Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seleukosa/Archive

Evidence submitted by ZjarriRrethues
User:Seleukosa was part of a content dispute on Georgios Karaiskakis. Seleukosa was removing a possible Arvanite family background. While he was editing an IP reverted to his version(note the vast similarities between the two summaries) and on the discussion LeucippusE. showed and made his first comments. Since the first edit the user shows great knowledge of the wp:rs policy and arguments show a great similarity with the arguments of Seleukosa(complete knowledge of rs since the first edit by Leucippus arguing like Seleukosa that, arguing that the source can't be used because they deal with Orthodox buildings, arguing that the source is irrelevant) : Any user would consider this extremely suspicious so a CU would be necessary. After the CU verified the connection the strongest argument apart from the editing and ISP/IP similarities is that Leucippus shares the same user agent with Seleukosa, which means that the Leucippus account edited from the same computer as the Seleukosa account. — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seleukosa:
 * LeucippusE.:

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I strongly protest the accusation by user ZjarriRrethue! I've been a wikipedia editor for more than 3 years and I am proud to say that I have a perfect record with no violation of any kind! As for the supposed "suspicious edit" by an IP there is nothing suspicious about it. That revert was done by me but I have simply forgot to log in! (of course I was under the impression that I was already loged in). As soon as I realized it I logged in immediately and every other edit was done properly with my username. No intention to hide or to do something illegal. After all the reverts and edits were correctly done since no real sources were added but instead a correctly cited source was wrongly removed. As for the second accusation about a comment done by another user *LeucippusE.:, of course I have no relation with him. I don't know who he is and it is certainty not me! And I can hardly accept as a valid argument "vast similarities" between arguments or surnames!! Jesus! I personally cant see any similarity in the arguments beside the fact that they both are correct! I do protest for this wrong accusation and I give the permission to everyone to check my account or my edits or my history or what everything he like with every meens possible! Unfortunetely user ZjarriRrethue couldn't stand the fact that his suposed sources were so easily proven wrong. In the last days he is keep accusing Greek users for almost everything! []and []. This need to stop now and user ZjarriRrethue should learn to work and contribute with others instead of acusing everybody! I also expect a full and public apology from user ZjarriRrethue for his suspiciously wrong accusations. I do beleive that some actions should be taken against him.Seleukosa (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

!!! I am a Greek user who read wikipedia since many time, without account, and i watch the actions of the Greek and Albanian users almost everyday.What drive me to make an account was the frustration that i feel with the tactics of the albanian users,especialy  the last time:calumny and historical untruths. It seems to me that the have put a dual goal: 1) To harm the greek users by accusing them of bad behaviour or of sockpuppetry(At least,they hope that they will set a precedent for future use). 2)To present every Greek as of arvanite origin(Now,Zjarri has changed his mind and says "possible arvanite origin",while in the article was absolute)relying on dubious sources.They dont care to cross the references,coz the only thing they want is to promote a specific agenda.Be sure that in the future they will harm Theodoros Kolokotronis's article too. As far as the accusation that we have the same opinion,it's logical since we both say the truth.But you also have the same attitude towards the article!Are you sockpuppets of the same user?My advice is  to stop tactics and focus on  the historical truth I dont know how i can prove that i am not sockpuppet of anybody,but really i have my conscience clean,and i am sure Seleukosa too. You Zjarri? Thank you.LeucippusE. (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do I have the feeling that I am in a middle of some conspiracy here?. I find it really hard to believe that this user here(LeucippusE.) is the same that appeared yesterday. Is this some short of prank? Especially when this user makes naively syntactical mistakes which he didn't do in his first comment in the article. If however he is the same user and he tries to help, he is not doing so. On the contrary.Seleukosa (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not interested to help or not help anyone here.I just have the right to express my opinion about the accuracy of an article.And this right is given by Wikipedia to everybody.LeucippusE. (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Just a brief comment: I cannot judge the checkuser finding, obviously, but I guess it should be taken into account that the ISP/IP range in question is an extremely large and volatile one. I've known of at least half a dozen Wikipedia editors, legitimate ones and not so, who have all been on this range. Not sure if that changes anything in this case. (Note: I was asked by Seleukosa to comment here.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it's weird two different editors have the same opinion on a specific source regarding G.K., one of them having only 2 contribs. Beserks (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All the CU shows is that the two account have the same ISP (not IP). There are only 2-3 ISPs in all of Greece, so that doesn't really mean anything. User agents by themselves aren't damning evidence either. Athenean (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So you don't consider it important that they have used the same computer(besides the editing similarities and the timing of Leucippus appearance)?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly you reached to the conclusion that he used my computer? Based on the same ISP? Yea, he and other 3 million have the same ISP with me. As for his appearance I find it far more suspicious than you, but for the opposite reasons!Seleukosa (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Zjarri: You're one to talk about timing and editing similarities (though at least you don't mention geolocation, that's good).  User agents only means the same OS and browser.  In the absence of IP evidence, in other words, not a whole lot. Athenean (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Athenean same user-agents=same computers. What you're suggesting is even by common standards wrong, because that would mean that too many wikipedians would share same user agents, so please read the basics. Btw there are about 6 ISPs in Greece so please don't make comments that misinform other users.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Too bad the IPs don't match in the least. Really. Athenean (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Please don't make OR deductions for which you don't have evidence. Btw using the same computer makes it a clear-cut situation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop arguing, guys. You fighting over the results is not going to help admins come to a better conclusion. And Zjarri, please, you've been told before, there's no finding of "same computers". Athenean is completely right about that one, "same user agent" only means they use the same kind of software. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OR? Are you asking that I provide WP:RS for my claim that there is no IP information?  How funny. Athenean (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Guys same user-agent doesn't mean that they just used the same software. Many people use the same software and they don't have the same user agents. Maybe me and Athenean should let admins decide what to do with this likely result and not interfere. Btw if I wasn't sure that there was some form of violation I wouldn't have started the report.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust far more the opinion of FuterPerfect than yours ZjarriRethues. I also expect your full apology for your accusations.Seleukosa (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:SORRY: It is easier to demand an apology than to deliver one. –MuZemike 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I am expecting an apology and I am not demanding it, (at the moment).Seleukosa (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
based on matching ISPs and user agents. –MuZemike 17:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I said matching ISPs, not matching IPs. –MuZemike 22:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, same user agents = same browser/OS, basically. For example, my user agent is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/6.0.472.63 Safari/534.3", that is, Windows 7 English/Google Chrome 6.0.472.63. T. Canens (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Newer account blocked indefinitely, older account blocked for two weeks. The evidence plus the checkuser result is pretty conclusive. TN X Man  13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)