Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stubes99

Stubes99 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

11 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by CyanMoon
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

CyanMoon, are you an active ip contributor? Just asking because you seem to have an extensive review regarding the edits of the users. wiooiw ( talk) 07:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I've followed the articles I talk about here for a long time ( CyanMoon ( talk) 07:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)) reply
Well, I don't think checkuser is necessary. There is a clear motive in making a sock, edit summaries like 1 2 3 are pretty distinctive. If he is already invading a block (using ips) I don't see how it's implausible he would create a sock. wiooiw ( talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Looks clear to me. this edit and this one, for example, are highly suggestive. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Stears555 blocked and tagged. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

24 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by YellowFF0

The user confessed with nonchalance that he is an old sockmaster: "I'm an editor of wiki since 2005. I'd many names" (note: the account Stubes99 was created on 18:01, 15 March 2010, so Stubes99 is also a sockpuppet of a previous unknown account)

In spite of his ban, he has continued with ease to edit articles. As it can be seen in his block log, on 11 August the initial 2 weeks block was extended by your colleague JamesBWatson for "further block evasion and vandalism" (he evaded through annonymus IPs and the account User:Stears555)

But unfortunately, that did not stop him and he keeps defying the rules. He evaded with nonchalance his block, by attacking through anonymys Ipd


Note: a couple of articles, including Hungary, were protected against him

The account User:Quadruplum was created on 18 august, immediately after the attacks through IPs stopped

He made edits on the following favourite articles where he had edits in the past too:

Common feature:

  • he never signs his edits by typing four tildes


Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Highly  Likely - Alison ❤ 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note The filer and sock both have been blocked and tagged. TN X Man 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
11 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Yopie

Stubes99 was indef blocked [1] for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. He is Hungarian and his interest is mainly in military history of Hungary (especially Black Army of Hungary and Hungarian kings ), electricity and definition of the Central Europe.

  • Warhamer is skilled user (for newbie), with same interest in Black Army of Hungary and Kings of Hungary.
  • IP 77.111.183.192 is Hungarian speaking (as can be seen from his discussion with Lajbi) with same interest in Black Army of Hungary, Hungarian kings, electricity and definition of the Central Europe, all with same POV.
  • IP 78.92.106.176 is same user as IP above, as can be seen in discussion page of Lajbi here, with same interest as Stubes99 (Central Europe, Black Army of Hungary, Hungarian kings etc.)
  • IP 81.183.185.181 is same as IP´s above, same interests (Black Army, Central Europe definition), plus personal attack
  • IP 84.1.166.39 same interest with Black Army [2] and identical personal attack (accusation of "panslavism) as Warhamer (compare [3] and [4])
  • IP 193.224.111.254 same as IP´s above (Black army, Hungarian kings), personal attacks about panslavism [5]

As can be seen in history of article Black Army of Hungary [6], firsts were edits of first two IP, later edit by Warhamer and the last is IP 81.183.185.181 with personal attack. All edits were with same POV.

All socks have same interests and Stubes99 was three times convicted of abuse of multiple accounts, so I presume, he is abusing today.

I know, that clerks and checkusers are busy, but this user is disruptive and was blocked. Thank you in advance Yopie ( talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Warharmer ( talk · contribs) has been Blocked Please note CheckUser was not used here. Tiptoety talk 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm closing this case because there isn't much more else to do. Only one of the IPs has been active in the past week. If more edits come from any of them, then relist or something and we can deal with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
20 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

  • There exists an ortographic similarity (the ending with a repeated digit) with other previous nicknames (Stears555, Stubes99)
  • He had edits at the article Black Army of Hungary, which was also is in the area of interesnt of the sockkmaster. He pretends to be "the original creator of the article" and that affirmation supports the accusation (please check article history; 77.111.184.181 was his IP too)
  • Common features: he never signs his edits by typing four tildes and he uses to upload files
  • Like Stubes99, he adds unreferenced information to the articles
  • The user is very active these days: [7], [8] ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - All the data for Stubes99 and their socks is stale, so we'll have to do this through behavioral evidence. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't know if it is useful for a CheckUser, but here it is a list of IPs of this user (most of them were confirmed by the admin Tiptoety, the rest I consider to be blatant socks): [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] etc ( Iaaasi ( talk) 15:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)) reply
That's a really difficult list to look at (try the {{ checkIP}} template next time) but CU won't connect an account to an IP anyway. And the data for the account is stale, so we couldn't do much with a list of IPs even if we wanted to. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The suspicion was confirmed. He made an edit on the talk page from the IP 84.0.147.232, which was confirmed as a sock ( Iaaasi ( talk) 07:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)) reply
  • information Administrator note Based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked and tagged OliverTwist88. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply
23 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The same articles (he restored edits made by other socks in the past), the same form of IP - 84.2.x.x.,the same edit summaries - WP:DUCK ( Iaaasi ( talk) 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments



23 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

the same articles, the same edit summaries as recently blocked socks ( Iaaasi ( talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


I reverted his edits WP:DUCK makes it seem like him. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant sock WP:DUCK: the same form of IP - 84.0.x.x., the same edit summaries ( Iaaasi ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note IP blocked 1 month for evasion. (And no, we can't do a rangeblock.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
28 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

same IP form (84.0.x.x), same edit summary at an article not new to him ( Iaaasi ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note IP blocked 1 month. Unfortunately the range here is far too wide to do a rangeblock, and all of those articles have enough good edits by IPs that we can't protect them. Lame. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply



28 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

the same evidence as before ( Iaaasi ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments



29 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

same as for the previous IPs ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked single IP only for one month as before. — Soap — 23:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply


01 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This form of IP (78.92.x.x.) was used by him in the past: 78.92.107.117, 78.92.107.119; the edit was made at an article Stubes99 was very familiar with, where he reverted with no valid reason a couple of edits ( Iaaasi ( talk) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The suspicion was confirmed by these edit summaries ( Iaaasi ( talk) 13:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)0 reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I suggest semi-protection of frequently attacked articles ( Iaaasi ( talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
Feel free to file request/s at WP:RFPP Spitfire Tally-ho! 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply
04 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant sock. He edited two articles where this user had contributions in the past too:

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same form of IP (84.0.x.x), he restored an edit made by a confirmed sock yesterday ( Iaaasi ( talk) 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked 72 hours. I also looked into to see if a rangeblock was possible on the 84.0.x.x range. It's not possible. Elockid ( Talk) 13:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

12 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The IP location is SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA and he edited the article Golden Team. These data match with the data of previous socks: on the talk page of User:OliverTwist88 (sock recently blocked) we find this: | "I live in San Diego, California(...)The majority of work I've authored is the Golden Team" Iaaasi ( talk) 08:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Um, Stubses99 is clearly in Hungary according to a geolocation of the previously suspected (and confirmed) IP in the archives. This IP is in the United States (San Diego, California). Please note that there have been plenty of times when a suspected sockpuppet/IP has the same interests as a known sockpuppeteer. -- Bsa dow ski1 09:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I would have to agree with above however a checkuser would be good to confirm this, it seems like the user is being trolled. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Indeed, but according to the CheckUser policy, they cannot tell you if an IP is connected to a user. -- Bsa dow ski1 09:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
It is proven that IP 24.25.218.135 = User:OliverTwist88. User:OliverTwist88 is blocked as sock of User:Stubes99. There are 2 possibilities:

