Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar/Archive

Report date May 28 2009, 10:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by DIREKTOR

In conclusion, I'm aware that the evidence may seem "scanty" but I do believe it justifies a check. The possibility is definitely there. Regards.
 * On Talk:Bosnian language User:Journalist 007 abruptly stops participating in the conversation, while User:Historičar continues in exactly the same tone. (See History page)
 * The English of both users is nearly identical. Same mistakes. Their POV is also exactly the same, justified by exactly the same arguments. More specifically, both users consistently accuse others of "nationalism", and both try to use the "guilt" stemming from the Srebrenica massacre as an "argument" in a language naming issue (even though it is completely unrelated to the subject, which makes it strange).
 * Both accounts were created in the space of a few months.
 * The names of both accounts are weirdly similar. "Historičar" means "Historian", which corresponds to "Journalist" (the latter using English and therefore requiring a number). Badly disguised sock names.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * It's pretty obvious that these 2 are the same user. Furthermore, once I remarked on the talkpage of them possibly being the same (it was not even an accusations, it had question mark at the end), he started paranoidly accusing every else of having been sockpuppets! He should be banned as disrputive non-benevolent fundamentalist in any case, and if CU report is going to facilitate it I'm looking forward to the results ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

— Jake   Wartenberg  18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

✅ Journalist 007 = Historičar -- Versa geek  21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged. As Historicar had been blocked before for edit warring, I upped it to indefinite. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) — Jake   Wartenberg  21:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Report date June 27 2009, 15:19 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

On Articles for deletion/Mass rape in the Bosnian War, returned after a 2 year absence almost solely for the AFD, which made me suspicious of possible socking. The edits of another user in that AFD,, shows that he seems to be continuing an edit war on Bosnian language against the same editors that did.
 * Evidence submitted by Spellcast

Looking at Kruško's history, I suspect there might've been socking since 2006 and that all these users may be socks of. Kruško has repeatedly restored Emir's edits. Historičar has also restored Kruško's edits. Historičar's IPs are usually 85.158.x.x (see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Historičar) and possibly . A similar IP,, also edited Emir's userpage. All those IPs geolocate to the same place.

So I ask the CU to see if Emir, Kruško, and Historičar are related. If so, are those 3 also related to The Dragon of Bosnia's socks? Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added User:Kruško Mortale as well, given his edit-warring on the Bosnian language article (which is why User:Historičar was banned in the first place). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also added . The account is either a sock or was created to target him. Spellcast (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Spellcast (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not a clerk, but I've added this to "Awaiting CheckUser". I really don't mean to barge ahead of other requests, but I think it's important this be given a little priority because the AFD closes soon and the possible socking could affect the result. If a check is done, it should be before the closure instead of after. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * First, a check on The Dragon of Bosnia isn't needed because it will most likely turn up stale and the user has already been confirmed a sock of a different user. Mir Harven would most likely show up stale too. As for the criteria of vote stacking affecting the outcome, per the policy here, in most cases checks are done after the vote closed. Comments can easily be struck and the decision reversed or reopened if socking affects the discussion. A check would be helpful here to weed out the socks and to block IPs (if possible). Icestorm815  •  Talk  22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (E/C) - I have endorsed this case noting that there appears to be sufficient evidence to do so. That said, it would have been better to have left a note on WT:SPI asking that a clerk or Checkuser take a look at this case as you feel it is urgent and requires immediate attention, though I do not feel this case warrants any special treatment or fast action. Really, only cases that threaten someones life, or deal with real life situations should be treated in a WP:IAR manner, an AFD socking case should not. Also, the code letter does state that Checkuser action should only be taken if the !vote affects the outcome, and while I do not agree with it, simply blocking the obvious socks and filing a SPI case after the case is closed is the correct course of action here.  Tiptoety  talk 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Doing the check despite the AfD since the previous case is still fresh.
 * ✅ That ==  == . They are also editing while being logged out.
 * and are . --  Luk  talk 04:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * I have indef blocked/tagged the two confirmed accounts, and left the two stale ones unblocked for now. Should they start editing again in a disruptive manner than you can reopen this case. Tiptoety  talk 05:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Report date August 19 2009, 18:39 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Yugosithlord


 * User:ICTYoda started editing on July 2, 2009 just 3 days after User:Kruško Mortale and User:Emir Arven were blocked for socking.
 * ICTYoda is editing acros a similar range of articles as Kruško Mortale, Emir Arven and Historičar
 * ICTYoda has the same POV as these editors who were blocked for socking and is obviously not a newby Yugosithlord (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

It looks as though on the clerk merge ICTYoda was not transfered over as the suspected sock. Polargeo (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Fixed; thanks for pointing that out. NW ( Talk ) 16:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * . -- Luk  talk 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * could this please be merged to Sockpuppet investigations/Historičar?
 * Yugosithlord, please fill sockpuppet investigations under your usual account. Registering a new username is not the way to do it... -- Luk  talk 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

is to be. J.delanoy gabs adds 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Blocked and tagged. — Jake   Wartenberg  02:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date October 6 2009, 10:47 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Aradic-es

I had certain conflicts with this users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Histori%C4%8Dar it is however indicating thing that Kamiondžija he already knows me and my edit history: and also he never edits while PRODUCER is offline.--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) MuZemike 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * ✅ as:
 * is ❌ like last time. Stop listing him in these cases. Brandon (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * is ❌ like last time. Stop listing him in these cases. Brandon (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * is ❌ like last time. Stop listing him in these cases. Brandon (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Blocked and tagged the confirmed socks. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by IcarusVsSun
Rochass and Kruško Mortale edit a similar set of articles, and have more or less the exact same writing style. I first suspected that Rochass might be Kruško Mortale when I came across Rochass on Talk:Bosniaks (by the way, I'm the anon editor in the "new image" discussion). Both of these users, after running out of arguments, like to accuse their opponents of being one "Ivan Kricancic".

Take not of the extreme similarity between the following edit summaries:-


 * rv edit by Ivan Kricancic - well known troll and Neo-Nazi supporter or smth like that I don't remember precisely but he had many fascistic comments about Bosniaks - Kruško Mortale


 * rv - troll attack by a neo-nazi guy from Canberra or smth like that at least according to the archive and comment by other users he is Ivan Kricancic, banned from editing Wikipedia - Rochass

I included Historičar here as well because apparently that account was the puppet-master of Kruško Mortale, according to this SPI. Seems he has a habit of making socks. IcarusVsSun (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to his ongoing abuse of Wikipedia, his numerous sock accounts and IPs, I believe he will most certainly come back once this latest account of his is blocked/banned. Is there any way to get this disruptive and unproductive person's IP range blocked from editing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.15.152 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
An obvious DUCK. There are other socks blocked more recently than Historičar (who is not the original sockmaster as User:Emir Arven started editing in 2005)
 * User:Kruško Mortale was blocked already on June 29 2009.
 * User:Kamiondžija and User:FenderMag blocked on October 7 2009
 * User:ICTYoda was blocked on October 29 2009. Polargeo (talk)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by IcarusVsSun (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

case moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Rochass to /Historičar SpitfireTally-ho! 09:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Historicar was blocked in May of 2009; too stale for checkuser. However, I will recommend the puppets to be blocked per WP:DUCK. Auntie E. (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Should not have been so swiftly declined there are several other much more recently blocked socks of this user. Anyway I also recomend block per WP:DUCK Polargeo (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart WP:DUCK, which is obvious, User is CONSTANTLY edit warring. Even this moments, as you may see from his contributions. Just look at edit summaries (rv this anon psycho needs a serious therapy diff) and (rv vandalism by Ivan Kricancic, neo-nazi supporter from Mackay, Queensland -> just google his name diff). As i told, per DUCK and per this, i also highly support block for this user. -- Tadijataking 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy was correct on the decline. CU wouldn't have been able to do much at all as all other blocked socks have been stale for a while. With that said, behavioral evidence is clear, and Rochass has been indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 20:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * - This was the most recent confirmed sockpuppet, so you may be able to use this accounts latest IP address for checkuser on SanjakMan.
 * - This was the most recent confirmed sockpuppet, so you may be able to use this accounts latest IP address for checkuser on SanjakMan.

Evidence submitted by 124.185.6.208
SanjakMan was created very soon after Rochass was indef blocked. The users edit the very same articles with an extremely similar point of view - most notably on "Bosniaks" and "Bosnian War".

The "smoking gun" that confirms my suspicions of the accounts being the same person are in their edit summaries, particularly the following:
 * rv this anon psycho need a therapy - Rochass
 * rv edit by an anon psycho - SanjakMan

Another similar edit/edit summary is when the accounts failed to take part in discussions and simply reverted, claiming "no one gave him an argument":
 * Noone gave me a valid argument for picture removal - Rochass
 * you didn't give me good argument for removal... - SanjakMan

More similar edit summaries, this time he's restoring information deleted by anonymous editors:
 * restored text deleted by anon user - Rochass
 * restored deleted part by the same user with multiple IPs - SanjakMan

Summaries accusing Hxseek of sockpuppetry:
 * history was deleted and replaced by anon - 124.186.9.89 from Cannbera or this guy Hxseek, maybe the same user - Historičar
 * rv to version by Producer, user Hxseek's edits are POV, very similar to 124.185.6.208 - SanjakMan

Notice that both accounts also often accuse others of being engaged in a "nationalistic" agenda (, - Rochass /,  - SanjakMan). Also note that both use the same style of broken English in their edits and summaries.

The above evidence shows clearly that SanjakMan should be indefinitely blocked per WP:DUCK.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by 124.185.6.208 (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) . Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by 78.2.169.106
per wp:DUCK Both user have same field of interest, same style as banned sockmaster 78.2.169.106 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lu._bst
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BanBoric

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * There is a significant similarity in editing style, but I'm not completely sure. CU might help. (also, looking at the archive it's possible there are some sleepers to be caught) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look, but all accounts previously blocked as this user are . This check will only see if these two accounts are related; if so, then I'll look deeper for sleepers. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um. User:Lu._bst is also stale. However, User:BanBoric is also (✅). For future reference, when approving requests for checkuser, make sure the account's aren't stale; if some are, leave a note for the CU. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I knew the one was stale, but I wanted CU to check for sleepers. I'll sure remember to leave a note next time. (And should have realized everything in the archive would be stale) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nirvana77
Strong suspicion that Alan.Ford.Jn is another Historičar sock puppet account. Both earlier sock puppet account SanjakMan and Alan.Ford.Jn was created simultaneously on April 14 2010 at around the same time (SanjakMan, Alan.Ford.Jn) not long after Rochass suspension who was also sock puppet of Historičar.

As you can see by their contribution history it's extremely similar, editing about exactly the same things, using pretty much the same style of language and all having the same viewpoints and writing from a Bosniak "POV".

Alan.Ford.Jn contributions

SanjakMan contributions

Rochass contributions

The same baseless claims of biases against those who (including myself) try to edit the articles of his interest, especially regarding the introduction of the Bosnian War article, once again using similar language.

SanjakMan: "you didn't give me good argument for removal, it is just your personal motive, maybe you don't like the fact Croatian agression is mentioned"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "restored introduction, due to the fact Nirvana77 tried to remove mentioning of Croatian involvment in the war based on ICTY sources, he also rm Karadjordjevo agreement"

Similarities in edit summaries.

Rochass: "reverted to regular version, removed trash talk"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "rm trash"

Rochass: "restored text deleted by anon user"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "restored deleted text"

SanjakMan: "restored deleted part"

Rochass: "Cinemas edit is silly"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "rv silly claim"

etc. Nirvana77 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - Hmm.. it's possible, I would say. Could be worth a look. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * given that there is really nothing to compare to (the other three accounts are ). Seeing as one of the suspected socks is blocked as a Historičar sock (and the accusations that they are related), I ran a check against some non-stale Historičar socks. They appear ❌.  Tiptoety  talk 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone move this to /Historičar please? Tiptoety  talk 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant to check against non-stale accounts. But I've moved the case over per Tiptoety's request. There may not be much else to do here unless some new evidence comes up. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nirvana77
Per WP:DUCK. Strong suspicion that Alan.Ford.Jn is another Historičar sock puppet account. Both earlier sock puppet account SanjakMan and Alan.Ford.Jn was created simultaneously on the same day (April 14 2010) at almost exactly the same time (SanjakMan, Alan.Ford.Jn) not long after Rochass suspension who was also sock puppet of Historičar.

As anyone can see, Alans, Historičar and all his other sock puppets contribution history is extremely similar, editing about exactly the same things, using the same style of language (a lot of broken English) and all having the same viewpoints and writing from a Bosniak "POV". Like Alan.Ford.Jn, a lot of the edits are in articles about or around the Bosnian war or the events surrounding the war, especially with the other sock puppets like Krusko Mortale, Rochass and SanjakMan.

Alan.Ford.Jn contributions

Historičar contributions

SanjakMan contributions

Rochass contributions

Kruško Mortale contributions

Using similar if not identical wordings and language in many of their edit summaries. Some examples.

Alan.Ford.Jn: "redundant name moved to note" Historičar: "redundant section" Rochass: "redundant there is already this case in the case section"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "rv silly claim" Rochass: "Cinemas edit is silly" Historičar: "mentioning it in intoduction is silly if you already have it within article"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "rm speculations" Historičar: "unsourced speculation removed"

Alan.Ford.Jn: "restored deleted text" Kruško Mortale: "restored deleted text" Rochass: "restored text deleted" SanjakMan: "restored deleted part"

My suspicion was raised during a discussion on Talk:Bosnian War regarding the introduction on the Bosnian War article. From out of the blue Alan.Ford.Jn, who I have never had any previous interaction with accused me of a Croatian bias based soley on me moving a fairly small paragraph regarding the Karadjodjevo agreement from the introduction the to main body of text. Alan.Ford.Jn: "Disagree. The main reason, Nirvana tried to change intro is the fact he wanted to remove Croatian involvment, and Karadjodjevo agreement." I found it very strange, especially since like I said, I have never encountered Alan before. The only time experienced anything similar was in May 2010 for exactly the same thing, for trying to move the same paragraph to the main body of the article was with later proved sock puppet SanjakMan. SanjakMan"you didn't give me good argument for removal, it is just your personal motive, maybe you don't like the fact Croatian agression is mentioned"

I personally find it to much to just be a coincidence. Nirvana77 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * If you take a look at the archive, you'll see that this has come up before. And the case came back that Alan.Ford.Jn was unrelated to one of Historičar's latest socks. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I got the sense of CU not being totally reliable with most of the accounts going "stale", although I'm admittedly not to familiar with the CU system. Also his latest sock puppets were months ago, can't IPs change/be changed? I would argue that on behavioral grounds this could and in my opinion should fall under WP:DUCK. --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm closing this case for now. It's been two and a half weeks and has seen little action. The CU has shown that they're not connected, and while the behavioral evidence may ring true, I don't get the sense that anyone feels strongly enough to act on it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)