Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 6 May 2013 (→Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: blocking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:10, 6 May 2013 by Sandstein (talk | contribs) (→Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments: blocking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Evlekis

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

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

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

04 May 2013

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets


This was suspected by User:PRODUCER at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Deleting sourced material the Weight of chains a few days ago, and I told him to write it up here, but they didn't. I wasn't initially convinced, but today I saw this edit. I find it exceedingly unlikely that an actual new user would just so happen to match Evlekis' topic area so diligently. In addition, the username means old gusle, so it sounds somewhat self-deprecating and very much on-topic. Either that's him, or they could be some other old user who's been active in the topic area, or they've wikihounded some of us others around. Or it's an actual newbie whose learning curve is apparently a very steep angle, in which case I'm ready to apologize. I hope a simple checkuser can clear this up. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Comment from Evlekis

The appointment of that editor coincides with my topic ban but I vehemently deny any association with the account. Many of the Yugoslav-related pages remain on my watchlist and I am poised and ready to revert by the bucketload where users have messed about while I am out of reach, so nobody is doing my bidding for me (for example, this would have provoked rollback had I been allowed). Furthermore, I am not in total agreement with every edit submitted by Staro Gusle. So to clarify, no that is not me, nor am I acquainted with the account holder. Disbelieve me of you will though I maintain this to be the case. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please also note that this user has knowledge that I admit I did not know, example. Compare this related edit to what on my part is ignorance, embarrassing too. But if you want a radical inconsistency, check this comment by Staro Gusle which could not remotely be related to me in light of this comment I posted a year ago. We may have edited most of the same pages, I can see this being an editor I can work with without conflict, I have no issues with his editing and I suppose he would be all right with me too, but we are not the same. I might be able to find more proof if the admin dealing with this requests so. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Another: PRODUCER is pleased with himself on thinking he's caught a WP:DUCK. However he is not the disserning editor he believes himself to be. He cites this removal of "Ferizaj", Albanian name for Uroševac by Staro Gusle. Well how about this from March 2012? In it I evidently endorse the Albanian name display in dual form for precisely the fact that the entity of birth was disputed since it was World War II when international order had collapsed. See the link I produced for country of birth. Staro Gusle is even less like me than I first thought. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Point of interest: I was mentioned here by more than one user yet none bothered to inform me that the discussion was taking place. I never had a proper chance to defend myself and all because my supposed alter-ego has involved himself on an article I have not previously touched. So disciplinary is required there. But now I shall take this opportunity to divulge the following: I have not watched Weight of Chains therefore am not well placed to comment on what should and should not feature in the article. I do know who Malagurski is however, and I am also familiar with the now rotten and ongoing arguments between pro- and anti-Yugoslavs the world over so I know what to expect, and given Malagurski's tender age and the nature of the cast and plot, I am sure there must be flaws in the movie therefore I support the inclusion of a sourced criticism paragraph. No way would I have continuously removed it. I am furious that the matter passed and I never contributed, but somebody should have told me. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


Comment from Staro Gusle
  1. @ Evlekis. Have you read "defending yourself against claims"? It says- 'If you are accused of puppetry, stay calm and don't take the accusations too personally. If you have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry, then that will almost always be the finding. If there is a good reason for the evidence provided, point it out in your own section. Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.'. No need to panic now is there! :) Staro Gusle (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  2. @WillianH. FTR, I located this talk because I received notifications that two users mentioned me the past 24 hours. Evlekis and Joy. Nothing further to add. Staro Gusle (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  3. @Joy. Very well observed, my user name is "on-topic". Why, did you think I am trying to conceal coming from ex-Yugoslavia? Staro Gusle (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


To admins and assessors from Evlekis.
Dear all, I accept that "likely" stops short of "definite" though there is a way I can prove there are two human beings involved, provided Staro Gusle continue his daily editing in like manner to what we have witnessed since his inception. At the moment, if Producer's observation is correct then the two of us edit from Britain, then take notice that on Wednesday 8 May 2013 I am scheduled to fly to Belgrade as I shall be in the area for a few days. During that time I have no intention of editing since I focus on Balkan subjects and I cannot touch most. Upon arrival, I shall send an IP note here, then I shall log in to confirm the authentication of the IP, all within the minute. With hope, Staro Gusle will be editing from a British address and then the idea that this is not one and the same person will be unequivocal. Is that fair? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I can log in and leave a message from at least three different US cities without using an open proxy today from the comfort of my home, so from a technical perspective, it can't prove innocence. Proxies and VPN make doing this trivial, as would simply giving a distant family member or friend my login information and having them post for me. Not saying you would do this, I'm just saying it is very easy to do, so it isn't likely to convince anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course I wouldn't do it Dennis! If I'd wanted to get a friend to log in for me then I wouldn't have had to wait until the day I fly, I could just do it now. To William, I don't claim to be innocent, only a small child can be innocent, where you're concerned I am not guilty and I'll still be not guilty if I get the block, and even ten years from now I'll be not guilty then. Well I suppose if it's possible with proxies and computer magic to operate from a Norwegian IP whilst in Samoa then we have no evidence that Staro Gusle or I for that matter are geographically close-by - let alone the absurd and disturbed suggestion despite my evidence of different nature as people that we are the SAME person. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Belated comment from bobrayner