No, there is no CheckUser evidence that OliverTwist88 is Stubes99. It was blocked purely based on behavior. -- Bsa dow ski1 11:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

We can't check Stubes anyway, the edits are stale. The Cavalry ( Message me) 12:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I am pretty familiar with Stubbes99, and honestly the CU data coming back on the IP does not really look related. Tiptoety talk 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Just thought i would put this for 24.25.218.135, Country: United States || City: San Diego || State/Region: California || ISP: Road Runner Holdco Llc. But im still wondering if User:OliverTwist88] was falsely blocked because of a SPI Case for user:Stubes99 which seems to be from a different location as stated before Staffwaterboy Critique Me 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Nevertheless, even if he is not the sock of Stubes99, OliverTwist88 could be a sock of someone else. He pretends to be "the original creator" of Black Army of Hungary article, but the started contributing to the respective article from this account on 3 January 2011.

However, he exposed himself when he declared he is also the owner of the account User:Blackcaptain ( Iaaasi ( talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)) reply

  • information Administrator note Blocked. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
16 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant sock:

  • he does not sign his comments
  • he made edits on John Hunyadi, where he made contributions in the past too
  • he is concerned about motors, like previous socks: he inserted a text about the Hungarian company Ganz, that he wrote about in the past too
  • he writes about Central Europe, claiming that the article is "unencyclopedic" like he also did in the past
  • a common feauture is that he informs other users on their talk pages about his ideas

I hope these proofs are enough, I know him very well and I am 100% sure that this guy is Stubes99 Iaaasi ( talk) 09:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

John Hunyadi article is a frequent topic of Hungarian and Romanian editors  : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_Hunyadi&limit=500&action=history -- Ronaldka ( talk) 11:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Otherwise I will turn to a real (wikipedia salaried) professional wiki admistrator instead of n+1 "0 rank" auxiliary/editor-elected :))))/servant admins.-- Ronaldka ( talk) 14:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think after the above comments a CU is not necessary anymore ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
I believe he may already be back as User:Iaaasi the romani-an Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
 Confirmed and Blocked Tiptoety talk 17:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This form of IP (46.107.x.x) was used by him in the past too: [21] and his contributions tell everything Iaaasi ( talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

A new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iaaasi_the_romani-an_n%2B1

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

It is obvious that User:Blackcaptain = User:OliverTwist88 = 24.25.218.135. ( WP:DUCK)

User: GrandMariner put a message on User_talk:Coopuk that is very similar with a recently one posted by IP 24.25.218.135 on the same page: [22]

He also contributed on Ferenc Puskás, article, like OliverTwist88 and IP 24.25.218.135 did in the past Iaaasi ( talk) 05:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

In the Discussion page of Golden Team, comments for users GallopingMajor, OliverTwist88 and GrandMariner all claim to either have been the main author of the page, or to have been working on for the last 4-5 years. I find it unlikely that we have three users all working on the same article for that period without having some conflicts on revision history, which suggests to me that they are the same person. I appreciate this is a subjective conclusion. Coopuk ( talk) 11:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Note: As I said previously, that IP is in the United States, NOT Hungary. Please understand that. Bsa dow ski1 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't understand your point. User:OliverTwist88 and 24.25.218.135 were blocked as socks of User:Stubes99, so it is correct to block User: GrandMariner too ( Iaaasi ( talk) 05:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
OliverTwist88 was blocked based on behavioral evidence, NOT CheckUser-based evidence. -- Bsa dow ski1 05:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Ii is proven that User:Gallopingmajor = User:Blackcaptain = IP 24.25.218.135 = User:OliverTwist88 = User: GrandMariner. So it may be possible this is a separate group (a different sockmaster). However, I'd like to inform the admins that User: GrandMariner might have broken WP:NPA in this message on my talk page ( Iaaasi ( talk) 06:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
  • information Administrator note Based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked GrandMariner. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • My block on this account is being questioned, so I'm adding a CU to clarify what's going on. I still stand by my evaluation of behavior, but.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • My personal opinion in this moment is that we have two different sockpuppetry groups: Stubes99 (Hungarian IPs and accounts) and Gallopingmajor - Blackcaptain - OliverTwist88 - GrandMariner - IP 24.25.218.135 (located in San Diego, California, US) ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
        • Hmm, that's interesting. I guess if the CU comes back that OliverTwist88 == GrandMariner, then that theory may hold water. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
20 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets



Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I think it is a blatant sock. He is the only active contributor on articles where Stubes99 and his socks edited in the past too. For example he restored text added by the proven socks on the article about Kálmán Tihanyi, which was even protected for a month against sockpuppetry attacks.

An extra evidence is that he also edited un-logged from the IP 81.183.185.37 (this range of IP - 81.183.x.x. was previously used by him, as it can be seen from the above SPI investigations) Iaaasi ( talk) 07:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

* Confirmed by recent edits summmaries [23]

The account Kotkoadac was created today, just after Vukoriku was detected to be a sock. He edited on the same article.

Relevant messages on my talk page: [24] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AIaaasi&action=historysubmit&diff=419784385&oldid=419782877}

Comments by other users

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

I have blocked User:Iaaasi the romani n+1 and User:Iaaasi the romani n+2 as obvious socks. The underlying IP will need to be blocked please. -- Diannaa ( Talk) 15:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately I was said in the past that his IP range is too wide for a range block ( Iaaasi ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)) reply
Iaaasi is correct, whoever this person is, they are hopping IPs. Any sort of preventative IP block isn't feasible. TN X Man 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are  Confirmed matches:

information Administrator note, all blocked and tagged. Kuru (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
19 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user has re-added the same content that was added to Kálmán Tihanyi by the previous batch of socks and is quite obviously not a new user. Thanks. Diannaa ( Talk) 18:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Referring to "banned user Iaaasi" in edit summaries is fairly commonplace for Stubes99's socks, and he has used socks to edit-war with Iaaasi before, and at the same article ( page history). Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 18:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, I should note that I filed an accidental duplicate report which requested a checkuser. -- Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC) reply

01 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

First actions were reverts of 79.117.153.93 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the usual belligerent comments about Iaaasi ( talk · contribs). The IP is indeed a rather obvious sock in the usual range, so I've blocked it. I'm a bit less familiar with Stubes99, hence this report. Favonian ( talk) 11:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant socks, per behavioral evidence (edits on his traditional articles Black Army of Hungary, Austria-Hungary, Ányos Jedlik, Central Europe) It is very curious how this guy who is socking almost on a daily basis and has insulted editors (incluiding personal attacks against the admins Tiptoey and Diannaa) is still unbanned MateaKis ( talk) 10:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I have opened a new checkuser request here [25] which may have an effect on this case as well.-- Nmate ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 May 2011
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All the named accounts are the same, plus the following  Confirmed matches:

