ( talk) 14:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Anastan and Axiomus are technically  Likely, but they are using a very common user agent. Axiomus and Musaeum ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Technically indistinguishable, but Musaeum has made very few edits and only one of substance. Behaviorally, the only similarity between Axiomus and Musaeum are their userpages (lovely images). The behavioral evidence connecting Anastan and Axiomus is much stronger, including the other projects both users/accounts edit and their Keep !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitrios Baltzis – the Delete !votes overwhelmed the Keeps. I'd like to hear from others before deciding the disposition of this report.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

  • @ Vanjagenije: Other than the factual admissions, I don't feel much more illuminated than on March 21 when I said I wanted to hear from others. As a native Serbian speaker, do you have a recommendation as to what should be done with this report? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Bbb23: I think that what Anastan said is true, i.e. that they are two different persons, but there was definitely some off-wiki coordination between them. What do we do in such cases? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ Vanjagenije: Unfortunately, I don't think there is any "rule"; it depends on the circumstances. We can block both as meat (the duration is up to us). Or we can warn them. I don't think we should just let it go, though. I don't think we should block them indefinitely, but I'm open to either warnings or limited blocks. Do you have a preference?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anastan/Archive&oldid=1140200481"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Anastan

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

21 March 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Axiomus stays inactive for considerable periods of time just to appear again to back Anastan on his fights. The latest case was yesterday. Anastan started a war [1], [2] and Axiomus returned after a month of sleep to continue it [3]. Both accounts have showed a large interest in Belgrade, indicating that both edit from the same area.

  • Another shared interest of them that is untypical of Serbian editors is editing articles of national libraries of countries. Examples: Anastan [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and Axiomus [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Axiomus adds "Start date and age" [29] and after a part is removed, Anastan readds it [30].

Since I and other editors have expressed worries about Anastan's combination with other accounts during his fights, a CU could confirm these two accounts with each other and look for other possible socks. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

@ Bbb23: Thanks for CU, nice findings. I started to suspect that Axiomus is a sock after I noticed that he started to use Twinkle and make redirects in his first few days, unusual of newbies. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 14:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Some other similarities between Anastan and Axiomus:

omg... Ok, first of all, i know who user Axiomus is. We were both on the same wiki workshop here in our country where we learn to edit, and we were beside that on the same academy. We do talk and comment together off wiki, and as you see, sometimes when i mess up something he come by to fix it and vice versa, but that doesn't looked like to me that our collaboration is questionable, as he is very rarely online, as you may see... Now i look, he had less then 40 edits in the entire last year... Now i feel sorry that this is opened, as i unfortunately only see a revenge from an editor who was blocked several times for its nationalistic disruptive edits after my reports, Ktrimi991. If admins finds acquaintanceship between me and Axiomus troublesome, i would gladly agree on any proposition you may have. I dont want to create a problem for any other editors. I will tell Axiomus to write down comment also. we are living in the same city and have the same provider (as 90% of the city, at the end...) As you already see, i am ordinary editor who follows guidelines, and i do not need sockpuppets for those minor pointless subjects i edit. Again, i am really open for any advice you have on this, as this report by Ktrimi is unfortunately founded on dishonest foundations. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 22:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Two friends can back each other only in current fightings. Anastan and Axiomus accounts make exactly the same edits not only hours, days or weeks after each other in a clear attempt to force their POV over other editors, but also make exactly the same edits even months or years after each other. One can not protect an edit that his friend made years ago. Some examples: Anastan [100] and Axiomus [101]; Axiomus [102] and Anastan [103]; Axiomus [104] and Anastan [105]. Axiomus edited about the destruction of the monument [106] and almost two years later Anastan updated the article with the restoration of the monument [107]. The cases belong to articles that are not among the most preferred for Serbian editors; the articles of the National Library of Australia and the monument in Syria must not have been edited by Serbian accounts other than Anastan and Axiomus since their creation. How can two people syncronize their work so perfectly? How can two people have the same style of editing? How can two people have exactly the same interests? How can two people be so dedicated to placing the note on the status of Kosovo everywhere it is mentioned? How can two people insist in the same way in the Serbian names of settlements and other geographic features in Kosovo? Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Nothing less expected from a problematic editor as Ktrimi but to present all of those things so wrongly. We finished architecture!! Its obvious that we edit article about monuments, library buildings and architectural styles that we love!! We talked about that article, and how images were completely wrong to represent style. And yes, we edit the same subjects from time to time, and yes, we have the same wiki preferences. Same as our instructor showed us during course. Same as rest of the group. :) If editing same subjects is forbidden, we will obey the administrators instructions. But we didnt find that problematic. Nevertheless, your editing style Ktrimi is still very problematic, and your constant removal of sources and references, every single one reverted as vandalism by many editors ( 1, 2, 3, 4...) will still get you in problem, no matter who is looking on those articles. But, unlike you, i dont want to make problems for Anastan, as our main goal is to create encyclopedia, and to expand nice subjects, and not to use wikipedia for political struggle of your people. Its not ok to remove everything you dont like to see about your nation. You are only trying to discredit editors with whom you are having problems.