I would point out that Staro Gusle's editing spree started when Evlekis was blocked, and Staro Gusle has continued to advance the usual positions that got Evlekis a topic ban and 1RR &c over at WP:AE. For instance: . This even continues on quite obscure articles, for instance: ; ; and so on. What is that, if not a sockpuppet? Evlekis has previously used socks to evade editing restrictions; this is hardly news. bobrayner (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis mentions ARBMAC warnings. I should point out this. Evlekis tried the same rant about me a few days ago at WP:AE, and got hit by a boomerang - specifically, Evlekis got a block, a topic-ban. 1RR &c. And, whilst Evlekis was blocked, Staro Gusle suddenly started editing, pushing the same points as Evlekis. Just like 84.74.30.129 (talk · contribs) and 84.74.29.21 (talk · contribs) &c in the past. I shouldn't have to point out the Arbmac result, but Evlekis promptly removed any sign of it from his talkpage. Surely we're not expected to believe that Staro Gusle is a friend or housemate of Evlekis, who coincidentally pushes the same points from the same computer, coincidentally picking up the crusade when Evlekis has to stop due to a block. How long should en.wikipedia tolerate Balkan pov-pushers who repeatedly evade sanctions? bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
No, Staro Gusle does not share a house with me nor is he somebody that I can say I have met. You have decided that we are "one and the same" purely because we oppose your slanted tendentious viewpoints. I have once edited without logging in, admitted it and was warned for it. Those IPs you list are not even located in Britain where I live. If you have unequivocal evidence (ie. not "coincidence" or conjecture) that I have been abusing multiple accounts, provide it, if not - on your bike. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Meh. There's nothing to be gained from me arguing with Evlekis, but just in case any third party takes Evlekis' comments at face value, I would invite them to read the arbitration enforcement page; I presented more evidence of earlier sockpuppetry there. Then Evlekis got blocked, then a new account, Staro Gusle, suddenly appeared to continue Evlekis' edits. After the block was lifted, Staro Gusle kept on going - Evlekis is still topic-banned from that whole area. And then checkuser connects Evlekis and Staro Gusle. Why are we still here debating this? How long should enwiki tolerate pov-pushers who repeatedly evade sanctions? bobrayner (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In continuation of the above comment, Rayner has presented ZERO evidence of sockpuppetry on my part either before or now and I was never blocked for that reason, it had been an alleged BLP violation coupled with an admin's view of "tendentious" editing. All he has done is whimpered that a bunch of accounts that disagree with him are all "Evlekis". Note that he has neither addressed the multitude of differences between my supposed alter-ego and me which if inspected, are more striking than the similarities, nor has he accepted the geographical location difference between the IP he alleged was mine yet so crudely screams murder when realising that an account to oppose him is British-based. His entire rhetoric is based on the presumption that Staro Gusle continues Evlekis' edits and that they are one and the same. I am not prepared either to argue with Aunt Sally but it should be noted that this user who has introduced nothing to this discussion worthwhile has much to gain from the elimination of accounts to disagree with his slanted position. Give it time, the list of "suspected socks" will get bigger and bigger since that will be his new tool for trying to rid accounts that harm his deliberate POV pushing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Zetatrans connection is hardly surprising. Compare these pairs of edits by the two: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and so on. I can provide a lot more if necessary - most of Zetatrans' edits seem to be repeating Evlekis' reverts, since Evlekis' 1RR restriction (and now topic ban) makes it very difficult to push Evlekis' preferred wording into articles. Both follow me round. bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Refuting Bobrayner

Save for the first 14 words of Rayner's statement, the rest is utter nonsense. Two Checkusers have failed to prove a link between me and the other account. They just show that we have edited a handful of the same articles and we have shared habits such as starting sentences with a capital letter and finishing with a full stop/period. There are countless editors that have endorsed the versions our two accounts have provided the same revisions for. Rayner's real issue is that each time this has happened, he has been the chief architect pushing for the alternative versions (eg. "Serb military in 1999", spellings per Albanian customs) whereupon that very statement above offering nothing new to the conversation can only be taken as an extended smear campaign. Yes, five minutes he has been back on Balkan subjects and has placed himself at the centre of an altercation immediately, this after having received two ARBMAC warnings in four months. Already making tendentious edits to Climate of Kosovo with the line "revert sock" despite the admins not having ruled that the verdict and despite the fact that there is no requirement to simply revert every contribution made by an individual ruled a "sockpuppet". The admins at AE recently already confirmed that such edits are simply content dispute and there is no right and no wrong, another reason I am in no rush to get back to it. But for editors and admins that still believe the fantasy that one person could be controlling my account and Staro Gusle's, perhaps they could throw some light on the following: one of many references to Montenegrin language from me vs this removal per summary and this equivalent? Or am I schizophrenic? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from PRODUCER