31 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Till today it was believed that Stubes99 is the sock master, but the editor recently admitted that Stubes99 was itself a sock of the original account Celebration1981: [26]


It is an obvious sock of Celebration1981/ Stubes99, per behavioural evidence:

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

MrMyronGuyton is Red X Unrelated to previous Stubes99 socks. BalancedRight is a  Likely match to Stubes99. TN X Man 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • information Administrator note I merged the initial case (which was opened for Celebration1981) into the Stubes99 one. Although there's a claim that Celebration1981 is the real master, we already have a lot of cases already done as Stubes99, so I say we just leave it at that. It's really just a nomenclature issue, and one edit from an IP isn't really enough to justify completely changing everything around. Anyway, I've blocked BalancedRight based on TNXMan's findings. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
9 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Reason: contributions on often edited articles: Ányos Jedlik, Ottoman Hungary, Battle of Mohács, Ottoman–Habsburg wars ( Bizovne ( talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Reason: This sock continued a message posted by other (now blocked) sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Middle_Ages&diff=prev&oldid=433415176 ( Bizovne ( talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

edits on typical articles. He made changes at the article Ottoman–Habsburg wars, which had been edited by the sock User:Darkercastel very recently. According to his old habbit, the inserted phrases are unreferenced

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - On the rare chance that there might be sleepers, it's worth a check. Might add that we generally won't link the IP's to a checked account, but endorse a check on named accounts. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed that Standerfeur and Standerfeurred are Stubes99. No sleepers. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Leaving the last IP, i'm not sure about it, although location does match. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
28 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Comeing out of nowhere editing the same area as Stubes99. © Geni 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the named account is a match. Martin Timmer ( talk · contribs) is a technical match also, but we should just watch it for now and wait until it edits. TN X Man 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

01 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Wow. The account was blocked pretty fast (within an hour of its creation!) by Floquenbeam. He's already blocked the account with implication of sockpuppetry but I couldn't find any evidence (or SPI entry) for it, so an SPI's definitely in place, even if as an afterthought. There's no need for much evidence anyway, you just have to check out his edit log and will immediately see why do I suspect that Stubes99 is/was behind this account. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 12:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I saw this earlier. It is indeed Stubes99, but there are no other sleepers. TN X Man 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

well, there surely WILL be others soon enough, I'm sure. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
16 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Already hit a few of his IPs, but i'm not at my best right now, so need someone to look over the last IP. CU for sleepers as I think I see them right now. Might also want to check his partner. Ottoman Hungary, Nation state and the ones listed on that IP for him are the relevant articles. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Per Request made in wrong name.

Koertefa knows a rules of Wikipedia too good for a newcomer. After the user Stubes99 was banned he started to edit Black army of Hungary http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_Army_of_Hungary&action=history . He is in the similar edit warring with me and user Yoppie as the Stubes99 was. They a both works at the similary pages, usualy about Slovak and Hungarian history. They has a similary edit summaries and offensive style of communication. Samofi ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) -- DQ (t) (e) 12:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm not sure I see enough connection here. Stubes99 has been checked several times since this account was created and Koertefa's name hasn't come up. Do you have any other evidence that shows a connection here? TN X Man 14:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

  •  Clerk endorsed - Eh... it's possible. There's some overlap in area of expertise. Having said that, this could also be Shenhertz (CU - you can use Indexatecasă ( talk · contribs) to look), so I'm endorsing to find out if it's either. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined. No, Koertefa is not a new account, and I am unprepared to check accounts which are not obvious "throwaways" without a better reason than an overlap in the general area of contribution. AGK [ • 21:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note Admittedly I initially blocked Koertefa as a sock, but I don't know who it is. It's pretty clear to me that they're not new to Wikipedia. Whether they're Stubes99, Iaaasi or someone else in that domain of knowledge is unclear. The thing is, we've run reports on Stubes and Iaaasi multiple times in the last month and this account has never popped up. Relist if you can better tie the account to one of the many possibilities. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

He has a clear editing pattern and "problems" as User:Stubes99. diffs: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; and many others... Adrian ( talk) 11:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

There is also:

  • a clear pattern of his traditional phrase "romani-an chauvinist"
  • articles that he edits. Matthias Corvinus
  • ip range 84.0.x.x. Adrian ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Bornicus is a  Likely match. No comment on any of the IPs. TN X Man 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Blocked Bornicus as well as the recently arrived Lukretius ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki).
On the fence wrt. the IPs. Favonian ( talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Having reviewed their contributions, and that of an older sock ( 84.0.88.23 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)), I have found the quacking sufficiently convincing. All three IPs sent off for a week. Favonian ( talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply


7 Octomber 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

1. The edit summary about <<civic nationalism>> used on Lajos Kossuth ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lajos_Kossuth&diff=454355674&oldid=447466373) reminds us of an older IP sockpppet from the same article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lajos_Kossuth&diff=378352813&oldid=377622166)

2. The upload, followed by insertion of images ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lajos_Kossuth&action=historysubmit&diff=454367226&oldid=454355674) is something usual at him Daccono ( talk) 18:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are  Confirmed matches to each other:

13 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP had joined to the edit war which started user Koertefa. Its probably the first edits of this account and its suspicious. Koertefa usualy undone edits of non-hungarian users so I think it can be the same account. Or it could be a banned user Stubes99. Samofi ( talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I don't know who this Stubbes99 is, but I don't see how he would be involved in this, becaue he is blocked for a long time . Most probably the sockmaster is Koertefa, so I opened a investigation against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Koertefa Dotonj ( talk) 07:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Checkusers will not connect IP addresses to accounts. Do you have any evidence that may connect this account to Stubes99? Without that, a check here would be declined. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Side note, could a clerk change this to list the account (Koertefa) as the master? Thank you.
  • Not a clerk, but done. AGK [ • 11:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
20 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Identical location and identical behaviour WP:DUCK. His IPs fit perfectly in the expected ranges

I also request the semi-protection of Talk:East--West Schism for double persistent sock-puppetry (not a single, but two banned users - counting Stubes99's shadow Iaaasi too - are editing there) Daccono ( talk) 10:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

No comments on any IPs, but the following are a match to Bornicus ( talk · contribs):

17 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same articles as Stubes99 and another sockpuppet, Celebration1981 ( talk · contribs) (medieval Hungarian history ( diff), transformer ( diff) Adam Bishop ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

It is unfounded accusations & slanders! Adam Bishop lost some dicussions, and he try to monopolise some wiki articles. Instead of reasoning and logical argumentation, he tried to solve his problems with administrative ways.-- Bornder ( talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

Somehow I doubt that this guy's Stubes99 or has anything to do with him for the sole fact that his English is just terrible (which's in contrast with any of Stubes99's accounts, since his English is waaaay better than this). So Adam Bishop, you got the wrong guy, I'm afraid. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

