Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darwinek/Archive

06 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

There is compelling evidence that the administrator User:Darwinek is abusing sockpuppet accounts, including the account User:Ratipok.


 * Ratipok's precocious edit history shows he was an advanced editor with his very first edits by doing extremely advanced editing including creating formatted tables for match plays and adding flag images for the infobox.


 * Ratipok is repeating the same disapproved activity as Darwinek by aggressively pushing a POV agenda for the use of diacritics in biographical article titles, and both have made mass out-of-process article moves. Darwinek has moved hundreds of articles, over redirects, in support of diacritics (see Darwinek's edit history for 4 June 2011 and 26 February 2011, et al), while Ratipok makes cut-and-paste moves, over redirects, in support of diacritics (see Ratipok's edit history for 16 May 2011).


 * Darwinek and Ratipok show Knowledge that obscure articles exists and are editing identical articles including Aleš Kranjc, Andrej Hočevar, Andrej Tavželj, Boštjan Goličič, Damjan Dervarič, Rok Pajič, Rok Tičar, Sabahudin Kovačevič, and Tomaž Razingar.


 * Ratipok receives warning concerning cut-and-paste moves here, only to have Darwinek continue to edit war on the articles including Žiga Jeglič, Matej Hocevar, Matija Pintarič, Mitja Šivic, Robert Sabolič, Ziga Pance, and Žiga Pavlin.


 * Both Ratipok and Darwinek use Similar writing/editing styles. Examples of this include:


 * The User Pages for both Darwinek and Ratipok are the same in their format and content (see Darwinek's user page and Ratipok's user page) with both accounts highlighting articles to which they have “started” and “contributed”.


 * Both Ratipok and Darwinek are very aggressive when responding to other editors as shown in an example of Ratipok's writing found here, and examples of Darwinek's writing found here and here.


 * Both Ratipok and Darwinek have displayed the same unusual idiosyncrasy of replying on the sender's talk page to posts left at their own talk page as can be seen on February 26, 2011 when I opened a discussion on Darwinek's talk page here, only to have him move the discussion and post his reply on my talk page here. And on June 4, 2011, when I opened a discussion on Ratipok's talk page here, only to have him move the discussion and post his reply on my talk page here.

On June 4, 2011 I posted messages to both of their talk pages  to give them an opportunity to disclose their relationship. Instead of giving a plausible explanation to account for these similarities, they instead both responded to my talk page that they did not share any relationship between them. Despite the denials, the responses provided further compelling evidence of sock puppetry as Ratipok's reply (who was actively editing at the time) was posted at my talk page within 10 minutes, only to be quickly followed by Darwinek's reply (also posted to my talk page), even though Darwinek edit history shows he WAS NOT editing at that time.

All in all, I believe the above information reveals compelling evidence that Darwinek is editing with multiple accounts with the purpose to deceive and to otherwise violate community standards. I request that CheckUser be used confirm and to check for further sockpuppet activity. Dolovis (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

It is hard for me to stay calm, when Dolovis accuses me of something I didn't do, but I will try to do that. His accusations highlight only his own paranoia and are Machiavellian means of a quest to get rid of an editor, who consistently opposes his disruptive actions. I would like to note that I am a highly-respected administrator and I am absolutely sure this SPI will prove my complete innocence. As for the accusing user, I think other admins should finally take action aimed at stopping his disrupting behaviour. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest endorsing, proving Darwinek innocent, and then start an investigation into bad-faith, harassing attitude by the editor who filled this report (WP:BOOMERANG...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Piotrus. – Nurmsook!  talk...  18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony of the situation is I have a few accounts on watch that I am pretty sure are more Dolovis socks. So perhaps we might want to do a bit of checking into him as well. There is after all an old saying about how people accuse others of what they feel themselves guilty of. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said before, I do not have any relations with the User:Darwinek and the ghost hunt of User:Dolovis is pathetic. Wiki uses enough resources that the IP adresses of my account and the account of Darwinek can be seen and although I do not know where Darwinek is from, I would bet that he is not from Slovenia (judging by his user name). Secondly, It is clear what my contributions are and the majority is related to Sport in Slovenia, football in particularly. That said, let's see the evidence from Dolovis step by step:


 * That proofs nothing if someone is simply smart enough that uses the knowledge of others. Look at one of my last major contributions, 2010-11 NK Maribor season, and you will see that I use there "advance dediting inlcuding creating formatted tables for match plays and adding flag images for the infobox", the majority of which I have never used in my previous edits. What that prooves? That I share the account with one of the senior editors of the 2009-10 Manchester City F.C. season article? Wiki is easy enough that u can copy/paste someone's elses work and add the information you need so tablets and infoboxes become the thing you want.


 * I do not deny that I made couple of cut and paste moves of the articles and have acknowledged that after being warned by User:Andrewa and User:ErikHaugen. It is only after being warned that I realized that I am doing something wrong and I stoped. The articles that I copy/pasted were the "obscure" new articles of members of the Slovenia men's national ice hockey team that were created after the team played on the 2011 IIHF World Championship. I have done that as the names of the players were spelled incorrectly (without diacritics) and the same rules do not apply to other players of the same sport (ex. Jaromír Jágr, Teemu Selänne, Nicklas Lidström etc.). I have made that clear, however, I still stoped with the editing after being warned. The reason that I and Darwinek made couple of edits in the identical articles might be that he, as you said, is "aggressively pushing for a POV agenda for use of diacritics in biographical article titles". Nothing more then a coincidence.


 * Examples of Similar writing/editing styles are just pathetic. You can compare ANY two Wiki users that have couple of thousands of post and you will get the same proof. You just have to use those edits that are similar and can make a theory conspiracy or a witch hunt if you will. So you found couple of similar edits in over in tens of thousands of post and used it to back up your story. So what? Proof? Sure.. Furthermore, my user page does not highlight the articles to which I have "started" or "contributed". It did in the past, but for the past year it shows the country where I live in and those that I have visited. And yeah. You have found one out of maybe three times that I have been a bit aggresive (still without insulting or anything like that) in responding and used it against me, LOL. And as for responding to comments on my talk page. I am using the same method since the beginning and am not planning to change it.

Another thing. Although I have no worries that this inquiry will turned out in my favour I am still insulted that someone accuses me of suckpuppeting, vandalism and whatever. Especially since those accusation come from a user that have previously been accused of using the same methods.Ratipok (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Run the check-user on them. Afterall, the innocent have nothing to fear & certainly don't want doubt hanging over their heads. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the standard way Dolovis deals with content disputes. Use as many avenues as he can to try and discredit the people who disagree with him. I think its a ridiculous fishing expedition but hey lets clear them and make Dolovis eat crow yet again. As for their quick reply at the same time...you realize that you can set talk pages to email you when they are written on so likely they both responded to you because you had just written on their talk pages and they got emailed... -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Acctually, I do not get an email every time someone pots on my talk page. I was, however, editing at the time Dolovis wrote something.Ratipok (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I also want to note that one of Dolovis' reasonings here is the similar editing patterns of Darwinek and Ratipok, a grand spanking total of 45 similar edits!!. Note that Dolovis and Darwinek share 644 similar edits and Dolovis and Ratipok share 41 similar edits. Absolutely ridiculous to accuse sock-puppetry on such evidence. – Nurmsook!  talk...  19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hmm... this is a tricky one. Although they have a lot of edits in common, they also have a lot of edits in general: the master has 122,000+ and Ratipok over 2500. I'm mildly inclined to endorse, but I'd like to hear from another clerk first. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This could very well be an Altenmann case. But, looking at most of the articles Dolovis posted of which most of them were created by Dolovis, it seems to be more of a way of dealing with a content dispute rather than sockpuppetry. Elockid  ( Talk ) 19:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion here, I think I'm going to close with no action taken. Keep content disputes to what they are, and don't try to take it to other avenues. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)