I'm the original editor who brought up the issue at the ANI noticeboard and I thank Joy for bringing it up here. The fact that many details of very obscure articles are edited by the two in same or similar manner is highly suspicious to me. Again this includes the editing of Serb/Montenegrin/Yugoslav perpetration of crimes in List of massacres in the Kosovo War and Ćuška massacre and Albanian/Serbian names in Climate of Kosovo , Đakovica , and Ferizaj/Uroševac . In addition to the original evidence I note that both edited Stjepan Đureković's 1982 defection and the wikilinking of Serbian-Albanian conflict/relations in the "see also" section of Ukshin Hoti . There are just too many coincidences with the timing of the account's creation, the locations of the accounts, and their editing nature. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many coincidences for whom? You personally? Are those consistencies limited to our two accounts? What about the other articles he has edited and the radical differences in our editing? For your information, I have already refuted your concerns, I will not repeat myself. The Ferizaj vs Uroševac issue has been cleared up on this page. Just read this. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You attempted to refute one point. That diff you cited was in March and there you replaced the wikilink of Ferizaj with Uroševac so to cite that as having "endorsed" the name is odd to say the least. Later in April you explicitly said "when in 1999 your marvelous BBC was reporting from Kosovo, we all heard them speak of Uroševac, nobody recalls Ferizaj" and then mocked the Albanian name. Your view on the Albanian name is clear and you evidently finished what you began with the other account. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
PRODUCER, you have made your WP:POINT. I have a justified reason to feel angry. If my supposed alter-ego gets the block it will mean nothing to him; I face the prospect of seven years worth of contributions vanishing into thin air. If you cannot follow simple points, keep that mouth of yours zipped. You raised a concern, fair enough, I denied the allegation - you rather than taking the word of a veteran editor choose to disbelieve me and continue a smear campaign. This isn't Dramafest sunshine. I have replaced dozens if not hundreds of wikilinks for Ferizaj to Uroševac, and Gjilan to Gnjilane. It is to do with the article title and the most common name in English, if editors believe the opposite is correct they can start by having the pages moved. That would be the place to discuss it and for the masses to submit their opinions. The point is that with the sole exception of that no good POV pusher Rayner, the rest of the editors that push for Albanian placenames on former Yugoslav territories are IPs, short-lived disruptive accounts or new users who come and go purely to introduce their little package. The point is that we also observe historical accuracy and in 1943 when the subject was born, Kosovo's status was disputed and no international order existed to determine that one entity was legal and the other wasn't, hence the dual-name including Ferizaj. As for the rest of the edits, pure conjecture pal, locating obscure articles is not hard particularly if the editor uses the same methods for finding Albanian names scattered across the site as I had done, nor if he examined my or Bobrayner's history. As for the edits which are identical to mine, if you don't like them, bollocks to you son - I do not have to stand here and justify why other users have chosen to report the same revision as me. Bottom line, if you told the truth from the onset, all you had to do was admit that both my contributions and Staro Gusle's pose a threat to your own POV-pushing and we are not welcome by you. Because all you have done is pedal an unjustified myth that we are one and the same and you are terrified the admins might just not come down on your side. So unless you really have something new to add not already spotted after two CUs, you can sling your hook. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
FAO clerk/admins

In response to Bobrayner who has entered this discussion on alleged sockpuppetry citing 84.74.30.1, Please be aware that the account is based in Switzerland. Take it as you will. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Evlekis has posted a note on my talk page, categorically denying any association along the lines of the above messages. I stand by my original technical assessment - that from the technical side of things, these two accounts are most likely operated by the same individual - and I'm happy for another CheckUser to review my work. Marking as relisted. WilliamH (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Looked over this at WilliamH's request. I'd call this  Likely. T. Canens (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I too would call this  Possible bordering on  Likely. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: to admins and assessors — this will not be considered. CheckUser is never used to prove innocence, because it cannot prove a negative. WilliamH (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. I have just been taking another look at the data. The following are incontrovertibly  Confirmed socks of Evlekis:

WilliamH (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  •  Clerk note: I've pinged User:Sandstein, as he was involved in the previous problems with Evlekis. I've been reading over the metric tonne of data here for a few days, and while some of it is contradictory and would include socks arguing with socks, I'm strongly leaning in the direction that Staro Gusle is a sock of Evlekis. Combined with the "incontrovertibly confirmed" finding by WilliamH (which is a rare and extraordinarily strong statement), I would lean towards blocks all around. However, I would prefer to have Sandstein's opinion on the whole affair (assuming he is willing), as he is more familiar with the editor. The totality of the evidence (combined with the current restrictions) mean this could result in a very long block or indef for Evlekis, so getting it right matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I topic-banned Evlekis from everything (ex-)Yugoslavia-related on 25 April. The checkusers above confirm that he has certainly violated that topic ban with Zetatrans (e.g. ), and likely with Staro Gusle (e.g. ). Consequently, in enforcement of the topic ban, and in application of WP:ARBMAC#Standard discretionary sanctions, I am blocking Evlekis for a year. Concurrently, under normal administrator authority, as per Dennis Brown's suggestion, I am indefinitely blocking Evlekis for severe sockpuppetry. I am also indefinitely blocking all three confirmed or likely socks.  Sandstein  16:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis Add topic