No idea really, but he's definitely Celebration1981, and that page was listed as a sockpuppet of Stubes, which brought me here. Adam Bishop ( talk) 23:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Celebration1981 WAS one of Stubes99's socks (in fact probably Stubes99 was a sock too), but if you look at Celebration1981's edits and editing patterns, you'll notice two things: Stubes99's English is WAY better than this user's and that the editing pattern doesn't quite match. Sure, it's possible that Stubes99 has found someone to edit for him, but then an SPI won't reveal anything. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm not sure? But we can take a look, I think. Meritsystem ( talk · contribs) isn't stale. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm very familiar with Stubes99 from both his activities here and on commons, and I would say that this is  Possible. They geolocate the same area and have similar UAs. That said, the possibility that this account is a friends is very likely given the contributions (specifically the English compression mentioned above) don't really match. Tiptoety talk 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Note that Celebration1981 was blocked as a possible sock of Stubes. While I'm pretty sure that Celebration == Bornder, I'm not as convinced of the connection to Stubes, which is inline with the CU findings. Given that this case has sat untouched for four days makes me think that no one is really sure, so I'm just going to close this with no action taken for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
03 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


It is a blatant sock, per behavioural evidence. The previous investigation confirmed that Bornder = Celebration1981, and Celebration1981 is a confirmed, not only a possible sock of Stubes99. The user himself admitted it here: [27] ("My original name is not Stubes99, but Celebration81 Celebration 1981") Dsjfhsdfsdfmsdf ( talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This was already checked and closed once with no action taken. I see no reason to change that now. TN X Man 14:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

HelloAnnyong agreed that Bornder = Celebration1981, but he was not sure that Celebration1981 = Stubes99. My link proves that Stubes99 = Celebration1981 too. We have: "same area and have similar UAs." + behavioral evidence (all of his articles were edited by others socks before: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32])

Dsjfhsdfsdfmsdf ( talk)

06 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Extra proof: the account is very new, but he knows about Iaaasi - Stubes99 conflict: [49]

Other users confirmed that this is Stubes99: [50]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Checkuser note: – The filer is a  Confirmed sock puppet of banned user Iaaasi ( talk · contribs) and has been indefinitely blocked. -- MuZemike 08:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

  • information Administrator note Such is the way of the boomerang. Anyway, I'm convinced of the evidence this time around, so I've blocked and taged Bornder as a Stubes99 sock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply
29 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


This article Hungarian people and some others has been a target of this User. This IP belongs to the typical range [51] and [52]. Other edits by him at this article [53], [54], and at other articles [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61] and [62]. What attracted my attention is that his typical behavior is to add pictures to articles at the start.[ Adrian ( talk) 05:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

He changed his IP now, [63]. Simmilar contributions by this IP range [64], [65] - his favorite article, [66], [67]. Adrian ( talk) 06:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Article semi'd by Tiptoety, and now at full protection for a content dispute. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
09 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

GyorgyFerenc continued the edit war on Battle of Raab after Doncsecz had been blocked for edit warring. I've asked for CheckUser for sleepers, though I'm not too concerned if it's declined. I think this is just a case of a strong opinioned editor not knowing when to give it a rest ( [68]). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I had a look at a comparision between User:Hidaspal and I'm not convinced by the behavioural evidence, looks more like they just have similar interests. Just including here, in case anyone is thinking about the possibility. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: I'm not accusing of sockpuppetry, just left this here so others don't need to look. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Regarding the IP I just added see, [69] and [70]. Not requesting CheckUser for the IP - this one is just behavioural. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

There is also a discussion on my talk page and on User talk:Nick-D#Sockpuppet of Doncsecz, where the user admitted to sockpuppetry. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • I admit the puppet, but please consider the provocation of DITWIN. Other users (for ex. User:Norden1990) will agree with me in the affair of the article Battle of Raab. DITWIN under new IP number continued the Edit war. 81.183.47.44 ( talk) 14:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
For the other related SPI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DITWIN GRIM. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
According to Nmte DITWIN is also sockpuppet, a banned Romanian user Iaasi. 81.183.47.44 ( talk) 15:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
It is not true. I do not think so that User:DITWIN GRIM is also a sockpuppet. I told that the Ip range 79.xxx.xxx.x is used by User:Iaaasi.-- Nmate ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

He also delets, with no right, messages by other editors on others' talk pages [71] 79.117.219.1 ( talk) 14:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

79.117.219.1/DITWIN again to continue the war. And Hidaspal is not affected in this affair. 81.183.47.44 ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I am not sockpuppet. [72] [73] Hidaspal ( talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Another sock ip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/145.236.101.149 79.117.183.168 ( talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure Doncsecz cannot be the same person as Stubes99. Their command of English is on an entirely different level (compare this with this.) – Alensha  talk 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I have blocked GyorgyFerenc, but am not so sure about Doncsecz. If Doncsecz is in fact Stubes99‎, that would make Doncsecz the real sockmaster given that the account was created in 2009, before Stubes99‎ even started editing. Tiptoety talk 01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm...there is no conclusive link as I hinted at above, but there is a pretty damning part where they are obviously going after Iaasi like normal and some CU data relation. It's possible i'm wrong, though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Alright, Doncsecz blocked as a sock of GyorgyFerenc (though it is really the other way around). I'm still not 100% confident these are Stubes99. Tiptoety talk 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I have reopened this as my assessment was wrong, as pointed out on my talkpage. It needs proper retagging, blocking, moving, etc. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • information Note: What was the final decision on this investigation? Which accounts are sock-puppets, and who is the master? Under which sock-master should this investigation be moved? AGK [•] 12:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hey AGK, the only relation found was between Doncsecz and GyorgyFerenc. Appologies for the confusion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
12 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


See contribution history at Hungarian Turanism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)IP's are aware of Stube99-Iaaasi dispute, this is one of the articles Stubes99 edits. Raising an SPI on Iaaasi also. Looks like we need another rangeblock, see [74]. Dougweller ( talk) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Also contributions at Lajos Kossuth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by socks of both editors. Dougweller ( talk) 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

Some other IPS belonging to Celebration 1981 a.k.a. Stubes99:

and many others. Probably no range block will be applied ("his range is too wide") and he will be able to freely editt as he always was. Irji2012 ( talk) 15:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: I've rangeblocked the recent IPs and semiprotected the other page. Dougweller already semiprotected the first. Closing. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99/Archive/1&oldid=1134556598"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stubes99

Stubes99 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

11 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by CyanMoon
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

CyanMoon, are you an active ip contributor? Just asking because you seem to have an extensive review regarding the edits of the users. wiooiw ( talk) 07:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I've followed the articles I talk about here for a long time ( CyanMoon ( talk) 07:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)) reply
Well, I don't think checkuser is necessary. There is a clear motive in making a sock, edit summaries like 1 2 3 are pretty distinctive. If he is already invading a block (using ips) I don't see how it's implausible he would create a sock. wiooiw ( talk) 08:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Looks clear to me. this edit and this one, for example, are highly suggestive. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Stears555 blocked and tagged. JamesBWatson ( talk) 10:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) reply