At the end, I am very rarely on Wikipedia, as a semi retired editor, so whatever admins propose, i will follow. If they dont want us on the same subjects, i agree. Really, all of this is not that much important for me, as i am very busy in real life, so, this editing is just a bypass station for me anyway. I am from Beograđanka building, and that may explain other accounts, as everyone are on the same network here. if administrator need any document or anything else to prove my identity, i will gladly send that to someone who needs to see it. -- Axiomus ( talk) 15:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Bbb23:, Ktrimi's report and additional findings are compelling. Anastan already has admitted to knowing Axiomus and that they have edited from the same place, the wiki academy in Serbia. It can also be a defence to try and blur the lines that they are in fact one and the same person. The editing style and interests of both editors bare this out strongly in their behavior that Axiomus is the sock account of Anastan. Resnjari ( talk) 23:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You presented most of the things falsely, and digged years behind. God help you if someone diggs your edit history. Anyway, all of those things are the way we are thought. Its stupid to compare the way they showed us, as that is the way they told us to always do. They thought us to always ask editors to go to talk page no matter what if we have dispute, and to add Kosovo note as neutral info for dispute near the word Kosovo in all articles, to add article name first in line as the article title is, and to ask for protection if article is abused by revert warriors, such as you. And you actually presented this falsely, as you usually do. they told us that in infobox name should be only article name, and next below, official name should be with both languages, first again the article name. So that was standardisation with the rest of articles already in line. So Albanian name should not be first if article is not at all named like that! Thats obvious. And in links you falsely presented as similarities can see that Axiomus actually didn't do it like it should in all edits. He left both names in first name section. ( diff, diff) If you push Albanian name instead of common English name in all articles, than that is not removal of Albanian, but restoring original article name. Beside the dispute about content, all of those things mentioned are the proper way to edit Wikipedia. I have already told you that two of us talked about articles here, and again, everything we did was in line with guidelines. I can list other editors who were with us on the same academy, and you will see the same editing pattern with them, and i guess the same address. But they are almost not active, and you are not in conflict with them, so they are not here. They do not stop your agenda. And again unlike you, we add sources about true sourced Kosovo history, instead of remove them as you do, and other editors you invite off wiki. And you know that we saw your agenda here, and that's why you are trying as hard as you can to discredit us, inviting other editors that support your POV even here in this request. You have 0 other edits during this so you can give your full attention. We would not need to ask for protection of articles you mentioned that Hakuli, you and other editors dont push their pov and remove sources, and present Kosovo political questions as your only way of editing. They have also thought us one more thing. That editors who edit only one subject, only political subjects and only one political view such as you do actually do more harm then good to wikipedia. Administrators should know that you would now post forever comment after comment, repeating the same arguments over and over. This discussion would never end, but you dont have anything to revert now, so its different. I have already said, and i would said again. If this was the same account, then i must say that would be the dumbest possible person alive, editing the same articles, same subjects in similar way and not expecting to get seen. Dont you think it would be obviously different if the same person have two accounts? Also, if you haven't notice, our usernames are also similar. Yes? That's not because we are the same person. Its because we are friends in real life, we talk and consult each other about this, share watchlist, and we edit wiki together as one smaller part of our friendship. Obviously that is forbidden in your strict world of using wikipedia as political agenda. I would now expect some more pro-kosovo editors just to randomly reappear here to give comment how you are completely right. At the end, i already talked too much. You didnt mentioned we have also edited Vojinović Tower together. You wouldn't know that was one of our thesis we worked together during studies, and planed to work here also, and to expand article together. I will not share here nothing personal anymore. Already talked way too much, and I do not have to justify myself anymore to the person who has evil intentions, not to expand encyclopedia, but to use it for its own selfish political goals. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 00:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - As soon as i saw this discussion I was ready to !vote for indef ban of Anastan and to congratulate editor who reported her here. Then, I went to sr.wiki to check their contributions and saw that they indeed edit architecture related topic independent from each other. ( link to contributions of Anastan at sr.wiki) and link to contributions of Axiomus. Apparently, they indeed edit architecture related topic and in several occasions when there was some editing dispute between them and other editors they did not collaborate. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I've read this page word for word to this stage. You cannot begin to list the number of fallacies committed in what is clearly an attempt to "kill two birds with one stone". The similarities at best affirm the consequent rather than provide a sound argument as to how one individual can be abusively operating two accounts. Anastan had already provided an explanation as to how and why technical data matches even before CU information came through (i.e. the two persons are acquainted), therefore the rejection of this premise is more argument from incredulity than a satisfactory testimony that one person is using two accounts. As my languages are Ukrainian and Russian (asides English), I confess my knowledge of Serbian and South Slavic is rudimentary but I note the sr:Wiki citations from Antidiskriminator which clearly show that the two editors have been on opposing sides of an editing dispute. Although any CU ruling is appeal to probability anyhow, I'd say that Antidiskriminator's findings profoundly shatter that probability. The selected "timings" argument is mere Post hoc ergo propter hoc and not an explanation as to how it is impossible for two persons to frequently edit the same time. I am also very suspicious that all of the editors to push in favour of the banning of the two accounts are unequivocally partizan on Kosovo-related matters and this would explain to me as a complete outsider why none is prepared to accept that Anastan and Axiomus may be genuine and playing fair. Apart from that, the rest of the similarities are wholly generic and are practised by multiple editors. For such inductive reasoning, I wouldn't waste my time with this accusation. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 20:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Editors that suggested a ban are going on the evidence provided and its detailed. If editing Kosovo related articles is considered "partizan", then editors who edit Slavic and Serbian related articles calling for no sanctions can equally be considered partizan. Antidiskriminator has presented edits where there was dispute between the two accounts. If indeed these are two separate editors, Anastan and Aximious have admitted that with they know each other personally and that they have edited from literally the same place, and the evidence above confirms they have helped each other on articles, in some cases during disputes. This goes against Wikipedia policy and is also considered sock puppetry (see: WP:MEAT). Resnjari ( talk) 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Editors should know that this is not a voting process, and not a forum. Personal attacks on me do show the real intentions of those who make them. Anyway, Coldtrack needs to present diffs for their claim. As far as I can see, both accounts have never been part of any content dispute on srwiki. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 07:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
If you dont understand language, of course you wouldn't see it. We had several discussions on sr wiki, and we had somewhat different attitudes about several things, but mostly content and technical disputes. Also, i must state that we didnt edited "from the same place" as falsely represented above, just from the same town where we live, and we didnt "helped each other", we just edited subjects we were both interested in. You are trying to represent our relationship as wrong hidden intention again, but i will repeat, you are all making this far more important and planned then it actually was. We didn't have any intentions with editing wikipedia, we are just friends edited subjects we wanted, Axiomus rarely, and that's it. I was not aware of some of the guidelines i know now, but anyway, that is the way to become a proper wiki editor. Again, despite massive false representation and discrediting, we didn't "planned editing", and as far as i remember, we didn't ever edited from the same place. Why would we do that? Editing Wikipedia should be a pleasure and learning, not a struggle, political battle, history falsification, planing and lies. Unfortunately, only that was a problem here. Its not problem that we edited our minor non-important person, architecture and history articles, but that we edited Kosovo related articles, and accidental stepped into someone's systematic political agenda, so we must be removed quickly, before some other point of view is reveled. Well, congratulations. I am certain that i will not edit those dirty political rags again, and Axiomus