Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/PANONIAN: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:17, 16 September 2009 editWikiEditor2004 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,646 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 08:25, 16 September 2009 edit undoWikiEditor2004 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,646 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 60: Line 60:


:::Also, I was not present in Misplaced Pages for about two years and my involvement in Misplaced Pages two years ago mentioned by Hobartimus is really irrelevant here. But I have to answer to his accusations anyway: first, I was not blocked "multiple times" and certainly not for "mass POV pushing" - I was blocked 2 times for 3rr violation and mass revert warring, but I was not the one who was pushing POV. When I returned to Misplaced Pages after two years, I was mostly involved in map drawing and I was not involved in such revert warring. As for examples of my edits presented by Hobartimus, I do not see why would be wrong that I told to somebody that he has to prove his edits on the talk page (that is something what user:Hobartimus do not want to do as well) or to warn him not to delete referenced data from the articles (what user:Hobartimus do). As for the question whether my IP numbers are involved in revert waring, I did had few problems with user:Hobartimus in "Demographic history of Bačka" article, but even then I did not violated Wiki rules, including 3rr and I always elaborated my edits on relevant talk pages (which cannot be said for user Hobartimus who reverting all my edits from that page, not only those with which he do not agree). I also did not used IP numbers for "creating a larger than real appearance of support" since I never claimed that I am somebody else, but I done that to hide my edits from user:Hobartimus since, as I already stated, he constantly harasing me. In "Demographic history of Bačka" article, I also did not used IP number to violate any Wiki rule, but you can see that talk page of that article have a large discussion where I tried to resolve this issue with user Hobartimus but he simply ignoring my comments there and reverting article to an outdated version (he reverting all my edits there, not only those with which he do not agree, but also my creation of table content, category change, etc, etc - this is very good example of harasing). In fact, you can check this diff and you can judge this case by yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Demographic_history_of_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=314070190&oldid=314068319 - 1. user Hobartimus claim that he revert article to "consensus version", while it is evident from aticle talk page that such consensus does not exist, 2. he deleting referenced data for 1715 and 1720 census (probably because he does not like the fact that Serbs were majority in Bačka in that time), 3. he reverting my category change from "Bačka" to "History of Bačka", while it is clear that this is historical article, 4. he deleting introduction description that censuses before 1910 were for entire Bačka and those after 1910 for Serbian Bačka only (and it is correct information that should be presented to Wiki readers), 5. he reverting my improvement of the table of content (and I have no idea why he would do that, since he never tried to elaborate that on the talk page). It is one thing when you revert those edits of other users with which you do not agree, but if you revert ALL edits of one user, including those that are clearly nothing else but improvement to the article, then it is undisputed case of user harasing. Even two years ago, when I was involved in such problems, I never reverted any edit of other users that were general improvement for the article. ] 07:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) :::Also, I was not present in Misplaced Pages for about two years and my involvement in Misplaced Pages two years ago mentioned by Hobartimus is really irrelevant here. But I have to answer to his accusations anyway: first, I was not blocked "multiple times" and certainly not for "mass POV pushing" - I was blocked 2 times for 3rr violation and mass revert warring, but I was not the one who was pushing POV. When I returned to Misplaced Pages after two years, I was mostly involved in map drawing and I was not involved in such revert warring. As for examples of my edits presented by Hobartimus, I do not see why would be wrong that I told to somebody that he has to prove his edits on the talk page (that is something what user:Hobartimus do not want to do as well) or to warn him not to delete referenced data from the articles (what user:Hobartimus do). As for the question whether my IP numbers are involved in revert waring, I did had few problems with user:Hobartimus in "Demographic history of Bačka" article, but even then I did not violated Wiki rules, including 3rr and I always elaborated my edits on relevant talk pages (which cannot be said for user Hobartimus who reverting all my edits from that page, not only those with which he do not agree). I also did not used IP numbers for "creating a larger than real appearance of support" since I never claimed that I am somebody else, but I done that to hide my edits from user:Hobartimus since, as I already stated, he constantly harasing me. In "Demographic history of Bačka" article, I also did not used IP number to violate any Wiki rule, but you can see that talk page of that article have a large discussion where I tried to resolve this issue with user Hobartimus but he simply ignoring my comments there and reverting article to an outdated version (he reverting all my edits there, not only those with which he do not agree, but also my creation of table content, category change, etc, etc - this is very good example of harasing). In fact, you can check this diff and you can judge this case by yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Demographic_history_of_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=314070190&oldid=314068319 - 1. user Hobartimus claim that he revert article to "consensus version", while it is evident from aticle talk page that such consensus does not exist, 2. he deleting referenced data for 1715 and 1720 census (probably because he does not like the fact that Serbs were majority in Bačka in that time), 3. he reverting my category change from "Bačka" to "History of Bačka", while it is clear that this is historical article, 4. he deleting introduction description that censuses before 1910 were for entire Bačka and those after 1910 for Serbian Bačka only (and it is correct information that should be presented to Wiki readers), 5. he reverting my improvement of the table of content (and I have no idea why he would do that, since he never tried to elaborate that on the talk page). It is one thing when you revert those edits of other users with which you do not agree, but if you revert ALL edits of one user, including those that are clearly nothing else but improvement to the article, then it is undisputed case of user harasing. Even two years ago, when I was involved in such problems, I never reverted any edit of other users that were general improvement for the article. ] 07:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Finally, if you check edits of user:Hobartimus, you will see that he is involved in constant revert wars with multiple users in many articles related to Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, etc trying to push Hungarian nationalist POV (and other users will confirm this). ] 08:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