24 August 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by YellowFF0

The user confessed with nonchalance that he is an old sockmaster: "I'm an editor of wiki since 2005. I'd many names" (note: the account Stubes99 was created on 18:01, 15 March 2010, so Stubes99 is also a sockpuppet of a previous unknown account)

In spite of his ban, he has continued with ease to edit articles. As it can be seen in his block log, on 11 August the initial 2 weeks block was extended by your colleague JamesBWatson for "further block evasion and vandalism" (he evaded through annonymus IPs and the account User:Stears555)

But unfortunately, that did not stop him and he keeps defying the rules. He evaded with nonchalance his block, by attacking through anonymys Ipd


Note: a couple of articles, including Hungary, were protected against him

The account User:Quadruplum was created on 18 august, immediately after the attacks through IPs stopped

He made edits on the following favourite articles where he had edits in the past too:

Common feature:

  • he never signs his edits by typing four tildes


Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Highly  Likely - Alison ❤ 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
information Administrator note The filer and sock both have been blocked and tagged. TN X Man 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC) reply
11 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Yopie

Stubes99 was indef blocked [1] for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. He is Hungarian and his interest is mainly in military history of Hungary (especially Black Army of Hungary and Hungarian kings ), electricity and definition of the Central Europe.

  • Warhamer is skilled user (for newbie), with same interest in Black Army of Hungary and Kings of Hungary.
  • IP 77.111.183.192 is Hungarian speaking (as can be seen from his discussion with Lajbi) with same interest in Black Army of Hungary, Hungarian kings, electricity and definition of the Central Europe, all with same POV.
  • IP 78.92.106.176 is same user as IP above, as can be seen in discussion page of Lajbi here, with same interest as Stubes99 (Central Europe, Black Army of Hungary, Hungarian kings etc.)
  • IP 81.183.185.181 is same as IP´s above, same interests (Black Army, Central Europe definition), plus personal attack
  • IP 84.1.166.39 same interest with Black Army [2] and identical personal attack (accusation of "panslavism) as Warhamer (compare [3] and [4])
  • IP 193.224.111.254 same as IP´s above (Black army, Hungarian kings), personal attacks about panslavism [5]

As can be seen in history of article Black Army of Hungary [6], firsts were edits of first two IP, later edit by Warhamer and the last is IP 81.183.185.181 with personal attack. All edits were with same POV.

All socks have same interests and Stubes99 was three times convicted of abuse of multiple accounts, so I presume, he is abusing today.

I know, that clerks and checkusers are busy, but this user is disruptive and was blocked. Thank you in advance Yopie ( talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • Warharmer ( talk · contribs) has been Blocked Please note CheckUser was not used here. Tiptoety talk 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm closing this case because there isn't much more else to do. Only one of the IPs has been active in the past week. If more edits come from any of them, then relist or something and we can deal with it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC) reply
20 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

  • There exists an ortographic similarity (the ending with a repeated digit) with other previous nicknames (Stears555, Stubes99)
  • He had edits at the article Black Army of Hungary, which was also is in the area of interesnt of the sockkmaster. He pretends to be "the original creator of the article" and that affirmation supports the accusation (please check article history; 77.111.184.181 was his IP too)
  • Common features: he never signs his edits by typing four tildes and he uses to upload files
  • Like Stubes99, he adds unreferenced information to the articles
  • The user is very active these days: [7], [8] ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 14:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk declined - All the data for Stubes99 and their socks is stale, so we'll have to do this through behavioral evidence. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't know if it is useful for a CheckUser, but here it is a list of IPs of this user (most of them were confirmed by the admin Tiptoety, the rest I consider to be blatant socks): [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] etc ( Iaaasi ( talk) 15:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)) reply
That's a really difficult list to look at (try the {{ checkIP}} template next time) but CU won't connect an account to an IP anyway. And the data for the account is stale, so we couldn't do much with a list of IPs even if we wanted to. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The suspicion was confirmed. He made an edit on the talk page from the IP 84.0.147.232, which was confirmed as a sock ( Iaaasi ( talk) 07:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)) reply
  • information Administrator note Based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked and tagged OliverTwist88. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC) reply
23 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The same articles (he restored edits made by other socks in the past), the same form of IP - 84.2.x.x.,the same edit summaries - WP:DUCK ( Iaaasi ( talk) 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 09:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments



23 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

the same articles, the same edit summaries as recently blocked socks ( Iaaasi ( talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


I reverted his edits WP:DUCK makes it seem like him. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


26 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant sock WP:DUCK: the same form of IP - 84.0.x.x., the same edit summaries ( Iaaasi ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 10:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note IP blocked 1 month for evasion. (And no, we can't do a rangeblock.) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC) reply
28 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

same IP form (84.0.x.x), same edit summary at an article not new to him ( Iaaasi ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note IP blocked 1 month. Unfortunately the range here is far too wide to do a rangeblock, and all of those articles have enough good edits by IPs that we can't protect them. Lame. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply



28 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

the same evidence as before ( Iaaasi ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments



29 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

same as for the previous IPs ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 14:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Blocked single IP only for one month as before. — Soap — 23:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply


01 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This form of IP (78.92.x.x.) was used by him in the past: 78.92.107.117, 78.92.107.119; the edit was made at an article Stubes99 was very familiar with, where he reverted with no valid reason a couple of edits ( Iaaasi ( talk) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 10:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC) reply

The suspicion was confirmed by these edit summaries ( Iaaasi ( talk) 13:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)0 reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I suggest semi-protection of frequently attacked articles ( Iaaasi ( talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
Feel free to file request/s at WP:RFPP Spitfire Tally-ho! 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC) reply
04 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant sock. He edited two articles where this user had contributions in the past too:

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
05 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Same form of IP (84.0.x.x), he restored an edit made by a confirmed sock yesterday ( Iaaasi ( talk) 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)) Iaaasi ( talk) 08:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked 72 hours. I also looked into to see if a rangeblock was possible on the 84.0.x.x range. It's not possible. Elockid ( Talk) 13:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC) reply

12 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The IP location is SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA and he edited the article Golden Team. These data match with the data of previous socks: on the talk page of User:OliverTwist88 (sock recently blocked) we find this: | "I live in San Diego, California(...)The majority of work I've authored is the Golden Team" Iaaasi ( talk) 08:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Um, Stubses99 is clearly in Hungary according to a geolocation of the previously suspected (and confirmed) IP in the archives. This IP is in the United States (San Diego, California). Please note that there have been plenty of times when a suspected sockpuppet/IP has the same interests as a known sockpuppeteer. -- Bsa dow ski1 09:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I would have to agree with above however a checkuser would be good to confirm this, it seems like the user is being trolled. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Indeed, but according to the CheckUser policy, they cannot tell you if an IP is connected to a user. -- Bsa dow ski1 09:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
It is proven that IP 24.25.218.135 = User:OliverTwist88. User:OliverTwist88 is blocked as sock of User:Stubes99. There are 2 possibilities:

