-
Iberomesornix (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Iberomesornix
- Iberomesornix ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- UrkoB ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Virginal6 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Elorza ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Askatu ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by Trigaranus
While it is not my intention to get back at anyone, I am sure this will create an offended response. Nonetheless, I would like to have some clearance on the issue. I will be happy to learn that none of the following accounts is a sock puppet.
I have been trying to get an article on unnotable fringe content off WP, as the theory it presented had utterly failed peer review. In response, I have been attacked in a less than civil way by user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6. I personally assume these two users to be alternative accounts of the same editor, but cannot prove it.
The case originally stems from the article's closed Afd discussion where we had votes from three different users ( user:UrkoB, user:Elorza and user:Askatu) that looked like sock puppets, as their only contributions were to that one deletion procedure. (Beyond these otherwise empty accounts, only two uninvolved users voted for keep.) I would like to know if any of these belong to the same person or not, and if that editor can somehow be kept from behaving like this.
I do not have any idea if the "puppet master" account is Iberomesornix or Virginal6. Both of them accused me of being a sock puppet, without me ever uttering such a suspicion against them, and a similar accusation came from UrkoB (which was what sparked my spuspicions in the first place). Both have acted disruptively by making uncivil attacks, manipulating other users' comments without signing their own, and by simply reinstalling the contended and eventually removed page under a new header. Unfortunately, the original article's talk page has been deleted along with Ib. and Vi.'s comments and with the bulk of their respective contributions (and a large part of their contribution logs), which was exclusively in promotion of the linguistic/epigraphic theories of one geneticist, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.
Be that as it may, I would be happy to learn if user:UrkoB was anybody's sock puppet. If not, I hope no-one involved has taken too much offense, and will understand why that vote seemed odd to me. Trigaranus ( talk) 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- votes by users whose single contribution is trying to stop or revert this Afd Trigaranus ( talk) 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
-
Clerk note: Sock links added for all accounts claimed to be socking, and case formatted.
Mayalld (
talk)
- Thanks, There is no evidence that
Virginal6 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) is Iberomesornix or the other way around. There just is none what so ever. I have blocked the other 3 accounts as socks though as one edit accounts editing an AFD is a fairly obvious sock, though I cannot say who they were. I'll leave it up to the requester/clerks to deciede if a checkuser is required. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- A note to other editors, I have not applied any tags to the 3 accounts I have blocked, so I would appreciate it if someone would do that for me. Thanks. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually thinking about it, the 3 socks did not even affect the result of the debate anyway so... I don't think a checkuser is required. To the reporter, please provide more evidence to substantiate your connections in the future. If you cannot then it is unlikely that a checkuser is going to run checks. —— nix eagle email me 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- A note to other editors, I have not applied any tags to the 3 accounts I have blocked, so I would appreciate it if someone would do that for me. Thanks. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, There is no evidence that
Virginal6 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) is Iberomesornix or the other way around. There just is none what so ever. I have blocked the other 3 accounts as socks though as one edit accounts editing an AFD is a fairly obvious sock, though I cannot say who they were. I'll leave it up to the requester/clerks to deciede if a checkuser is required. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the time. Trigaranus ( talk) 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
- please tag /close this case. —— nix eagle email me 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Symbio04 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
[1] [2] Please compare usage of punctuation signs, pleading tone of edit summaries and the fact that they both are single-purpose accounts used for defending Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's work, which has drawn a lot of criticism. He accuses his opponents regularly of sockpuppetry or hidden collusion, so it would be simple courtesy if he restricted himself to a single account. Trigaranus ( talk) 21:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Although it's not a-hundred-percent obvious, this looks like a
duck to me. —
Waterfox
~talk~
23:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- This doesn't involve a huge amount of large-scale incidents, and it's pretty obvious once you look at it, so I think a direct block might be warranted. Anyway, I would not usually endorse a CheckUser for this. —
Waterfox
~talk~
23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from the user who requested the SPI: I know it is a very limited field of disruption; however, a block of either or both accounts would change very little, given the user's tendency to reappear under a different name. What a CheckUser would provide is a deterrent far greater than a block in that it is an undisputable proof of sockpuppetry that cannot be decried as a form of biased
inquisition and persecution, two of the user's favourite terms. The serious editors feel a bit like trying to fight a hydra, and following two heads to one torso would certainly be a great improvement that might calm the matter down somewhat.
Trigaranus (
talk)
00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that activity has been restricted to a few pages recently but in the past, edit wars have been fought more widely, including pages on
Aquitanian language, a now deleted page on, what was it, Iberian Guanche or something silly like that,
Iberian language and a few others. Essentially anything that concerns the pre-roman languages of Spain. A lot of respected editors have had to spend days and weeks arguing, patrolling, checking and patrolling yet more. If there is even a hint of a possibility of reducing that and/or ensuring it won't expand again, I support it. But I hasten to add I'm not familiar with the checkuser process.
Akerbeltz (
talk)
01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The same behavior that old users on Arnaiz-Villena and his theories ( user:Virginal6, user:Tintagel67, user:Tinpa). Remember the SP case against user user:Arnaiz1 and as it is obvious in their contributions page all of them have the same odd mark of four ~. I remember that when the pages on Iberian-Guanche inscriptions (another lunacy) were proposed for deletion [3] there were also "new" editors voting for keping ( user:Elorza, user:Askatu, user:UrkoB ) and that they were also puppets of.... guess who!. Dumu Eduba ( talk) 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that activity has been restricted to a few pages recently but in the past, edit wars have been fought more widely, including pages on
Aquitanian language, a now deleted page on, what was it, Iberian Guanche or something silly like that,
Iberian language and a few others. Essentially anything that concerns the pre-roman languages of Spain. A lot of respected editors have had to spend days and weeks arguing, patrolling, checking and patrolling yet more. If there is even a hint of a possibility of reducing that and/or ensuring it won't expand again, I support it. But I hasten to add I'm not familiar with the checkuser process.
Akerbeltz (
talk)
01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from the user who requested the SPI: I know it is a very limited field of disruption; however, a block of either or both accounts would change very little, given the user's tendency to reappear under a different name. What a CheckUser would provide is a deterrent far greater than a block in that it is an undisputable proof of sockpuppetry that cannot be decried as a form of biased
inquisition and persecution, two of the user's favourite terms. The serious editors feel a bit like trying to fight a hydra, and following two heads to one torso would certainly be a great improvement that might calm the matter down somewhat.
Trigaranus (
talk)
00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This doesn't involve a huge amount of large-scale incidents, and it's pretty obvious once you look at it, so I think a direct block might be warranted. Anyway, I would not usually endorse a CheckUser for this. —
Waterfox
~talk~
23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
-
Clerk endorsed - The behavior is suspicious enough that I'll endorse. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
02:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Possible, same geographic area. No overlap in IP addresses, though.
Hersfold (
t/
a/
c)
06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the CU results, the behavioral evidence is overwhelming. Both sock and sockmaster indefinitely blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
-
Iberomesornix (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki)
Iberomesornix
- Iberomesornix ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- UrkoB ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Virginal6 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Elorza ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Askatu ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by Trigaranus
While it is not my intention to get back at anyone, I am sure this will create an offended response. Nonetheless, I would like to have some clearance on the issue. I will be happy to learn that none of the following accounts is a sock puppet.
I have been trying to get an article on unnotable fringe content off WP, as the theory it presented had utterly failed peer review. In response, I have been attacked in a less than civil way by user:Iberomesornix and user:Virginal6. I personally assume these two users to be alternative accounts of the same editor, but cannot prove it.
The case originally stems from the article's closed Afd discussion where we had votes from three different users ( user:UrkoB, user:Elorza and user:Askatu) that looked like sock puppets, as their only contributions were to that one deletion procedure. (Beyond these otherwise empty accounts, only two uninvolved users voted for keep.) I would like to know if any of these belong to the same person or not, and if that editor can somehow be kept from behaving like this.
I do not have any idea if the "puppet master" account is Iberomesornix or Virginal6. Both of them accused me of being a sock puppet, without me ever uttering such a suspicion against them, and a similar accusation came from UrkoB (which was what sparked my spuspicions in the first place). Both have acted disruptively by making uncivil attacks, manipulating other users' comments without signing their own, and by simply reinstalling the contended and eventually removed page under a new header. Unfortunately, the original article's talk page has been deleted along with Ib. and Vi.'s comments and with the bulk of their respective contributions (and a large part of their contribution logs), which was exclusively in promotion of the linguistic/epigraphic theories of one geneticist, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena.
Be that as it may, I would be happy to learn if user:UrkoB was anybody's sock puppet. If not, I hope no-one involved has taken too much offense, and will understand why that vote seemed odd to me. Trigaranus ( talk) 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- votes by users whose single contribution is trying to stop or revert this Afd Trigaranus ( talk) 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
- Comments by other users
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
-
Clerk note: Sock links added for all accounts claimed to be socking, and case formatted.
Mayalld (
talk)
- Thanks, There is no evidence that
Virginal6 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) is Iberomesornix or the other way around. There just is none what so ever. I have blocked the other 3 accounts as socks though as one edit accounts editing an AFD is a fairly obvious sock, though I cannot say who they were. I'll leave it up to the requester/clerks to deciede if a checkuser is required. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- A note to other editors, I have not applied any tags to the 3 accounts I have blocked, so I would appreciate it if someone would do that for me. Thanks. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually thinking about it, the 3 socks did not even affect the result of the debate anyway so... I don't think a checkuser is required. To the reporter, please provide more evidence to substantiate your connections in the future. If you cannot then it is unlikely that a checkuser is going to run checks. —— nix eagle email me 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- A note to other editors, I have not applied any tags to the 3 accounts I have blocked, so I would appreciate it if someone would do that for me. Thanks. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, There is no evidence that
Virginal6 (
talk
+ ·
tag ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
spi block ·
block log ·
CA ·
CheckUser(
log) ·
investigate ·
cuwiki) is Iberomesornix or the other way around. There just is none what so ever. I have blocked the other 3 accounts as socks though as one edit accounts editing an AFD is a fairly obvious sock, though I cannot say who they were. I'll leave it up to the requester/clerks to deciede if a checkuser is required. ——
nix
eagle
email me
16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the time. Trigaranus ( talk) 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Conclusions
|
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
- please tag /close this case. —— nix eagle email me 16:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Symbio04 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
[1] [2] Please compare usage of punctuation signs, pleading tone of edit summaries and the fact that they both are single-purpose accounts used for defending Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's work, which has drawn a lot of criticism. He accuses his opponents regularly of sockpuppetry or hidden collusion, so it would be simple courtesy if he restricted himself to a single account. Trigaranus ( talk) 21:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Although it's not a-hundred-percent obvious, this looks like a
duck to me. —
Waterfox
~talk~
23:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- This doesn't involve a huge amount of large-scale incidents, and it's pretty obvious once you look at it, so I think a direct block might be warranted. Anyway, I would not usually endorse a CheckUser for this. —
Waterfox
~talk~
23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from the user who requested the SPI: I know it is a very limited field of disruption; however, a block of either or both accounts would change very little, given the user's tendency to reappear under a different name. What a CheckUser would provide is a deterrent far greater than a block in that it is an undisputable proof of sockpuppetry that cannot be decried as a form of biased
inquisition and persecution, two of the user's favourite terms. The serious editors feel a bit like trying to fight a hydra, and following two heads to one torso would certainly be a great improvement that might calm the matter down somewhat.
Trigaranus (
talk)
00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that activity has been restricted to a few pages recently but in the past, edit wars have been fought more widely, including pages on
Aquitanian language, a now deleted page on, what was it, Iberian Guanche or something silly like that,
Iberian language and a few others. Essentially anything that concerns the pre-roman languages of Spain. A lot of respected editors have had to spend days and weeks arguing, patrolling, checking and patrolling yet more. If there is even a hint of a possibility of reducing that and/or ensuring it won't expand again, I support it. But I hasten to add I'm not familiar with the checkuser process.
Akerbeltz (
talk)
01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- The same behavior that old users on Arnaiz-Villena and his theories ( user:Virginal6, user:Tintagel67, user:Tinpa). Remember the SP case against user user:Arnaiz1 and as it is obvious in their contributions page all of them have the same odd mark of four ~. I remember that when the pages on Iberian-Guanche inscriptions (another lunacy) were proposed for deletion [3] there were also "new" editors voting for keping ( user:Elorza, user:Askatu, user:UrkoB ) and that they were also puppets of.... guess who!. Dumu Eduba ( talk) 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's true that activity has been restricted to a few pages recently but in the past, edit wars have been fought more widely, including pages on
Aquitanian language, a now deleted page on, what was it, Iberian Guanche or something silly like that,
Iberian language and a few others. Essentially anything that concerns the pre-roman languages of Spain. A lot of respected editors have had to spend days and weeks arguing, patrolling, checking and patrolling yet more. If there is even a hint of a possibility of reducing that and/or ensuring it won't expand again, I support it. But I hasten to add I'm not familiar with the checkuser process.
Akerbeltz (
talk)
01:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from the user who requested the SPI: I know it is a very limited field of disruption; however, a block of either or both accounts would change very little, given the user's tendency to reappear under a different name. What a CheckUser would provide is a deterrent far greater than a block in that it is an undisputable proof of sockpuppetry that cannot be decried as a form of biased
inquisition and persecution, two of the user's favourite terms. The serious editors feel a bit like trying to fight a hydra, and following two heads to one torso would certainly be a great improvement that might calm the matter down somewhat.
Trigaranus (
talk)
00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- This doesn't involve a huge amount of large-scale incidents, and it's pretty obvious once you look at it, so I think a direct block might be warranted. Anyway, I would not usually endorse a CheckUser for this. —
Waterfox
~talk~
23:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
-
Clerk endorsed - The behavior is suspicious enough that I'll endorse. —
HelloAnnyong
(say whaaat?!)
02:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
- Possible, same geographic area. No overlap in IP addresses, though.
Hersfold (
t/
a/
c)
06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the CU results, the behavioral evidence is overwhelming. Both sock and sockmaster indefinitely blocked and tagged. – MuZemike 22:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)