Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LAz17/Archive

Report date January 15 2009, 15:45 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:


 * Evidence submitted by LAz17

Oxynig and 67.169.4.255 have no other contributions except 'corroborating' with LAz17 and focusing on the Republika Srpska article. 67.169.4.255 showed up after Oxynig was banned. PRODUCER ( TALK ) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Endorse - Tiptoety  talk 03:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Case merged from Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17 (page history). Tiptoety  talk 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

❌. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 13:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

15 December 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

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

Both accounts currently on three month block, see the relevant thread at ANI here. The second account was created a mere four hours after the first one stopped editing, and has done basically nothing but harass other users and stir up trouble at AFD and Guild of Copyeditors. Since the heat on the Lunalet account has picked up it began contributing less and less, only submitting a single edit for several days around 0030UTC to harass the Guild of Copyeditors elections. I think it quite likely other unknown accounts are at work. The direct connection between these two accounts, besides timing, is this edit, where Lunalet tells another editor in all caps to stop baiting LAz17. I see no previous connection of any kind between these two accounts.  N419 BH  20:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Proxies, huh? I smell a long-term, experienced troll. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I know LAz17 for quite a while, having edited the same geographical area (Balkans), and I fail to see any similarity with Lunalet. LAz17 edits chiefly articles related with Balkan history (Yugoslav Partisans, Chetniks), of which Lunalet shows no traces whatsoever. He is, I think, just a kid (in teens or early 20s), a diaspora Serb, who has a history of losing temper and civility problems, especially with, but is definitively not a trolling kind of guy. On the contrary, Lunalet has extensively edited Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412. Laz's English is just adequate, and I don't think it's his native tongue. I don't think he is even capable of uttering things such as "It's convenient of you to deviate and then blame it on me. More dishonesty." or "MickMacNee's well-founded arguments trump both vendettas fostered by malicious editors and the nonsense being parroted about AIRCRASH, a mere essay which holds no weight against NOTNEWS, a policy." Lunalet is possibly someone's sock, just not Laz's. No such user (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As LAz17 is currently blocked, I left a note on his talk page to leave any response there and I would post it here for him. The following has been pasted from his talk:


 * Here's my note. I am no sock. The only reason I have not appealed to be unblocked is because this is december, a month where one is swamped with course activities and such stuff. The block actually works in my favor and I am actually enjoying it.
 * Do tell the guy who reported some profanities for me.[/joking] Clearly he has nothing better to do than to try find straws out of a haysack. Accusing me of this is basically like him saying AHA I FOUND A STRAW, but in fact he's just wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)).
 * And No such user is wrong btw. The chetnik stuff was a small portion of my edits. It has been increased as of late because of the extreme POV that Direktor has been pushing there. But he is right that much of my edits have been geographical in nature... things such as geography, sport leagues, infrastructure, etc... (LAz17 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

Posted by  N419 BH  07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble easily "tying" the two accounts together when looking through their behaviors. The diff I found shows at the very least that Lunalet (who is most definitely a sock and, as Jack pointed out, certainly a troll) has been following the edits of DIREKTOR and/or LAz17, among several others.  Lunalet's knowledge of the "AIRCRASH scene" is telling, and the first editor accused was the aforementioned, who insists this is an impersonator of him.  Some (apparently) would say it is a very good impression.  It's hard to say who this is, but it's most definitely a disruptive account.  Doc   talk  07:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually would tend to agree now that we're barking up the wrong tree here. The evidence tying LAz and Lunalet can be just as easily explained as coincidence in the case of the account creation timing and either harassment of DIREKTOR or intentionally trying to frame LAz with the edit to his talk page. Dunno if it's Mick or not. I do not believe Mick edited the ANI thread regarding Lunalet, and the two of them were certainly active in the same areas. If checkuser determines that LAz wasn't using proxies and Lunalet was, that would pretty much convince me that it's not LAz. Don't know if they're allowed to divulge that information or not.  N419 BH  08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment here, although I'm not sure if that ammounted to an accusation :0 I gave my opinion of this joker in the Afd, he clearly went out of his way there to impersonate me very well, but for me to sock, and only for the lulz rather than actually influencing consensus, would be the daftest thing I think I could ever do on Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
There are proxies being used here, so it's hard for me to draw a bead on the geolocation. TN X Man 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume these proxies are blocked? Any other conclusion even with the use of proxies. (even if it's a possible result)? -- DQ  (t)  (e)  01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mark this for close. Unless someone wants to come out from behind their proxies and play nice with everyone, there's not much to do. TN X Man  03:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

29 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

An obvious sock, I just read the user talkpage, hardly even checkuser worthy. It was created by User:LAz17 for the purpose of evading blocks while his recent indeff block was on. The user attempted to rejoin the discussion at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans (the one that got his main account indeff blocked) as a new user that "came to the page by accident". That is the only activity of the account. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sock got blocked too. (LAz17 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).
 * There is nothing to investigate, as admittance of guilt already happened. This is just your atempt to block me in order to avoid a mediation over a page where you have been involved in tenacious editing, edit waring, and content blanking for quite some time. This is your attempt to avoid going to mediation. (LAz17 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2011 (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

 * LAz17 is obviously the master. The following are ✅ socks:
 * WilliamH (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked and tagged; master indefinitely blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WilliamH (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked and tagged; master indefinitely blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked and tagged; master indefinitely blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

11 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

User has no other editing history than the Yugoslav Partisans article and pushes the same exact version pushed by LAz17 prior to his indef block. LAz17 was previously found to have abusing multiple accounts and did so in the Yugoslav Partisans discussion. ◅PRODUCER ( TALK ) 15:55, 11 January 2012 (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

 * Ran a check per the evidence and previous history of abusing multiple accounts. Behaviourally and technically, it's very to be him. WilliamH (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

22 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These three accounts have simultaneously appeared at LAz17's old battleground article, Talk:Yugoslav Partisans. The user has already created sockpuppets to try and re-enter the discussion there (see archive). I suspect, based on my long interaction with the user, that one or more of these accounts is a sockpuppet, and I would like to request a checkuser. The English is similar, the POV is identical, all three accounts have very few contributions on enWiki, and have now become simultaneously active in the same place. -- Director  ( talk )  23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Clarification. Phrases such as "shame" where what is actually meant is "disgraceful", ring strongly of LAz17. All three accounts, re-activating in the space of a few hours and converging on one talkpage, endorse the exact same edits in the article, namely those of User:LAz17. This is visible from the discourse at Talk:Yugoslav Partisans, and from the actual edit by one account that re-introduces LAz17's text . Further information would require me going into the fine details of the actual dispute itself. One cannot be completely certain in this case, to be sure, but that's why I think checkuser is warranted. -- Director  ( talk )  00:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The other two users are unrelated? -- Director  ( talk )  14:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The diff of Mrserb89 restoring LAz17's text is very telling. LAz17 was upset that the exact phrase "This was the lowest percentage that the Serbs had during the war." was removed, and says "I added the exact scholarly article where Hoare mentions it." Over a year later, along comes Mrserb89 to restore the "This was the lowest percentage that the Serbs had during the war." phrase with the exact same scholarly source that he brags about? Looks pretty ducky that that Mrserb89=LAz17. Sometimes people hop IPs, intentionally or otherwise, making CU inconclusive. Then you must look at behavior. I haven't looked much at the other two, either, but the restoring of that phrase and source, coupled with his obvious knowledge of the situation... Doc  talk  17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus here's an interesting coincidence: LAz17 joined Wikipedia in 2005. A person born in 1989 (note "Mrserb89") would be 17 years old in 2005. -- Director  ( talk )  18:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hullo. What mrserb89 has added was simply the exact quote from the source if I am not mistaken. Direktor, as another user on the talk page notes, does not want particular content included. The criteria for exclusion is that Direktor does not agree with that content in question. This looks like a desperate attempt by him to get people banned because he thinks he owns the article. Let us see what mrserb89 has to say. (Mike085 (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)).
 * When you say about LAz17: "However, unlike other socks he did not have bad intentions"... how do you know that, exactly? Meatpuppetry is also frowned upon, you know, and it seems like the lot of you have been "recruited" to go after Direktor. Doc   talk  21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Hullo" to you too. "Good intentions" ay?  --  ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 21:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting... and Mike085 has been blocked as a sock. Doc   talk  22:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is obviously centered a content dispute, and the source that is being provided does indeed support the phrase and percentages that the accounts are trying to insert. It's very clear from this, and Hoare seems like a reputable enough author/scholar. They are not going about it the right way, but I can see the frustration. Doc   talk  23:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "They" (LAz17) is deleting one source he does not like, and replacing it with another he does like. That's why he gets reverted. Feel free to insert LAz's source, Doc. Lets not bring this here, though. -- Director  ( talk )  00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Elen: One of Mike085's latest posts claims that the majority of the Serbian WP wants Direktor ousted from the English WP with "This is why people such as IJA and myself, including the entire Serbian wikipedia have sympathy for LAz17". Even if these accounts are not all the same individual, per WP:MEAT: A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." As all three new accounts (well, Ganderoleg took a bit of a "Rip Van Winkle" breather) surfaced simultaneously to go after Direktor, and at least 66% of them appear to be SPAs, it would be unlikely, IMHO, that these accounts are here without a common agenda. One that has not gone through proper channels, apparently. Doc   talk  23:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * How is the English similar, and how is the POV similar? Could you provide some diffs please? Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have only checked Mrserb89. It's technically that it's LAz17. Behaviour will have to be used to call that. WilliamH (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have only checked Mrserb89. There is an obvious overlap and an additional suggestion that it is not a new user. I don't know about the other two, but the onus is not on me to establish that, which is why I haven't checked them. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Reaper Eternal blocked Mike085 as a duck, but technically he seems ❌. Are we reasonably sure it's Laz? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike085 asked for an unblock, so I'll let that resolve. Since the CU shows the others as unconnected, I think we're done for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)