No, there is no CheckUser evidence that OliverTwist88 is Stubes99. It was blocked purely based on behavior. -- Bsa dow ski1 11:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

We can't check Stubes anyway, the edits are stale. The Cavalry ( Message me) 12:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I am pretty familiar with Stubbes99, and honestly the CU data coming back on the IP does not really look related. Tiptoety talk 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Just thought i would put this for 24.25.218.135, Country: United States || City: San Diego || State/Region: California || ISP: Road Runner Holdco Llc. But im still wondering if User:OliverTwist88] was falsely blocked because of a SPI Case for user:Stubes99 which seems to be from a different location as stated before Staffwaterboy Critique Me 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Nevertheless, even if he is not the sock of Stubes99, OliverTwist88 could be a sock of someone else. He pretends to be "the original creator" of Black Army of Hungary article, but the started contributing to the respective article from this account on 3 January 2011.

However, he exposed himself when he declared he is also the owner of the account User:Blackcaptain ( Iaaasi ( talk) 18:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)) reply

  • information Administrator note Blocked. -- Cirt ( talk) 13:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) reply
16 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant sock:

  • he does not sign his comments
  • he made edits on John Hunyadi, where he made contributions in the past too
  • he is concerned about motors, like previous socks: he inserted a text about the Hungarian company Ganz, that he wrote about in the past too
  • he writes about Central Europe, claiming that the article is "unencyclopedic" like he also did in the past
  • a common feauture is that he informs other users on their talk pages about his ideas

I hope these proofs are enough, I know him very well and I am 100% sure that this guy is Stubes99 Iaaasi ( talk) 09:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

John Hunyadi article is a frequent topic of Hungarian and Romanian editors  : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_Hunyadi&limit=500&action=history -- Ronaldka ( talk) 11:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Otherwise I will turn to a real (wikipedia salaried) professional wiki admistrator instead of n+1 "0 rank" auxiliary/editor-elected :))))/servant admins.-- Ronaldka ( talk) 14:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

I think after the above comments a CU is not necessary anymore ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
I believe he may already be back as User:Iaaasi the romani-an Chaosdruid ( talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
 Confirmed and Blocked Tiptoety talk 17:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This form of IP (46.107.x.x) was used by him in the past too: [21] and his contributions tell everything Iaaasi ( talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

A new one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Iaaasi_the_romani-an_n%2B1

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 February 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

It is obvious that User:Blackcaptain = User:OliverTwist88 = 24.25.218.135. ( WP:DUCK)

User: GrandMariner put a message on User_talk:Coopuk that is very similar with a recently one posted by IP 24.25.218.135 on the same page: [22]

He also contributed on Ferenc Puskás, article, like OliverTwist88 and IP 24.25.218.135 did in the past Iaaasi ( talk) 05:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

In the Discussion page of Golden Team, comments for users GallopingMajor, OliverTwist88 and GrandMariner all claim to either have been the main author of the page, or to have been working on for the last 4-5 years. I find it unlikely that we have three users all working on the same article for that period without having some conflicts on revision history, which suggests to me that they are the same person. I appreciate this is a subjective conclusion. Coopuk ( talk) 11:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Note: As I said previously, that IP is in the United States, NOT Hungary. Please understand that. Bsa dow ski1 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
I don't understand your point. User:OliverTwist88 and 24.25.218.135 were blocked as socks of User:Stubes99, so it is correct to block User: GrandMariner too ( Iaaasi ( talk) 05:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
OliverTwist88 was blocked based on behavioral evidence, NOT CheckUser-based evidence. -- Bsa dow ski1 05:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Ii is proven that User:Gallopingmajor = User:Blackcaptain = IP 24.25.218.135 = User:OliverTwist88 = User: GrandMariner. So it may be possible this is a separate group (a different sockmaster). However, I'd like to inform the admins that User: GrandMariner might have broken WP:NPA in this message on my talk page ( Iaaasi ( talk) 06:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
  • information Administrator note Based on behavioral evidence, I've blocked GrandMariner. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
    • My block on this account is being questioned, so I'm adding a CU to clarify what's going on. I still stand by my evaluation of behavior, but.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
      • My personal opinion in this moment is that we have two different sockpuppetry groups: Stubes99 (Hungarian IPs and accounts) and Gallopingmajor - Blackcaptain - OliverTwist88 - GrandMariner - IP 24.25.218.135 (located in San Diego, California, US) ( Iaaasi ( talk) 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)) reply
        • Hmm, that's interesting. I guess if the CU comes back that OliverTwist88 == GrandMariner, then that theory may hold water. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC) reply
20 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets



Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I think it is a blatant sock. He is the only active contributor on articles where Stubes99 and his socks edited in the past too. For example he restored text added by the proven socks on the article about Kálmán Tihanyi, which was even protected for a month against sockpuppetry attacks.

An extra evidence is that he also edited un-logged from the IP 81.183.185.37 (this range of IP - 81.183.x.x. was previously used by him, as it can be seen from the above SPI investigations) Iaaasi ( talk) 07:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply

* Confirmed by recent edits summmaries [23]

The account Kotkoadac was created today, just after Vukoriku was detected to be a sock. He edited on the same article.

Relevant messages on my talk page: [24] [ http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AIaaasi&action=historysubmit&diff=419784385&oldid=419782877}

Comments by other users

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

I have blocked User:Iaaasi the romani n+1 and User:Iaaasi the romani n+2 as obvious socks. The underlying IP will need to be blocked please. -- Diannaa ( Talk) 15:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately I was said in the past that his IP range is too wide for a range block ( Iaaasi ( talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)) reply
Iaaasi is correct, whoever this person is, they are hopping IPs. Any sort of preventative IP block isn't feasible. TN X Man 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are  Confirmed matches:

information Administrator note, all blocked and tagged. Kuru (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC) reply
19 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This user has re-added the same content that was added to Kálmán Tihanyi by the previous batch of socks and is quite obviously not a new user. Thanks. Diannaa ( Talk) 18:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Referring to "banned user Iaaasi" in edit summaries is fairly commonplace for Stubes99's socks, and he has used socks to edit-war with Iaaasi before, and at the same article ( page history). Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 18:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, I should note that I filed an accidental duplicate report which requested a checkuser. -- Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Elockid ( Talk) 19:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC) reply

01 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

First actions were reverts of 79.117.153.93 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) with the usual belligerent comments about Iaaasi ( talk · contribs). The IP is indeed a rather obvious sock in the usual range, so I've blocked it. I'm a bit less familiar with Stubes99, hence this report. Favonian ( talk) 11:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Blatant socks, per behavioral evidence (edits on his traditional articles Black Army of Hungary, Austria-Hungary, Ányos Jedlik, Central Europe) It is very curious how this guy who is socking almost on a daily basis and has insulted editors (incluiding personal attacks against the admins Tiptoey and Diannaa) is still unbanned MateaKis ( talk) 10:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I have opened a new checkuser request here [25] which may have an effect on this case as well.-- Nmate ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
12 May 2011
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

