Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LupinoJacky/Archive

04 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

argues at Talk:Allies of World War II that Albania should be included in the WWII Allies. than corrects the IP's post. LupinoJacky continues to argue the case of Albania, but is opposed by. Then, suddenly, a brand new user, appears and argues the same way as LupinoJacky. This new user has no other edits but at this talk page. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:09, 4 February 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

 * - In addition to tag-team POV-pushing, both users use very similar language. Example: "Dear TheBanner" from LupinoJacky and "Dear The Banner" from QTeuta. A quick look at the interaction timeline also highlights the POV-tag-team. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the IP, it appears likely that it was used before accounts were registered but hasn't been used since so there's no abuse there. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌. on the IP. Elockid   ( Talk ) 15:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 16:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

19 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This edit has the same style of complaining and accusing as the sockmaster.

The second IP is nearly copying the argumentation of the sockmaster. This edit proves that he is continuing the earlier dispute about Albiana as an allied power (what they were not).

The third IP echoes the same sentiment of poor Albania not recognised as allied power here.

To me, the pattern of POV-editing and claiming that Albania was an allied power in WW2 is clearly and the IPs use the same sentiment and argumentation as the indefinitely blocked LupinoJacky as most clearly visible in his objections against the block. The Banner talk 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Addition of IP 147.172.223.99: Part of the habit of LupinoJacky was the ignoring of arguments that were unsuitable for his purposes. The IP does the same. And by answering on a remark directed at 95.90.207.220, he makes clear that they are related. Not to mention its editing history, that fits perfectly in the line of editing of the sockmaster. The Banner talk 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In the AN/I discussion Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive269 LupinoJacky complained about personal attacks ( However, since several days, the user The Banner is constantly preventing me (through reverting) from entering information on Allies of World War II, you can see also personal attacks on the talk page. ) and refuses to engage is discussion ( Such a personal aggression is not worth of any further response from my side, since I do not belong to this level of discourse. ). Here dies IP 147 exactly the same: ''Sorry, I do not see how those personal attacks are related to the ongoing discussion in this talk page. As a consequence I am simply ignoring your comment.'' The Banner talk 20:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Behaviour

Interesting is also the earlier sockpuppetinvestigation Sockpuppet investigations/LupinoJacky/Archive in which Vanjagenije points at an edit of 95.90.207.212 that was later modified by LupinoJacky. SPI-clerk Salvidrim! stated there that it was most likely a case of forgetting to log in by LupinoJacky. All these IPs are from the same range. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example of the behaviour of the block evading IPs, in this case 95.90.207.208. For instance, he is ignoring the facts again by stating that the prior discussion was a stalemate while in fact it was a consensus against him. Beside that, he is claiming that Associated Power is a synonym term for "Allies" or "Allies and Associated Powers" while there is no proof of that. The same as LupinoJacky did here and the same as IP 95.90.207.220 did here. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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

True, there is a content dispute here, which is being carried on in the talk page of the article. The discussion on my side is only dedicated to the historic core of the topic and is based on ethically-correct language and arguments. The opposing editors are using personal accusations and try to block me, because I believe they do not possess relevant arguments for the case. It is true that the opposing party has a majority in number of editors, which is a derivation of the fact that there are significantly more editors with anti-Albanian views than neutral or pro-Albanian views (given that Albania is a tiny country and there are more anti-Albanian users from conflicting countries: Greece and ex-Yugoslavia (Serbia)). This is a politically heated debate and an experienced admin should not fall in the trap of thinking that the truth belongs to the majority of editors (even though I have experienced cases where admins fall in that trap).

Since the issue has moved to a personal dimension, I will personally reply to those editors as well (only for the sake of this investigation). I invite editors to check the core of the topic and the talk page, to see how the anti-Albanian editors persistently try to push their agendas. I can provide with examples of their anti-Albanian theses on other articles:

For instance user Alexikoua is a Greek editors with nationalistic beliefs that promotes Greek nationalistic territorial claims against Albania, such as the "North Epirus" claims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Epirus. Please also see how he is obsessed with anti-Albanian theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alexikoua.

The other guy, FkpCascais is a Serbian editor with nationalistic beliefs (see his list of contributions), who even dealt with "non-ethical" issues such as praising the high morale of Serbian soldiers during the atrocities conducted against the Albanian civilians in Kosovo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo_War

Finally, TheBanner has a personal obsession that Albania should be listed as an Axis country and constantly pushes in that direction on every related page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axis_powers. Unfortunately, he prefers to gang with other anti-Albanian editors and try to block opposing editors through ban requests supported by majority votes on his side, instead of opposing arguments with counter-arguments.

What all those users have in common is that they all frequently deal with Albanian issues, they all have a version of history which conflicts with pro-Albanian historians and they all have NO precedent of ever agreeing with pro-Albanian historians. Is that neutral thinking, I leave it to you to decide?

For me it is perfectly OK for others to have an anti-Albanian thesis, but it is NOT OK to ALWAYS have an anti-Albanian thesis and twist history. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Up to know you failed to prove your case, but with this edit you confirm your sockpuppetry. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What is provable is that you are not allowed to reply to this section, since this area is dedicated to the defense of the accused party, or/and comments of additional users.
 * In my opinion, since there is absolutely no negative behavior on my side, then this issue "is not relevant to sock puppetry" and ranges from "content dispute" up to a "bad faith" conduct by TheBanner. 147.172.223.99 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Replying here is perfectly acceptable, but let's stick to the sockpuppetry case. Most of the above discussion is irrelevant to this.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Vanjagenije  (talk)  You were one of the active editors supporting TheBanner and his anti-Albanian thesis on this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allies_of_World_War_II. I am worrying if you have the integrity to judge such a dispute?95.90.207.208 (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See the Lupino comment on the diff and his comment regarding me here? Same pattern. Absolutelly no doubts it is Lupino. Vanjagenije, I think you should remove your decline since you were already involved in this discussions and for some strange unknown reason you are playing some sort of "good cop" here instead of appliying wiki rules and policies. Please leave it for other checkusers. FkpCascais (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You alredy demonstrated not being able to cope with the disruption of this user when you said this. Your tolerance towards disruption is causing harm and productive editors to loose time. Sorry, but truth. FkpCascais (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Its clear case of block evasion. FkpCascais (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Yes, that is probably Lupino. But, CheckUser may never be used to connect named accounts with IPs, so I'm declining the CU. please, try to find some convincing evidence (show similarities in editing using wp:diffs), so that we may run behavioral investigation.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  18:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I declined CU in this case because all the suspected socks are IPs. CheckUser should not be used to connect named accounts with IPs. That is not a question of my involvement, that is a technical question. Any other clerk would decline CU in this case, because CU is always declined in cases when it is requested to connect named account with an IP. Please, cite those "Wikipedia rules and policies" that I'm "not applying".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The most active IP is blocked. Other three stopped editing more than 10 days ago. Closing the case. If they re-appear, fill the case again.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)