Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anittas/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The long-defunct used to be famous, and was blocked, for his minute and peculiar obsessions of trolling and ranting against users not from his native Western Moldavia (or Moldavia at large): a summary of one of his interactions on that subject, about 10 years ago, can be found here, after he called people from Muntenia (or Muntenia and Oltenia, i.e. Wallachia) "a different class of mammals". His other contributions, though he tried to diversify them, made circular returns to a few topics, mostly from the family of articles relating to Stephen III of Moldavia (for instance, the Battle of Vaslui, which I believe he created). As a corollary of both, he made a show of picking on editors such as myself (who edited those pages and are not Moldavian). Notice him trying to get his account back in 2013, commenting: " I'd like to say that I (no longer) find it stimulating in 'teasing' "Dahn" (there's a reason for that and it's enough that "Dahn" knows the reason)" (which is him admitting to having stalked and taunted me in particular). You will also note his pattern of trolling with new sections on pages that relate to regions outside Moldavia (as here, one of the comments which contributed to his block). has reemerged with exactly the same preoccupations: his very first contribution is trolling on my page, to which he keeps returning and returning and returning and returning (note: these diffs overlap with the period where the Anittas account admits to stalking me). This he enhances with trollish comments on articles I contribute to (in particular those relating to themes that preoccupy Anittas: here and here, because he has "a moral obligation to intervene in an article that I'm interested in"); and here he is returning to the other Anittas obsession, the Battle of Vaslui; here he's discussing his belief that Stephen "is the symbol of our struggle, it's how Moldavia expressed herself in a single man", with an Anittasesque theory about how Wallachians are responsible for bringing the Turks into Romania. But not only: he started new trolling sections in articles I have recently contributed to, for instance here and here, or came to pages I had commented on with replies such as "What's the justification for the existence of this article? That there exists some sources in Romanian that uses this term is not justifiable. Before clicking on history, I thought this article was created by Dahn." Also this: "This article is the biggest hoax on Wikipedia. Dahn created something out of nothing. From now on, he shall be known as Dahn ex machina." -- in perfect continuity with comments made by Anittas, not to mention the deletion request. Here, he is disputing the rating of an article I created, with a section opened up right after, and because, I had returned with some edits to it. Here, he launches into yet another editorial commentary about an article I created, on its talk page, with the revealing comment: "another example of an oltenian-muntenian campaign against the Moldavian" (I would suggest that indeed nobody but Anittas could waste the community's time with such a taunt). Another such section returns to the racialist comments about Muntenians, again with direct reference to me and my edits: "Are there any sources that describe the poor Mongol-Bulgarians of Wallachia bragging about being Latins so to inflate their ego and strengthen their identity? Because if there are, we should certainly add them to this article! Dahn, you must have some of these sources. Will you, please?". This is complimented by another comment he expects would be inflammatory, on an article I had contributed to: questioning the relevancy (again with this!) and bringing up my supposed ethnicity. And he actually barely conceals being a sockpuppet; although he most recently denied it, here's him admitting to being one: "If the two of you are gonna start an argument, I'm gonna start an argument with Anittas." This is in reference to his theory that I and are the same person (a theory outlined here and here and here); in the preceding diff, he says that me having a dispute with Anonimu is like him, Cei Trei, having a dispute with Anittas. Moreover, that diff is from October 2015, when Cei Trei simply brought up Anittas into a discussion that never mentioned him or Anittas; yet in the diffs above and in the discussion below, Cei Trei feigns not knowing who Anittas is. Incidentally, note the diff in which Anittas puts my user name in quotes: this indicates that the theory about how I and Anonimu are the same originated back then, and was already stated by Anittas. I believe therefore that Cei Trei is the reincarnation of a blocked user, which is disruptive in itself; I also believe that, while not all of his edits are disruptive, his potential use of the account as a tool for stalking and trolling is quite clearly disruptive, as the original offenses for which Anittas was blocked. Dahn (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note Cei Trei's boast about being able to create multiple accounts faster than admins can block them. Consider the passing detail in his confession: "True enough, but as I told Dahn last year". The comment is from December 2012, and "last year" refers to a time when Cei Trei did not have an account (see his first edit). It therefore refers to his stalking of me as the blocked accounts  and his Swedish IP, ,  ,   and  , as well as other single-purpose accounts, all of which are samples of continuity from Anittas to Cei Trei. Dahn (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Concerning the edits that he makes that are not outright disruptive: even those are strangely incompetent, such as when he uses titles of works to identify references in notes. For instance, this is a typical content addition by Cei Trei: note that instead of identifying the work by its author (Pilat), he uses the unformatted title ("„Pretendenţa” lui Luca Arbore la tronul Moldovei"). This is identical with Anittas, who never seems to have understood how references work -- see for instance his "referencing" here. Dahn (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A hypothetical message meant to be taken sarcastically, but which remains nonetheless accurate, IF someone wanted to make a career as a sock puppet (if being the keyword). I'm ashamed of myself for having invested time in you. --Cei Trei (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If we ignore Dahn's persistent personal attacks against me and Anittas, I still find it difficult to understand how these two cases relate to each other. I went back to look and, if my understanding is correct, in those days (2006), some editors used the name of the work to refer to in their footnote. To call those editors incompetent is not only disrespectful but also wrong. For instance, in 2010 (four years after the example of Anittas), Dahn added a lot of material to the article on Moldavia without referring to the sources in a proper way, yet no one called him incompetent. Here's an example. In fact, if someone digs deeper, they will see that Anittas advised Dahn on the subject through an intermediary and although Dahn corrected some of the mistakes he made, Dahn refused to correct some of his other mistakes and to source the material. In a nutshell, Dahn has a way of intimidating other editors and, in particular, Romanian editors. Ten years ago, there were some forty editors who worked on Romanian-related articles. A dozen of them were active weekly. Today, there's only Dahn and one or two of his friends left. Dahn referred to this exodus as progress and he's been largely successful to get rid of several people who he manages to destabilize; once they lose it, he starts calling them trolls, incompetent, and the like. Most recently, he picked a fight with a different user on the article on Stephen III of Moldavia, compelling the user to give up on the article and on Dahn, saying, "It is really sad that such an intelligent editor treats everything at a personal level and thinks that all edits are made to attack him. He must have had terrible experiences during his life." (see here). It is also in that heated debate that Dahn made the a false and a very serious allegation towards a scholar as being a Holocaust denier, despite the report that he linked to saying nothing of the sort. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the deflection and the filibustering (I won't even comment on the many half-truths, and the personal attacks while accusing me of personal attacks -- from a user whose very first edit was a personal attack on my page, continued with the endless harassment shown above). To the point, the rest of the claim is that "in 2006 editors used titles as footnotes" refers to Anittas' editing style: he was using it like that, because he could not understand referencing styles, and did not care to learn them. Cei Trei is incriminating himself: precisely, Anittas used this non-style in 2006, and here's Cei Trei in 2017 with the same non-style, in addition to the many other giveaways. My edits to Moldavia dated to a period before wikipedia called for inline references; when I added references after the requirement was introduced, they were quite clearly competent in style. However, Anittas never managed to learn a referencing style, and if he was even planning to, he was duly blocked. Ten years later, an editor with the same mental tropes, the same stalking habits, the same trolling obsessions, the exact same ideas about Moldavians, and who even drops hints that he is Anittas, also displays the same inability to format references. It's all a strange coincidence. Dahn (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even his immediate familiarity with my edits to Moldavia eleven years ago, and his defense of how Anittas tried to "coach" me on "correcting mistakes": big red flag. Dahn (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a red flag at all, since this case pertains to Anittas and your accusation against me. It's only normal that I will research the matter. Also, where have I expressed my ideas about Moldavians that coincide with Anittas? So far, you've been able to quote me on what I said about Stephen, about him being Moldavia's expression of our struggle. I'd say that 90-percent of all Moldavians feel the same, which is why he's venerated and declared a saint. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, here, and here, for instance. Let the reviewing admin note that the only article where you made contributions you seemingly view as substantial and vital is Luca Arbore, which has the twin attributes of relating to Stephen III of Moldavia and of being created by me. Even the dispute you cite, where you intervened because of a "a moral obligation to intervene in an article that I'm interested in", and harassed me over days on end with attempts to besmirch me, such as your claim (repeated here over and over again, though it doesn't help your case) that I misquoted sources regarding the reliability and reputation of Kurt Treptow as a denier of the Holocaust in Romania, even that dispute shows in its every single aspect your deep intimate connection with the Anittas account: it is trolling and chaff of the kind Anittas spewed incessantly, and it is on the talk page of the page most dear to him. So carry on with this spamming of the discussion and wikilawyering, you'll only be proving my point. Dahn (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the examples that you provide are unique opinions. These opinions are held by our mainstream academia, including Iorga. It must be you who hold the opinion that my best contribution is to Luca Arbore which, contrary to your character, took the time to give me a little thanks (now I realize that you used our communication as a sort of entrapment in order to make connections between me and Anittas). As for the rest of what you repeat above, I've already offered an explanation that I believe suffices. --Cei Trei (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The important is that those connections exist and are glaring, you being the only person on wikipedia to have exhibited them since Anittas, while mysteriously finding your way to the exact same hotspots, including talk pages, and continuing his "work" in the same vein. Evidently, there is nothing "in academia" that would validate childish trolling about how me creating an article on a Moldavian writer is a proof of "Muntenian-Oltenian hatred for Moldavians" -- even among Moldavians (very few of whom are actually obsessed with any of the ideas you attribute them), only an Anittas could produce such a bewildering absurdity, on par with "Muntenians are a different class of mammals". It's for admins to decide what "suffices" about your explanations. I'd wager that your trolling on this very page is not going to help your case. (And yes, I did send you thanks, because even if I always suspected the obvious, namely you being Anittas, I had hopes that you could reintegrate as a decent editor. You manifestly are structurally incapable to either interact in a civil way or respect the wikipedia mission.) Dahn (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this discussion dragging on for this long, but, if I'm right, this is the seminal and reference case that marks Anittas' transition from troll to puppet master, and the evidence needs to be amassed in one place and explored for future reference -- for instance, if Cei Trei really intends to carry out his "sarcastic" plan of creating numerous accounts, they will be more easily blocked based on this evidence. Cei Trei's excuses and deflections should also be (minimally) debunked, because doing otherwise might needlessly prolong the career of a disruptive sockpuppet. Dahn (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Most are basic connections and some are unique due to the statistical probability of such connections existing. Anittas has been an active user for years, it's not too difficult to find some traits that are unique to both him and me. You could probably find unique peculiarities between me and you, also. What I find disturbing is that you never raised this issue all of these years that you thought I was a sock-puppet, but only did so when I said that I had enough of you and I let you have the last word. This means that even if you convince the admins to have me banned--as you have done for other editors--the outcome will be the same, so win-win for both of us. I invite the admins to check your messages to me on that last page, including your insinuation that I'm mentally disturbed. --Cei Trei (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let them also check the messages you left for me, beginning with your edits on my user page, throughout these years. I don't expect them to clinically assess your (and Anittas') obsession with me, to note whether in fact you are mentally disturbed -- that is between you and the people in your life. But they are expected to assess your behavior, and in fact I am required to present behavioral proof for this investigation. Which I did. however, it's interesting that you mention taking offense at my suggestion that your preoccupations and obsessions are not normal (they really aren't: just like Anittas' absurd racism was not), and cite as proof a talk page on which you claimed I had autism. Give it a rest already. Dahn (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope they do. So far you've linked to friendly messages in the attempt to make them look like trolling posts. Yes, I take offense, because it's not true. I only visit Wikipedia occasionally, while you edit Wikipedia weekly. You call this an obsession? It is, however, ironic that you only raised the issue when I left the discussion and left you on your own. So much for being obsessed over you. --Cei Trei (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsolicited "friendly" messages and taunts (just like in Anittas' case, it is hard to tell, and ultimately irrelevant, if you are being deliberately offensive in your "friendly" messages, or if you genuinely do not understand that you are being offensive -- you are either a troll or have some other sort of problem in your daily communication). Even your snide (and incidentally untrue) comment about how I edit wikipedia "weekly" and how this is an "obsession" shows that you either don't understand, or pretend not to understand, the issue: when I edit, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly, sometimes once in a blue moon, I create content and rarely even spend time discussing idle issues -- which is in fact why you yourself have had the audacity of calling me autistic; your edits, however far apart, are largely obsessive stalking and jokes, which you gloat in, virtually all of it either disruptive on purpose or disruptive by virtue of it being inane. Anybody can verify that by clicking on your edit history. I left you prance around for years, as you yourself noted just above, even though what you were doing was a nuisance to me and to all other editors you pester; yet now I am obsessed with you for finally addressing your editing, all in one place. Even this very transition from one stance to the other, in one reply, shows that you're being mendacious or have a loose grip on reality -- either way, it shows that you, in addition to being a suspected sock and a proud stalker, are incapable of even basic normal communication. Dahn (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You speak (write) with great confidence, but even in your recent edit, you bring up Anittas' anthropological message about Muntenians and I'm left wondering how that relates to me. I only said that the Muntenians brought the Turks into the country, a well-known fact. As for my messages to you, I don't remember you asking me to stop; on the contrary, once in a while you replied. I agree that I shouldn't have dealt with you and like I said, I came to this realization far too late and this makes me ashamed. But only when I came to this realization did you decide to open a case against me. Great timing! --Cei Trei (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Poor you, so very harassed. For the record, and not that it matters: this (belated) case is the direct product of your disruption -- certainly not because you "did not reply" to my comments (I actually would feel blessed if I never have to intersect with you and your constant, nonsensical, incontinent, taunts). It is because I had noticed that you went on Talk:Kir Ianulea after I had edited the page, and opened up another trollorama; that really was the tipping point, because I do not spend time on wikipedia to have to be stalked and harassed by someone who isn't even funny, competent, or coherent, but merely a self-congratulating man with obvious obsessions and circular thinking, a Dunning–Kruger case who has not even learned, year after year, how to properly add a citation. The case is belated precisely because I do not like the bureaucratic process and having to engage with you in even more debates such as this one, having to dig for diffs in that infinite record of rants and absurdities that is your and Anittas' edit history, having to even remind myself that you exist and have ideas you believe are cogent. It is also belated because at least for a while I trusted in not feeding your trolling, but you continued regardless. And not least of all: it is belated because you have obvious behavioral issues, and it is embarrassing for both of us that I should have to record them and present them as evidence. I spared both of us that embarrassment for as long as I could, but enough's enough. Dahn (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's anachronistic. My message on Kir Ianulea was posted sometime in the evening of August 9. I asked about the rating procedure, which was a serious question; then I compared Luca to Tyrion Lannister as a joke--I'm sorry it fell flat--but that was that. A small absurdity, no trolling. You always think the worst. And that wasn't the tipping point because later that evening you posted on Luca's page as usual, and the exchange lasted until August 10 where the "tipping point" occured. I already apologized for that and now have to deal with insults and sock-puppet accusations where you link me to a guy who hasn't been active in a decade, apart from an edit on his talk page 3-4 years ago. And I'm sorry you feel that way about me. --Cei Trei (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cei Trei" commented with that "serious question" absurdity shortly after my edits on that page, because he stalks me. As stated, I only later noticed his comments there, and that was my tipping point; again, not that it would matter, because it is my right and privilege to open up an investigation about his editing as I please, as long as I have a case. I am an editor of good standing, and I deserve not to be harassed by this evident sockpuppet and his incoherent, bloviating, obsessions. In his years of unchecked activity, about half of his overall "contributions" relate to stalking me. I have had it, and I ask for this to end, and for this to be added as a record of Anittas' transgressions. Dahn (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, he is also lying about me not having reacted to his trolling. Dahn (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, in your previous message, you write that "it is because I had noticed that you went on Talk:Kir Ianulea after I had edited the page", and that happened on August 9, as I have shown. Now you write that you "only later noticed his comments there". So which is it? Did you notice the comment after you edited the page, or did you notice the comments two or three days after--after when I left our discussion on the Luca page--and after which the "tipping point" occurred? No one questions your right to open up an investigation, but apart from these discrepancies that you make, you try to connect me to a guy who hasn't been active in a decade just because I remind you of him. From what I can see, Anittas rarely posted on your talk page and apart from the article of Protochronism, which we both felt that it should be deleted (along with an Albanian guy, a Latvian guy and a British guy who also expressed doubts about the validity of the article), he rarely, if ever, gave any attention to your articles. Not only that, but from my investigation, the guy seems to live in Sweden, whereas I live in Bucharest (Muntenia), like you. I have more in common with you than with Anittas. --Cei Trei (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Filibustering and deflection. I'm done replying, but I will "alter" my messages at my own convenience to add new evidence of your career in puppetry, which is all that matters here. I sincerely hope the above is your swan song on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Most recently, Dahn has tracked Anittas as living in Denmark as of 2008 and claims that I was somehow denying this. I don't deny anything and it makes no difference to me whether Anittas was living in Sweden or Denmark at the time. I have, however, seen some of the posts on the forum that Dahn hints at (as I mention further below, there's a link between me and another user here), and I remember seeing a certain someone having posted a screen-shot of Google Maps with an arrow that pointed to Anittas' residence in Sweden, and a threat of sending an assassin. The same threat was made to another user in those forums (who decided to leave) and that same user who made the threats also posted some pornographic material that was photoshoped to the head of a moderator on the forum, albeit not that of Anittas. In a second forum, there was also some homophobic material published linked to the aforementioned users. For this reason, I fear that this 'syndicate' might be a threat to me just as it was against Anittas, and I fear that they might find out my identity just as they found out the identity of Anittas and by doing so, also be a threat to my family in Bucharest.

For the past three days, Dahn has made some grave accusations against me while insulting me on numerous occasions, as he had done in the past on countless occasions. On August 10, in a discussion on the Luca Arbore talk page, Dahn indirectly called me an "inbred nihilist" (he later tried to deny that he was referring to me). I gave him one last reply where I said that I would leave the discussion. Dahn followed up by saying that I probably suffer from "severe distress", that I make "childish" and "ridiculous" claims; and that I probably am able to function in a society if I keep this hidden (link). It should be noted that after he called me an inbred nihilist, and after having discussed with Dahn for days on several subjects, I said something that I shouldn't have: that he is on the Asperger spectrum. I shouldn't have said that and I made an apology here (there's nothing wrong with Asperger), but that was my last message to Dahn on a page other than this. My reply angered him greatly and his response consists of seven edits in the course of three hours. After waiting for more than 24 hours for a reply from me, he eventually decided to open a sockpuppet investigation against me. On this page, Dahn has continued with his insults, calling me a "troll", a "stalker", a "liar", insulting my intelligence by saying that I'm "someone who isn't even funny, competent, or coherent, but merely a self-congratulating man with obvious obsessions and circular thinking, a Dunning–Kruger case who has not even learned, year after year, how to properly add a citation". Before this happened, Dahn was involved in a similar altercation with a different user on a different talk page (scroll further up and further down, the discussion continues ad infinitum), where I also got involved because Dahn made a false allegation against a living scholar (Kurt W. Treptow), calling Treptow a Holocaust denier and linking to the Wiesel report, which in fact said nothing of the sort. When I expressed my sympathy with the user who I felt was mistreated by Dahn, that user replied that, "It is really sad that such an intelligent editor treats everything at a personal level and thinks that all edits are made to attack him. He must have had terrible experiences during his life."

All of this would've been irrelevant to the case, if I didn't believe that Dahn opened this case as a retaliation against me for having said that he was on the spectrum and, most importantly, for ignoring him afterwards. Dahn tries to link me to Anitas, a user who hasn't been active in a decade, except for when he posted on his talk page 3-4 years ago when, incidentally, he was accused of using a sock-puppet. Dahn has since mentioned other users ( and his Swedish IP, ,  ,   and ) as being my sock-puppets (but which, as of this writing, he hasn't listed under Suspected sockpuppets). Dahn tries to make a connection between these users--who used a Swedish IP--and me, who lives in Bucharest, like Dahn.

Dahn has presented countless arguments for me being Anittas and probably more than a hundred links. Many of these connections seem inconsistent or, at best, coincidental. For example, he links to many of my old posts on his talk page--which were meant to be humorous--yet Anittas rarely posted on his talk page; and when he did, it strictly related to Wikipedia articles. As for my first edits on Wikipedia which were made on Dahn's talkpage, those comments were made by Gigi Becali, which I found to be humorous. The first comment, for example, is Becali claiming that he can learn English in a couple of months. Before creating an account on Wikipedia, I checked to see the activity of Romanians on Wikipedia and Dahn stood out (he is basically the most active Romanian editor on Wikipedia). I remember reading some message of him where he complained about other people's English and that's when I decided to post that comment from Becali on Dahn's page. There's also another point of confusion. I've always suspected Dahn of having a parallel account on Wikipedia (Dahn also brings this argument up), and it's possible that Dahn was fearing that I was going to finally open up a case against him. The user in question is someone that I've interacted outside of Wikipedia, before I joined Wikipedia, which is why I posted on Dahn's talk page with the jokes that I thought only he would understand. So in reply to this fragment in Dahn's argument: <<"Consider the passing detail in his confession: "True enough, but as I told Dahn last year". The comment is from December 2012, and "last year" refers to a time when Cei Trei did not have an account">> -- this relates to the user whom I believe to be the master behind Dahn's account.

Dahn tries to find a common ground between Anittas' dislike of Bucharest and Muntenia, arguing that I share Anittas' sentiments. Although I made a joke about Bucharest and Muntenians at one time or another, this is no different than many Romanians from the 'province' taking similar jabs at their capital. Also, my veneration of Stephen III (who is declared a saint), is no different than that of many other Romanians.

I'm not entirely certain what to make of the message posted by Anittas on his talkpage (which Dahn linked to), but I don't believe that saying that he (Anittas) no longer, "find[s] it stimulating in 'teasing' "Dahn" is an admission of his trolling, just like when I wrote the following to Dahn: "I don't think you are able to see things clearly; and the more complex things become, the more confused you become, regardless of the subject at hand. It was therefore a moral obligation for me to intervene in an article that I'm interested in." That reply was made after Dahn accused Treptow of being a Holocaust denier. (see my previous reply here). So the moral obligation was to set things straight and indeed, it involved a subject that I'm interested in, which is Romanian history.

As for me editing on some of the articles that Anittas worked on, I clicked on the user compare report and it barely matches on some articles that I picked on and only made some minor edits on. Dahn has accused me of being Anittas so many times that, naturally, I went to check on this user's history and the articles he has worked on. For example, in the link that Dahn provides to the talkpage on the Battle of Vaslui, I merely questioned Dahn's change on the Moldavian flag which, in the new version that he posted, the coat-of-arms can barely be seen. I also found it strange that he only made this change on that particular article and not other articles that involved Moldavia, including other articles about battles. I believe he did this to entrap me and make a connection between me and Anittas. If this is so, I find this troubling because it would mean that he changed the content of the article to a lesser state (I'll rather not use the word vandalized).

Then there's this argument presented by Dahn, where he claims that "I boast" about my ability to create sock puppets. Indeed, anyone has that ability, and I wasn't boasting. On the contrary, I made a point that IF (if being the keyword) someone wanted to make a career of using sock puppets, then they could do so rather easily.

In the end, I hope that an arrangement can be made so that my family remains safe. If my presence on Wikipedia is the price for that, then it's a price I'm willing to pay. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: the disclaimer on my page (which, as part of his shenanigans, Cei Trei has attempted to reword) is slightly outdated now, since it dates to before the time when wikipedia automatically created accounts under the same name on all projects. It clearly reads that all other accounts under the name Dahn, on other projects, at the time, were not mine -- and this precisely because users who had been banned on English wikipedia decided to create that account on ro:wiki (it has since been in any case handed over to me, by the admins there, then unified with my en:wiki account). It is true that I have been the subject of many a frivolous accusation, and for this reason I and other supposedly related accounts have actually been verified several times, which showed that this is indeed the only account I use and have ever used. I will submit to a checkuser at admins' convenience, should there still be any doubt about that. But in the meantime ask yourselves how is it that an account which claims to have appeared out of the blue in 2013, and immediately found its way to my page, with its first edit (which it admits was a case of trolling), is also familiar with the various allegations proffered against me circa 2007. The attempt to deflect by discussing me, and by filibustering in general, is another trait admins with a good memory will surely associate with Anittas. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please note that Dahn made the following addendum after I explained how I came to Wikipedia, how I found out about him, and the reason I posted on his talk page; moreover, he insists on saying that both Anittas and me "admitted to trolling". I don't know about Anittas, but I never admitted to trolling and I haven't trolled the guy. If, however, I had continued to reply to him instead of ignoring him, we wouldn't be here. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment by Anonimu It should be noted that the prolific puppet master User:Bonaparte is known to have tried to impersonate editors sanctioned with active blocks in order to elicit stronger admin action against said editors (it happened to me; in this case "stronger action" may be preempting Anittas from taking advantage of the WP:OFFER ). Bonaparte was also active when Anittas was around (and they were both active on at least one external forum) so he is certainly familiar with Anittas' rather uncommon dedication to Moldavian regionalism, and, as far as I remember, some of his previous incarnations also had the habit of following Dahn around articles (though this sock seems rather civil). Furthermore, while I don't remember Anittas ever accusing me of sockpuppeting, Bonaparte is known to have made such accusations regarding users who pointed out his violations of policy (of whom I happened to be one). Whether Anittas or Bonaparte, Cei Trei is most likely a sock of a currently blocked user. Anonimu (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that Bonaparte identification unlikely, precisely because Cei Trei is more literate and marginally more civil than Bonaparte ever was, and also the account creation seems to correspond exactly with Anittas' fuming over not being allowed his OFFER through formal channels. Among the other points of continuity with Anittas, which appear too intimate not to be rooted in them being one and the same, there is also the behavioral: Anittas was, or pretended to be, similarly unable to understand that his posting of gibberish and taunts is in fact trolling. Bonaparte could not go a full minute without cursing, whereas Anittas "just" wants to have endless conversations sprinkled with jokes that are only funny to him. Dahn (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you post a link to this offer (that you speak of) being denied (since you're using this info to strengthen your argument)? --Cei Trei (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not even denied, just ignored. And I already did. Dahn (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That post is a reply to a user who made another accusation of Anittas using a sock puppet. I don't see where Anittas asks for this offer. Your argument that the following sentence is a request for an offer speaks volumes of your ability to comprehend what others write: "In order to further clarify things, I'd like to say that I (no longer) find it stimulating in 'teasing' "Dahn" (there's a reason for that and it's enough that "Dahn" knows the reason), or anyone else for that reason." You used this sentence for two arguments so far: 1) to show that Anittas admitted to trolling, and 2) that Anittas asked for this Wikipedia Offer. I find this incredibly erroneous and bizarre from your part. Also, if you click on the OFFER page, you will see that the procedure to request the OFFER is quite different from the one that Anittas wrote there. --Cei Trei (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Highlighting that a(nother) sockpuppet of Anittas, one of the series of accounts created especially for the purpose of carrying out trolling on my page and/or for stalking me, used a Malmö IP, i.e. was in the same city as Anittas, wherever he may be living now. This establishes that, in fact, Cei Trei need not be someone impersonating Anittas: Anittas has had multiple accounts that he used for precisely what Cei Trei is being used today. Note how that IP there idenfies itself with, and here is associated with . As noted, here Cei Trei both boasts his ability to create multiple accounts unhindered and takes credit for messages written "last year", i.e. before Cei Trei was active. All of his messages on my talk page take up from where the banned accounts left. Here he basically spells out, not just hints, that he is Anittas. Block this character already. Dahn (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you suspect those accounts of also belonging to me, then you should list them accordingly. You speak of Swedish IPs after I brought to your attention that Anittas lives in Sweden. I'm in Bucharest, just like you. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Anittas lived in Sweden, but, as you yourself pointed out, that was long ago. I'm sure that if admins feel like checking your various IPs one by one, they will see you moving from Sweden to Bucharest (if indeed that is where you are now) while seamlessly continuing with your taunts and disruptions. Dahn (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember pointing it out how long ago it was since I have no way of knowing that or, indeed, whether he still lives there. I find it a bit far-stretched that the guy whom you accuse of stalking, and who expressed his dislike of Bucharest, moved from Sweden to Bucharest. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is evidently no proof that you are in Bucharest, but I see no reason to dispute that: maybe you are, and the reasons for that are entirely your own. As for your dislike of Bucharest under the account name "Cei Trei", identical with the claims stated by Anittas from Sweden or wherever, I have documented it just above; so, if there is any contradiction in your behavior, it really is your business entirely, and only adds to the ridiculousness of your positioning. They are also not the first time Anittas or his puppets have been inconsistent: for instance, as a taunt in my direction, you have spilled on Talk:Poporanism the claim that, just like Protochronism, the subject doesn't exist; which is ironic for a Moldavian identitarian, since Poporanism is also Moldavianism. The quirks of your character and your inconsistent verbiage are your own contradictions, not anybody else's. And what you "find far-stretched" [sic] is of course of no interest -- the admins will decide on that either way. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note how in this gross message, redolent of the racial theories that got Anittas blocked, you literally stated that you had visited Bucharest, for a short time -- which, in your own words, means that you were not living in Bucharest when you created this account. Dahn (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown that I, like Anittas, dislike Bucharest. I find Bucharest to be quite pleasant and I can prove that I live in Bucharest. You can find me near the Negru Voda street. Indeed, I used to live in another city in Romania and yes, I do find it far-stretched that you try to connect me to a guy who dislikes Bucharest, who lives in Sweden, and who hasn't been active in a decade. I claim, like others also have done, that the article protochronism is invalid and should be deleted. Just because Anittas felt the same way doesn't mean that I am him. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "When I was in Bucharest, two years ago, I witnessed some proud Bucharest residents explaining to some Dutch people that the Romanian is passionate and tempered because he is Latin. The Dutch could only force a smile and nodded in agreement. Of course, in reality, they thought to themselves: "what a bunch of retards!" Anyhow ... err ... where was I getting with this. Ah, yes! Are there any sources that describe the poor Mongol-Bulgarians of Wallachia bragging about being Latins so to inflate their ego and strengthen their identity? Because if there are, we should certainly add them to this article! Dahn, you must have some of these sources. Will you, please? :) --Cei Trei (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)"
 * Keep sinking. Dahn (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have linked to that post several times. The post doesn't show that I dislike Bucharest. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It shows that regarding Bucharest and Bucharesters you entertain exactly the same notions as Anittas, and, further, that you were not living in Bucharest when you appeared as Cei Trei. This establishes that there is nothing mutually exclusive in you living in Bucharest now (assuming that you do) and you having lived, as Anittas, in Sweden a long time ago. And incidentally, there is no clue that Anittas had settled in Sweden for anything more than the period of a contract, or until his visa expired, or any such scenario; so your insistence that him living in Malmo 10 years ago means that he must be still living in Malmo is deflection. Anittas himself boasted his origin as being Romanian Moldavia, without any clear mention of his Swedish residence, and, per his own evaluation, did not have a native command of Swedish (see here). Even at the time, there is record of him moving around countries, such as his claim that he was living in Greve. (If this denial continues, one can easily cite Anittas' posts on the outside forum that Anonimu mentions. They are filled with personal detail, and, even though it was Anittas who decided to make it available to the entire world on a public forum, I hesitate to give links. They clearly show that, as of 2008, or at least in 2008, Anittas was no longer living in Sweden.) Dahn (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, anything is possible; I just find it far-fetched as the connection appears to be very weak. It feels more like wishful thinking. --Cei Trei (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the admins will take your self-defense into account. It's not like you would have any interest in lying to preserve this charade of yours -- per your own boasts about being able to create numerous accounts with impunity. Dahn (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And in fact let's note this 2010 post by Anittas, in the outside forum mentioned by Anonimu: "I've moved to Bucharest No, it's not April 1. Don't ask me why or how it's here. I'm just giving my friends and heads-up... and if any of you are in the area, maybe we can hook up and have a drink. Or hopefully a bottle of cognac to forget the present." Asked about whether this is a permanent move: "Well, permanently is not the right word. I came here because it was my only chance to get a job in Ro... and it was the only way to move to Ro. I declined to 3 job offers in Denmark which would've paid at least twice at much. Anyway, to make it short, it's a lot worse than I imagined. Not the infrastructure, but the structure, the system and the people. At the moment, I'm intoxicated and fantasize about committing suicide. How can my own people be so moronic? If you're into misanthropy, you should definately come here: but not for vacation. Come here to deal with the beaurocracy and the people. I don't know what I've done to deserve this egony. I must've been Bulgarian in my past life."
 * In addition to dispelling Cei Trei's one remaining claim about his identification as Anittas being impossible, this post confirms why Anittas writes his contributions, and his messages, for psychological relief rather than encyclopedia building (and possibly also while inebriated), and restates verbatim the claim that Cei Trei has repeated over and over again, namely that Bucharesters are Bulgarians. I don't think anyone can name another wikipedia user, of whatever background, who can declare him/herself suicidal over simply having to live among Wallachians.
 * Goodbye, Anittas. Dahn (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Original statement has been altered several times
Dahn keeps adding new material by editing his original argument. I don't know if this is ok, but my reply was to the argument as it originally was. Now he makes it look like I've ignored some of the points that he's been raising recently. If there's no policy against this, I believe there should be; I believe that new revisions should be added below the original statement in order to give the accused a chance to reply to them and at the same time, retain a structure. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I also want to point out that not only has Dahn altered his original statement countless of times, but also his other posts and the order in which they appear. A post that was published at one time may consist of a dozen of new revisions where new info was added, after I had made my reply. --Cei Trei (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them. You may wish to note that the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed." Dahn (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but when it comes to our discussion, the editing and the replacement of posts can be seen as manipulative. --Cei Trei (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have not "replaced" anything, but merely added proof of your behavior, as I am required to do. Dahn (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that you changed the order of some of the posts. Adding content to a post that was part of a conversation and which was replied to, and then move the order of that post, is manipulative. --Cei Trei (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure admins will consider this grief of yours as they assess your puppetry and will be lenient, since, after all, your contributions harassing me are of major importance to wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with leniency or my grief. It has to do with you trying to manipulate the discussion in your favor which, not only makes their job more difficult, but is also a violation against the community. --Cei Trei (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your claim that it is the discussion which allows admins to decide is ridiculous. But carry on: again, your filibustering only helps establish continuity with Anittas. Dahn (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Stop it right now, both of you. This is not the place to discuss who feels what about which. This is your only warning; leave it be, because the next comment on this page by either of you that isn't asked of you by a CheckUser or SPI clerk will end up in a block for disruption. Katietalk 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes over my head. Dahn, the way to set up an SPI is to give a concise list of diffs that compare the behavior of two (or more) editors. You can't just make general statements about one editor's pet peeves and then give a few diffs for the other, or vice versa. What is clear to me is that Cei Trei is trolling, and seems to be on a mission to make Dahn's editorial life as miserable as possible. For clarity's sake: Dahn is not accusing Cei Trei of being an inbred nihilist, which should be obvious to anyone with some competency, and the "function in society with that mindset" thing, while not Dahn's finest moment, is overblown and overinterpreted here. I can't establish whether Cei Trei is indeed someone else also, but I have warned them about their behavior, and rather than impose something like 1R, I will simply suggest that administrators keep a close watch on their incivility. Whether Cei Trei is actually here to improve the encyclopedia, that's hard to tell right now and perhaps another admin wants to make that call; they are awfully close to NOTHERE territory, and seem to treat this joint as a battleground. One more word to the wise: Dahn, verbosity here and elsewhere does you no favors. It is a collaborative project; trust in community boards and community processes. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This wall of text isn't going to be resolved as is. Please resubmit a short SPI which includes diffs and concise explanations which proves that the accounts are operated by the same person. See Template:MoreInfo for more information on what's needed. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)