can speak for himself, if he even care at all anymore to reply. So, whatever is a administrators decision, you have fulfilled your plan. That you really care at all about wikipedia, you would stop User:Hakuli blatant misrepresentation of sources, edit wars and other things on Kumanovo Agreement, and talk to him, but no. You support his POV and without editing the article you are hunting down editors who oppose him and report them to administrators, because they are in the way also. Are you talking off wiki? The same reason you reported us here? That much about your intentions and your editing style. You should read one great guideline i was thought on wiki academy. Its called " Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia". -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 10:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Pointless debate + repeating the same arguments over and over. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Anastan, i speak and read Slavic languages (i.e Serbian and Macedonian) so i read it. The evidence here is overwhelming of socking. As i said before if indeed both accounts of Axiomus and Anastan are separate (and both wiki accounts admitted that they know each other personally and have edited from the same place), that edits are so similar that they are identical in style, manner and even timing points to socking behavior which is clear and falls under WP:MEAT. Resnjari ( talk) 11:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
You didnt read my post again... I said we never edited from the same place. And they are hardly identical "in style, manner and timing", you are just inflaming it to present it falesly. We edited the same subjects, so, yes, its the same in style. And i guess that's enough for you. Timing? That's a lie. I cannot recall a single article we edited and it was closer then a day difference, and that can be verified. Closest i seen was more then 16 hours in difference. Misrepresentation by you. And unlike you and Ktrimi who regularly edit articles together within minutes, and now voting in the same Hakuli's proposition that ignores common name... Again, i dont want to explain, you obviously concluded already, so that's clear for me that its pointless to explain anymore, as you and your team will just repeat again and again. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
So its all just coincidence ? Come on, the evidence is huge and detailed that points to socking behavior (see: WP:MEAT). Resnjari ( talk) 11:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
There is no coincidence at all. We are friends, we know each other, we studied and finished the same faculty, we have been to the same wiki academy course, and we edited the articles we both found interesting or in need of expansion, and we shared our experiences of editing wiki with each other. Now i know that the proper way would be to ignore each other here, but that's irrelevant now. Please lets stop with this rotational comments, i really dont want to expand this explanations anymore. All of importance is already said. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 11:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
The report here outlines in clear detail that your editing has fallen under WP:MEAT. Even if both accounts are separate you ought to have read Wiki policy because such close cooperation in instances to the point of being identical and also in disputes is just clear and plain socking. Resnjari ( talk) 12:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:MEAT is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel out of sheer desperation to eliminate the accounts. This began as an SPI and when it became clear that there is one person per account, it became MEAT. I said in my comment that a bundle of editors clearly object to the contributions of two separate accounts, and all are fully aware that there is no violation that they can convey to ANI since it would be dismissed as content dispute, and so they go down this route. Resnjari's observation is that if the three editors petitioning to block Anastan and Axiomus are partizan on Kosovo-related matters (it's bold where they are concerned, no "scare quotes" needed since it is unequivocal), then editors who work on Slavic articles but call for no sanctions can be the same. This has three problems: 1) It begs the question since only the petitioning nexus views/viewed Anastan and Axiomus as one person and they had hitherto failed to demonstrate their claim (in short, editors not convinced of MEAT or SOCK have no reason to scream for sanctions against them - whether the observer edits Slavic topics or not); 2) It attacks the straw man since nobody is calling for sanctions against any of the petitioning nexus, and 3) "If we are partizan then so are they" is a fallacy of relative privation and not a premise which denies the biased aspects of the author's editing, nor that of his two counterparts. With regards Ktrimi991's point that I need to present "differences" for my claim. This is not so. In the first place, nobody dealing with the SPI has asked me for this. In the second place, I am non-Balkan citizen who found this page