All the named accounts are the same, plus the following  Confirmed matches:

31 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Till today it was believed that Stubes99 is the sock master, but the editor recently admitted that Stubes99 was itself a sock of the original account Celebration1981: [26]


It is an obvious sock of Celebration1981/ Stubes99, per behavioural evidence:

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

MrMyronGuyton is Red X Unrelated to previous Stubes99 socks. BalancedRight is a  Likely match to Stubes99. TN X Man 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  • information Administrator note I merged the initial case (which was opened for Celebration1981) into the Stubes99 one. Although there's a claim that Celebration1981 is the real master, we already have a lot of cases already done as Stubes99, so I say we just leave it at that. It's really just a nomenclature issue, and one edit from an IP isn't really enough to justify completely changing everything around. Anyway, I've blocked BalancedRight based on TNXMan's findings. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) reply
9 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Reason: contributions on often edited articles: Ányos Jedlik, Ottoman Hungary, Battle of Mohács, Ottoman–Habsburg wars ( Bizovne ( talk) 11:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
10 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Reason: This sock continued a message posted by other (now blocked) sock: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Middle_Ages&diff=prev&oldid=433415176 ( Bizovne ( talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
16 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

edits on typical articles. He made changes at the article Ottoman–Habsburg wars, which had been edited by the sock User:Darkercastel very recently. According to his old habbit, the inserted phrases are unreferenced

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - On the rare chance that there might be sleepers, it's worth a check. Might add that we generally won't link the IP's to a checked account, but endorse a check on named accounts. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Confirmed that Standerfeur and Standerfeurred are Stubes99. No sleepers. John Vandenberg ( chat) 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Leaving the last IP, i'm not sure about it, although location does match. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC) reply
28 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Comeing out of nowhere editing the same area as Stubes99. © Geni 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the named account is a match. Martin Timmer ( talk · contribs) is a technical match also, but we should just watch it for now and wait until it edits. TN X Man 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC) reply

01 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Wow. The account was blocked pretty fast (within an hour of its creation!) by Floquenbeam. He's already blocked the account with implication of sockpuppetry but I couldn't find any evidence (or SPI entry) for it, so an SPI's definitely in place, even if as an afterthought. There's no need for much evidence anyway, you just have to check out his edit log and will immediately see why do I suspect that Stubes99 is/was behind this account. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 12:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I saw this earlier. It is indeed Stubes99, but there are no other sleepers. TN X Man 12:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply

well, there surely WILL be others soon enough, I'm sure. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) reply
16 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Already hit a few of his IPs, but i'm not at my best right now, so need someone to look over the last IP. CU for sleepers as I think I see them right now. Might also want to check his partner. Ottoman Hungary, Nation state and the ones listed on that IP for him are the relevant articles. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
08 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Per Request made in wrong name.

Koertefa knows a rules of Wikipedia too good for a newcomer. After the user Stubes99 was banned he started to edit Black army of Hungary http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Black_Army_of_Hungary&action=history . He is in the similar edit warring with me and user Yoppie as the Stubes99 was. They a both works at the similary pages, usualy about Slovak and Hungarian history. They has a similary edit summaries and offensive style of communication. Samofi ( talk) 11:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) -- DQ (t) (e) 12:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I'm not sure I see enough connection here. Stubes99 has been checked several times since this account was created and Koertefa's name hasn't come up. Do you have any other evidence that shows a connection here? TN X Man 14:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

  •  Clerk endorsed - Eh... it's possible. There's some overlap in area of expertise. Having said that, this could also be Shenhertz (CU - you can use Indexatecasă ( talk · contribs) to look), so I'm endorsing to find out if it's either. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • no Declined. No, Koertefa is not a new account, and I am unprepared to check accounts which are not obvious "throwaways" without a better reason than an overlap in the general area of contribution. AGK [ • 21:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • information Administrator note Admittedly I initially blocked Koertefa as a sock, but I don't know who it is. It's pretty clear to me that they're not new to Wikipedia. Whether they're Stubes99, Iaaasi or someone else in that domain of knowledge is unclear. The thing is, we've run reports on Stubes and Iaaasi multiple times in the last month and this account has never popped up. Relist if you can better tie the account to one of the many possibilities. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29 September 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

He has a clear editing pattern and "problems" as User:Stubes99. diffs: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; and many others... Adrian ( talk) 11:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

There is also:

  • a clear pattern of his traditional phrase "romani-an chauvinist"
  • articles that he edits. Matthias Corvinus
  • ip range 84.0.x.x. Adrian ( talk) 13:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Bornicus is a  Likely match. No comment on any of the IPs. TN X Man 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Blocked Bornicus as well as the recently arrived Lukretius ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki).
On the fence wrt. the IPs. Favonian ( talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Having reviewed their contributions, and that of an older sock ( 84.0.88.23 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)), I have found the quacking sufficiently convincing. All three IPs sent off for a week. Favonian ( talk) 15:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply


7 Octomber 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

1. The edit summary about <<civic nationalism>> used on Lajos Kossuth ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lajos_Kossuth&diff=454355674&oldid=447466373) reminds us of an older IP sockpppet from the same article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lajos_Kossuth&diff=378352813&oldid=377622166)

2. The upload, followed by insertion of images ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lajos_Kossuth&action=historysubmit&diff=454367226&oldid=454355674) is something usual at him Daccono ( talk) 18:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

The following are  Confirmed matches to each other:

13 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


This IP had joined to the edit war which started user Koertefa. Its probably the first edits of this account and its suspicious. Koertefa usualy undone edits of non-hungarian users so I think it can be the same account. Or it could be a banned user Stubes99. Samofi ( talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

I don't know who this Stubbes99 is, but I don't see how he would be involved in this, becaue he is blocked for a long time . Most probably the sockmaster is Koertefa, so I opened a investigation against him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Koertefa Dotonj ( talk) 07:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Checkusers will not connect IP addresses to accounts. Do you have any evidence that may connect this account to Stubes99? Without that, a check here would be declined. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 02:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Side note, could a clerk change this to list the account (Koertefa) as the master? Thank you.
  • Not a clerk, but done. AGK [ • 11:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC) reply
20 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Identical location and identical behaviour WP:DUCK. His IPs fit perfectly in the expected ranges

I also request the semi-protection of Talk:East--West Schism for double persistent sock-puppetry (not a single, but two banned users - counting Stubes99's shadow Iaaasi too - are editing there) Daccono ( talk) 10:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

No comments on any IPs, but the following are a match to Bornicus ( talk · contribs):

17 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same articles as Stubes99 and another sockpuppet, Celebration1981 ( talk · contribs) (medieval Hungarian history ( diff), transformer ( diff) Adam Bishop ( talk) 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

It is unfounded accusations & slanders! Adam Bishop lost some dicussions, and he try to monopolise some wiki articles. Instead of reasoning and logical argumentation, he tried to solve his problems with administrative ways.-- Bornder ( talk) 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply


Comments by other users

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

Somehow I doubt that this guy's Stubes99 or has anything to do with him for the sole fact that his English is just terrible (which's in contrast with any of Stubes99's accounts, since his English is waaaay better than this). So Adam Bishop, you got the wrong guy, I'm afraid. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

No idea really, but he's definitely Celebration1981, and that page was listed as a sockpuppet of Stubes, which brought me here. Adam Bishop ( talk) 23:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Celebration1981 WAS one of Stubes99's socks (in fact probably Stubes99 was a sock too), but if you look at Celebration1981's edits and editing patterns, you'll notice two things: Stubes99's English is WAY better than this user's and that the editing pattern doesn't quite match. Sure, it's possible that Stubes99 has found someone to edit for him, but then an SPI won't reveal anything. -- CoolKoon ( talk) 00:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm not sure? But we can take a look, I think. Meritsystem ( talk · contribs) isn't stale. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'm very familiar with Stubes99 from both his activities here and on commons, and I would say that this is  Possible. They geolocate the same area and have similar UAs. That said, the possibility that this account is a friends is very likely given the contributions (specifically the English compression mentioned above) don't really match. Tiptoety talk 23:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Note that Celebration1981 was blocked as a possible sock of Stubes. While I'm pretty sure that Celebration == Bornder, I'm not as convinced of the connection to Stubes, which is inline with the CU findings. Given that this case has sat untouched for four days makes me think that no one is really sure, so I'm just going to close this with no action taken for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
03 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


It is a blatant sock, per behavioural evidence. The previous investigation confirmed that Bornder = Celebration1981, and Celebration1981 is a confirmed, not only a possible sock of Stubes99. The user himself admitted it here: [27] ("My original name is not Stubes99, but Celebration81 Celebration 1981") Dsjfhsdfsdfmsdf ( talk) 12:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This was already checked and closed once with no action taken. I see no reason to change that now. TN X Man 14:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply

HelloAnnyong agreed that Bornder = Celebration1981, but he was not sure that Celebration1981 = Stubes99. My link proves that Stubes99 = Celebration1981 too. We have: "same area and have similar UAs." + behavioral evidence (all of his articles were edited by others socks before: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32])

Dsjfhsdfsdfmsdf ( talk)

06 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Extra proof: the account is very new, but he knows about Iaaasi - Stubes99 conflict: [49]

Other users confirmed that this is Stubes99: [50]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Checkuser note: – The filer is a  Confirmed sock puppet of banned user Iaaasi ( talk · contribs) and has been indefinitely blocked. -- MuZemike 08:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC) reply

  • information Administrator note Such is the way of the boomerang. Anyway, I'm convinced of the evidence this time around, so I've blocked and taged Bornder as a Stubes99 sock. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC) reply
29 June 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


This article Hungarian people and some others has been a target of this User. This IP belongs to the typical range [51] and [52]. Other edits by him at this article [53], [54], and at other articles [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61] and [62]. What attracted my attention is that his typical behavior is to add pictures to articles at the start.[ Adrian ( talk) 05:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

He changed his IP now, [63]. Simmilar contributions by this IP range [64], [65] - his favorite article, [66], [67]. Adrian ( talk) 06:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • Article semi'd by Tiptoety, and now at full protection for a content dispute. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply
09 September 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

GyorgyFerenc continued the edit war on Battle of Raab after Doncsecz had been blocked for edit warring. I've asked for CheckUser for sleepers, though I'm not too concerned if it's declined. I think this is just a case of a strong opinioned editor not knowing when to give it a rest ( [68]). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I had a look at a comparision between User:Hidaspal and I'm not convinced by the behavioural evidence, looks more like they just have similar interests. Just including here, in case anyone is thinking about the possibility. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: I'm not accusing of sockpuppetry, just left this here so others don't need to look. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Regarding the IP I just added see, [69] and [70]. Not requesting CheckUser for the IP - this one is just behavioural. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

There is also a discussion on my talk page and on User talk:Nick-D#Sockpuppet of Doncsecz, where the user admitted to sockpuppetry. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • I admit the puppet, but please consider the provocation of DITWIN. Other users (for ex. User:Norden1990) will agree with me in the affair of the article Battle of Raab. DITWIN under new IP number continued the Edit war. 81.183.47.44 ( talk) 14:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
For the other related SPI see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DITWIN GRIM. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
According to Nmte DITWIN is also sockpuppet, a banned Romanian user Iaasi. 81.183.47.44 ( talk) 15:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply
It is not true. I do not think so that User:DITWIN GRIM is also a sockpuppet. I told that the Ip range 79.xxx.xxx.x is used by User:Iaaasi.-- Nmate ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

He also delets, with no right, messages by other editors on others' talk pages [71] 79.117.219.1 ( talk) 14:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

79.117.219.1/DITWIN again to continue the war. And Hidaspal is not affected in this affair. 81.183.47.44 ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I am not sockpuppet. [72] [73] Hidaspal ( talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Another sock ip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/145.236.101.149 79.117.183.168 ( talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure Doncsecz cannot be the same person as Stubes99. Their command of English is on an entirely different level (compare this with this.) – Alensha  talk 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I have blocked GyorgyFerenc, but am not so sure about Doncsecz. If Doncsecz is in fact Stubes99‎, that would make Doncsecz the real sockmaster given that the account was created in 2009, before Stubes99‎ even started editing. Tiptoety talk 01:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm...there is no conclusive link as I hinted at above, but there is a pretty damning part where they are obviously going after Iaasi like normal and some CU data relation. It's possible i'm wrong, though. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Alright, Doncsecz blocked as a sock of GyorgyFerenc (though it is really the other way around). I'm still not 100% confident these are Stubes99. Tiptoety talk 01:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I have reopened this as my assessment was wrong, as pointed out on my talkpage. It needs proper retagging, blocking, moving, etc. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • information Note: What was the final decision on this investigation? Which accounts are sock-puppets, and who is the master? Under which sock-master should this investigation be moved? AGK [•] 12:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Hey AGK, the only relation found was between Doncsecz and GyorgyFerenc. Appologies for the confusion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
12 December 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


See contribution history at Hungarian Turanism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)IP's are aware of Stube99-Iaaasi dispute, this is one of the articles Stubes99 edits. Raising an SPI on Iaaasi also. Looks like we need another rangeblock, see [74]. Dougweller ( talk) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Also contributions at Lajos Kossuth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by socks of both editors. Dougweller ( talk) 14:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Comments by other users

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

Some other IPS belonging to Celebration 1981 a.k.a. Stubes99:

and many others. Probably no range block will be applied ("his range is too wide") and he will be able to freely editt as he always was. Irji2012 ( talk) 15:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: I've rangeblocked the recent IPs and semiprotected the other page. Dougweller already semiprotected the first. Closing. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stubes99/Archive/1&oldid=1134556598"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE