Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biruitorul/Archive

20 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In the midst of a content dispute at Nicolae Ceaușescu, I gave Biruitorul a 3RR warning. Biruitorul's attempts to remove the disputed section have now been taken up by the IPs. Biruitorul has a particular interest in Romanian subjects, both IPs trace to Romania. Sum mer PhD (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I fully reject these accusations and I fully welcome a thorough investigation into my activities. I would call on SummerPhD to call off this absurd witch-hunt, only I have nothing to fear from an investigation. So I say, bring on CheckUser! - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CU won't link IPs to accounts anyway. Summer, I hope you're really, really sure. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, FWIW, I don't think these are Biruitorul logged out. I've known B for a while and I don't believe they'd make such threats as "you'll be blocked". That Romanian IPs would be active here is to be expected; that they would remove this material (as I did just now) is to be expected as well given that it's tripe, poorly written, and certainly not leadworthy. Sockpuppet investigations/RedParty is a more interesting case, IMO, with more merit. Full disclosure: Biruitorul and I go way back, almost as long as SummerPhD and I. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say the RedParty case is "interesting" to ornothologists... but that's not the topic here. RedParty's edits are problematic, but the push to that pull is demonstrated by the hostile environment in Nicolae Ceaușescu and Romanian Communist Party. This case is weaker, to be sure. In any case, the edit warring and hostile edit summaries must stop. RedParty certainly needs some help with how we are supposed to work around here. At the moment, though, a look at the page histories gives no indication who the more experienced editors are. If the material does not belong, DISCUSS it, establish a clear consensus and remove it. If it doesn't belong and the English is wonky, fix the English, discuss why it doesn't belong, establish a clear consensus and remove it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My last tangles with RedParty occurred at 2:03 and 2:06 on 19 August. Your reminder came on 19 August at 14:18, and I took it into account. I consider that situation a closed chapter, and in any case this is not a forum for discussing general matters of conduct; there's WP:RfC for that. Now I'll just sit back and emit my evil Romanian cackle as this little expedition against me backfires spectacularly. - Biruitorul Talk 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Biruitorul deserves too 1 week for abusing accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nagyszikszai 100% RedParty is also Biruitorul. Don`t get tricked, Biruitorul uses to reply his other accounts. The case is very complex and many other users warned before about him.

You could also please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anonimu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bogdangiusca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SidoniaBorcke With this user he repliaed himself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csangos&action=history (On this page many users are of him) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.241.202 (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I could also add that Biruitorul found Dutch and German VPNs. 100% it`s him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.149.241.202 (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While it is an interesting string of edits, and Biruitorul might be one of these, it is less likely they are both, and regardless, there isn't enough evidence to clearly link any of the three. This is typical in cases where two of the editors have one edit each.  Closing without prejudice to reopen if more evidence can be presented at a later date. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

20 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Three IPs (the two IPv6 ones are new SPAs) arose to restore an unnecessarily abrasive WP:Battleground sentence by Biruitorul at Articles for deletion/Giulia Anghelescu, which I had redacted for civility reasons to keep the AfD focused. As none of the IPs had actually cast a vote in the AfD, I thought it very odd that the three of them would show up to defend bullying commentary through reverts in such a way as to tempt their adversary into violating 3RR while remaining immune, individually, themselves.

Normally I would have thought 98.217.224.217 to be the sockmaster, but prior instances of socky-looking IPs arising to defend questionable Biruitorul antics have occurred before.  Pax 04:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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


 * Comment: Biruitorul has elected to forgo the bore worms and quickly confess. Pax 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Biruitorul blocked one week for the WP:ILLEGIT violations, Раціональне анархіст blocked 24 hours for edit-warring in an effort to preserve his editing of other's comments.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

15 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

furthermore i suspect there should be at least one more sock, also good editor with decent number of edits across wikipedias. please see Editor Interaction Analysers for users Biruitorul and Dahn Biruitorul and Dahn, they have a lot of intersected edits, including a lot of AFDs and DYK nominations like Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ghenadie_Petrescu. Very interesting behavior is noticeable here here. See this, Biruitorul was reported, and from nowhere appeared Dahn to defend him.
 * 
 * 

Dahn writes on his userpages: "Please note: the only three accounts I own are on the English and Romanian wikipedias (for the Romanian one, see ro:Utilizator:Dahn), and on commons. I do not own any other accounts under any other name, and the accounts with the name "Dahn" on any wikipedias other than the aforementioned are not mine —in fact, I'm willing to bet they were created by banned users solely for the purpose of disruption."

"Thief shouting thief"

see also Sockpuppet investigations/Biruitorul/Archive and Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874

IP address 98.217.224.217 is 100% Biruitorul see we just need CU confirmation. i can't find the logic. He starts AFDs as Biruitorul and adds them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log as anonimous... Genious!

See Articles for deletion/Ellie White: Biruitorul started AFD and Dahn defended idea of deletion more aggressive than Biruitorul.

See on Dahn's userpage an award from Biruitorul: "As a fellow Stalinist...." Really?! "Fellow Stalinist"? In WWII Stalin annexed a big part of Romania, so Romanian Stalinists should be something there strange and very rare. As they are both Romanians Wikipedians, there can be a connection between the two.


 * One of Biruitorul latest articles uses an image uploaded by Dahn on commons.


 * Something fresh, see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandre_Gurita&action=history --123.150.107.24 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Not entirely sure what's going on here, but it is worth noting that the reporter is using open proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - Evidence is mostly circumstantial, not convincing at all. We need a much, much stronger evidence to run a CheckUser check.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing the case with no action because of the lack of evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)