;Comments by other users ;Comments by other users

Revision as of 08:25, 16 September 2009

PANONIAN

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

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


Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date September 15 2009, 16:50 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Hobartimus

User:PANONIAN blocked multiple times including for mass POV pushing( "with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (mass edit-warring, see WP:ANI#POV pushing and edit warring by User:PANONIAN)") has a history of abusive combative style and clearly views editing wikipedia as war exl. I will not give up. You can start revert war... I really do not understand what I done wrong, not to mention that I was reported by user who is indeed an Greater Bulgarian nationalist -posted by block evading account, just after getting blocked. And more recent examples of personal attacks and generally abusive acts "the only reason that I can imagine is that you hate Serbs so much" also threats to incite ethnic conflict between editors "Have in mind that I will discuss your case with Romanian and Slovak users". The IP activity involves edit warring and other abusive activity in some of the same articles frequented by the user, creating a larger than real appearance of support for the POV of PANONIAN and hiding his edits from scrutiny into possibly hundreds of IPs (only listed a few examples of IPs, when there is a direct connection to him and the IP range is dynamic) given this user's past tendencies we need a CheckUser to see clearly in this case and to flush out any other accounts. From WP:SOCK "Sock puppet accounts

Wikipedians prize their use of consensus to determine issues and their assumption that most people are trying to help the project. Sock puppets are used to counter these prized features by creating the illusion of greater support for a viewpoint and evading sanctions." Much of the IP activity centers around the article Demographic history of Bačka The talk page was edited by the following people:

Edits ↑ User

52 (52/0) PANONIAN

45 (45/0) Hobartimus

21 (21/0) Fcsaba

14 (12/2) PaxEquilibrium

14 (14/0) 212.69.2.147 (anon)

12 (11/1) Rjecina

6 (6/0) 81.18.63.100 (anon)

3 (3/0) Wladthemlat

1 (1/0) 81.18.49.156 (anon)

PANONIAN being a major participant under his own name and three different anons (alleged), creating an illusion of considerable support for his viewpoint. The article itself also shows heavy anon activity from the same range Demographic history of Backa revision history Compare this recent edit by an IP from and an edit by PANONIAN a day ago the same IP has a contribution history (contrib history) with a mass of controversial edits in a few hours and calling edits vandalism signaling that all the IPs are used in a good hand bad hand scheme, where the main account can remain blameless for their activity in violation of WP:BADHAND. If the CheckUser comes up with "unrelated" (esp with regard to the most recent 81.18.63.129 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) ) I will extend a personal apology towards PANONIAN. Hobartimus (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
This is ridiculous. I admit that I am not always loged on when I edit Misplaced Pages and I usually have such IP numbers as those listed above, so these IP numbers presented by user:Hobartimus are probably all mine. However, I do not see that it is forbiden to edit Misplaced Pages while not loged on because I do not use those IP numbers to violate any Misplaced Pages rule or policy - as everybody can see, I mostly add images to the articles or categorize articles with these IP numbers. User Hobartimus is one of the reasons why I do not want to log on since he track my edits (when I am loged on) and vandalize articles which I edit. He harasing me for more than 2 years by reverting my edits in numerous articles and accusing me for sockpupetry and other things (this page is an example of it) and I really do not know where to ask protection from his behaviour (and there are other users who were also his victims). The fact is that he is nationalist POV pusher and he will do anything to present that POV in Misplaced Pages and thus he harasing and accusing other users that do not agree with his behavior. I will always support an admin mediation in this case, but seems that admins are not interested in that. PANONIAN 07:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I was not present in Misplaced Pages for about two years and my involvement in Misplaced Pages two years ago mentioned by Hobartimus is really irrelevant here. But I have to answer to his accusations anyway: first, I was not blocked "multiple times" and certainly not for "mass POV pushing" - I was blocked 2 times for 3rr violation and mass revert warring, but I was not the one who was pushing POV. When I returned to Misplaced Pages after two years, I was mostly involved in map drawing and I was not involved in such revert warring. As for examples of my edits presented by Hobartimus, I do not see why would be wrong that I told to somebody that he has to prove his edits on the talk page (that is something what user:Hobartimus do not want to do as well) or to warn him not to delete referenced data from the articles (what user:Hobartimus do). As for the question whether my IP numbers are involved in revert waring, I did had few problems with user:Hobartimus in "Demographic history of Bačka" article, but even then I did not violated Wiki rules, including 3rr and I always elaborated my edits on relevant talk pages (which cannot be said for user Hobartimus who reverting all my edits from that page, not only those with which he do not agree). I also did not used IP numbers for "creating a larger than real appearance of support" since I never claimed that I am somebody else, but I done that to hide my edits from user:Hobartimus since, as I already stated, he constantly harasing me. In "Demographic history of Bačka" article, I also did not used IP number to violate any Wiki rule, but you can see that talk page of that article have a large discussion where I tried to resolve this issue with user Hobartimus but he simply ignoring my comments there and reverting article to an outdated version (he reverting all my edits there, not only those with which he do not agree, but also my creation of table content, category change, etc, etc - this is very good example of harasing). In fact, you can check this diff and you can judge this case by yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Demographic_history_of_Ba%C4%8Dka&diff=314070190&oldid=314068319 - 1. user Hobartimus claim that he revert article to "consensus version", while it is evident from aticle talk page that such consensus does not exist, 2. he deleting referenced data for 1715 and 1720 census (probably because he does not like the fact that Serbs were majority in Bačka in that time), 3. he reverting my category change from "Bačka" to "History of Bačka", while it is clear that this is historical article, 4. he deleting introduction description that censuses before 1910 were for entire Bačka and those after 1910 for Serbian Bačka only (and it is correct information that should be presented to Wiki readers), 5. he reverting my improvement of the table of content (and I have no idea why he would do that, since he never tried to elaborate that on the talk page). It is one thing when you revert those edits of other users with which you do not agree, but if you revert ALL edits of one user, including those that are clearly nothing else but improvement to the article, then it is undisputed case of user harasing. Even two years ago, when I was involved in such problems, I never reverted any edit of other users that were general improvement for the article. PANONIAN 07:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Finally, if you check edits of user:Hobartimus, you will see that he is involved in constant revert wars with multiple users in many articles related to Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, etc trying to push Hungarian nationalist POV (and other users will confirm this). PANONIAN 08:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Hobartimus (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions


Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/PANONIAN: Difference between revisions Add topic