and I am not advocate for one side: I have merely listed the problems with the accusation; it is also clear that any examples would be rejected by the petitioning nexus- but as I said, it would not be them that I were attempting to convince. I've already said that I do not speak Serbian, therefore with my Ukrainian knowledge it would be a laborious task to draw comparisons but I believe that Antidiskriminator has already done this in his own post. So returning to the issue at hand, if Axiomus and Anastan find themselves editing from a single computer then canvassing would not even be required: it just needs two separate people with similar ideas. Of course, if the duo are some distance from each other, then evidence is required that communication has taken place between the individuals, otherwise it is not canvassing which warrants MEAT. And to be honest, given two people know one another, I hardly think there requires any MEAT activity since one can view the other's contributions any time he chooses. From a non-Balkan perspective, I think this is a lost cause for the petitioning nexus. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 19:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC) reply
This is a SPI because similarities were identical and detected in the style of editing, behavior and mannerisms. If such a thing was not evident a checkuser would have been done. Moreover the administrator who did the checkuser had a similar view about the accounts being from the same source. What the checkuser revealed is that they are not from the same source per se. That still does not omit that socking happened as that behavior can also be done by two editors coordinating closely with each other, as per wp:Meat. These two editors did not disclose their relationship or even location about conflicts of interest -and only did so here reluctantly. Had they consulted wiki policy on socking (as they have been around for a while now) they ought to have avoided editing where one did editor did and not to have partaken in disputes where the other was involved. Yet they did this and the evidence above shows it. They socked. It does not matter that Antidiskriminator showed a instance where both editors had a disagreement on Serbian Wikipedia (ok that might show they are two people), what is important is that in other instances they have socked and their behavior fits wp:meat. This SPI here is about them socking. As issues of being "partizan" etc were brought up i would like to note that it was not i or Ktrimi who went down that road but other editors here. You can't have it one way without there being another from others. So for the record i note i'm a non-Balkan citizen and was born and still live in Australia. That said i am proficient in Slavic languages, i.e all forms of Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian (including their alphabets, speaking, reading and writing) and even Bulgarian to a extent as well. Anastan came to my attention sometime back with his problematic editing on a article he tagbombed (i cited this above) and his presence kept coming up on other articles on my watchlist and disputes with other editors over them. That i comment here is a culmination of observations as a wiki editor due to those matters. In the end, editors need to adhere to rules and not distort or bend them when they see fit. The evidence is the evidence and is there evidence of socking. Looking at the evidence above, it fits wp:meat. Resnjari ( talk) 03:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Your claim of "evidence" and in particular your line "they socked" is argument by repetition since you have singularly failed to demonstrate that one person is handling two accounts. For the record you can count yourself lucky that I am not an admin or CU as I would have laughed your ass out of this project well over a week ago. Also "fits wp:meat" and "sock" are mutually exclusive, and this is where it is patently obvious to outsiders such as I that dirty colluding is the object of this exercise. For an Australian, you are very well versed in Kosovo-related matters, but without meaning to be incongruous, I know there is a sizeable Kosovo-Albanian diaspora in Australia, and anyone to have lived in Kosovo - over a certain age and before 1999 - will know how to speak Serbocroatian and that is close enough to both Bulgarian and Macedonian much as I have a full grasp of Belorussian, Slovakian and Polish (and bout 60% of Czech). The only error of the editors is non-disclosure and for two clearly positive contributors, I see no reason that a warning and some form of disciplinary should not resolve the matter amicably. I am of the opinion however that there are three editors to this page who wish for more, and it is blatantly obvious why they would want more. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 18:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I was lucky to have received a university education and be taught by some really great academics, so as a consequence the Balkans and Turkey have become a focus of mine. Personally I am not of any Kosovo heritage. My grandparents back in the early 1970s arrived to Australia after leaving Yugoslavia from Macedonia from villages on the border with Greece. They settled in an area where there are many Macedonians etc so their friends, my friends, as i mix in those circles i picked up the languages. Now on the matter of the two editors. Non-disclosure is an issue because their editing in many instances was the same (in even style and wording, not to mention very close timing) and also they followed each other i.e in instances of disputes, votes or contentious edits on certain articles, so its not a one off needing a warning or a stern talk to. I don't need to demonstrate anything as the case has already been laid out. Just because those two editors have done positive edits here or there (although there are examples to the contrary) still does not omit that they socked and that their socking falls in line with wp:meat. They have been around for a while and are not newbies, wiki rules apply if they broke them. Resnjari ( talk) 15:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
I'll take your word for what you say about your background. Socking is using more than one account, MEAT is basically canvassing and is inapplicable where two people know one another and use the same IP, etc. or whatever it means to be technically indistinguishable, therefore wp:sock and wp:meat remain mutually incompatible. Non-disclosure is the key issue. The edits from these editors are 100% positive contributions; the whimpering seems to come from editors who object to their viewpoints. If an edit is wrong then it can be corrected. If it is nonconstructive then it requires disciplinary warnings and the two editors are not guilty of this wrongdoing. Once a disclosure is made then there are no further issues with voting the same way or making similar edits. The bottom line is given the opportunity, two human beings may step forward in public and say, "look this is me, here I am logging in, here I am editing" followed by the same of the opposite figure. As for canvassing: if I watch the activities of one editor with whom I agree on some things, he would not need to call me to offer assistance where I see he is positive contributions are being rebuffed by trolls who game the system. So the accusations of sock and meat remain argument by repetition. To this end I am not budging on my position that harsh measures should be avoided. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:MEAT is regarded as socking. Ii am not going cite chncks of the policy here, but i can. Going over all of this, Anti produced diffs where the two accounts have been in dispute with each other. That can be a real display or one for show. The other many, many diffs and examples here by Ktrimi show similarities to the point of it being identical over and over agian that in the end warranted an administrator to look into it further. Socking has taken place, whether its one person or two acting in unison with one acting as a meatpuppet for the other that's where the crux of the matter lies. The polices on socking state that regardless if an editor is new or been around for some time, if they socked, they socked. In the end its up to an administrator to decide here, but the evidence is plenty and very detailed. I am going by what has been presented above. Resnjari ( talk) 09:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Your comment "whether its one person or two acting in unison with one acting as a meatpuppet" commits a false dilemma fallacy as it dispenses with Option 3 which is that two individuals are legit and acting independently of one another - but why should I be surprised? The entire petition is fallacy-ridden as I pointed out in my first post. The example provided by Antidiskriminator of the two editors being on opposing sides supports the third assertion, while the idea that "it might be for show" is totally negligible since there is zero evidence of this absurdity, and furthermore it was observed by a different editor rather than one of the two accused parties, and is also shown to have happened where the English speaking community would never have otherwise found the information (note also that a ban from English Wikipedia will not warrant a ban on any other language Wiki site where the editors are registered, yet the same rules apply across the foundation). What one thinks Antidiskriminator's example "might have been" doesn't cut the mustard. The MEAT accusation is without merit and should be struck out forthwith. -- Coldtrack ( talk) 19:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I searched the history of the two accounts on srwiki, and they have never opposed each other. They have actually never had any dispute with any editor on srwiki, be it on content or other issues. Antidiskriminator did not claim that the two accounts have had any dispute with each other, as a matter of fact. Anastan and Axiomus accounts make exactly the same edits not only hours, days or weeks after each other in a clear attempt to force their POV over other editors, but also make exactly the same edits even months or years after each other. One can not protect an edit that his friend made years ago. Some examples: Anastan [176] and Axiomus [177]; Axiomus [178] and Anastan [179]; Axiomus [180] and Anastan [181]. Axiomus edited about the destruction of the monument [182] and almost two years later Anastan updated the article with the restoration of the monument [183]. The cases belong to articles that are not among the most preferred for Serbian editors; the articles of the National Library of Australia and the monument in Syria must not have been edited by Serbian accounts other than Anastan and Axiomus since their creation. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 23:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Still, blind repetitions, false information's and lies. I am sorry to state that, but you are lying Ktrimi. Actually, "we did" opposed each other, and at least i "had disputes" with several editors on sr wiki. It was about using talk pages, as far as i remember. Also, its irrelevant for this language Wikipedia where we had disputes on other language projects. Is it forbiden to have content dispute on other Wikipedia? Its shameful how you lied here now. Again, (you dont listen, but again for other proper editors) we are interested in the same subjects we studied, and we edit those. We are not "protecting anything", what that even means? Protecting different edits in different time on different subjects? We edited the articles and subjects we talked about or we were interested in. Your links, as concluded even by other editors, prove nothing. We edited the same articles? O, can you imagine! Maybe its because we have similar watchlist, received on wiki academy, because we went on same faculty, and we are interested in the same subjects? As i already said numerous times? Maybe it should be repeated again, as you are all ignoring it. Also, it is shameful that you distribute editors by their nationality, so you obviously know very well nationalities of other editors editing the articles, so you can confirm we are the only Serbian ones. Again, that only talks about your true intentions here, nothing more. Your joint agenda against us here is painfully obvious for quite some time. -- Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Ktrimi, your right regarding Antidiskrimintor. Reading all of this i had check this one by one. I went into Serbian Wikipedia, went through their edit histories, had a good look and there are no examples of them being in dispute with each other to show independent behavior as has been claimed. The evidence gathered above points to Anastan and Axiomus being controlled by one person who edits with the same style, wording, topic interests and so on. Clear case of socking. Resnjari ( talk) 11:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Looking at the examples provided and the counter response, I am unsatisfied that sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry have been substantiated. I am able to see from Serbian Wikipedia (I am a speaker of Serbo-Croatian) that the editors have appeared on opposing benches of disputes, whilst their editing style in Serbian (as a first language) immensely differs. As nobody there has implied that there exists a suspicious association between the accounts, and whilst nobody anywhere in this project page can adumbrate how and why it is impossible for two individuals to have fallen victim of circumstance (in collapsed section), all I am seeing is a campaign of obvious bamboozling. -- Juicy Oranges ( talk) 14:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Anastan and Axiomus are technically  Likely, but they are using a very common user agent. Axiomus and Musaeum ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Technically indistinguishable, but Musaeum has made very few edits and only one of substance. Behaviorally, the only similarity between Axiomus and Musaeum are their userpages (lovely images). The behavioral evidence connecting Anastan and Axiomus is much stronger, including the other projects both users/accounts edit and their Keep !votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitrios Baltzis – the Delete !votes overwhelmed the Keeps. I'd like to hear from others before deciding the disposition of this report.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC) reply

  • @ Vanjagenije: Other than the factual admissions, I don't feel much more illuminated than on March 21 when I said I wanted to hear from others. As a native Serbian speaker, do you have a recommendation as to what should be done with this report? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Bbb23: I think that what Anastan said is true, i.e. that they are two different persons, but there was definitely some off-wiki coordination between them. What do we do in such cases? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
      • @ Vanjagenije: Unfortunately, I don't think there is any "rule"; it depends on the circumstances. We can block both as meat (the duration is up to us). Or we can warn them. I don't think we should just let it go, though. I don't think we should block them indefinitely, but I'm open to either warnings or limited blocks. Do you have a preference?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anastan/Archive&oldid=1140200481"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE