Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theedardanian/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I will attempt to untangle this ungodly mess using behavioral and circumstantial evidence. The various socks have made quite an effort to avoid quacking, but the facade crumbles if you scratch at it enough. I'll start with Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 since these are the most active accounts:

1. Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912


 * Maleschreiber's first edit was made on 30 December 2019 at 16:45. Crazydude1912's first edit was made on 30 December 2019 at 16:58 ( 13 minutes later ). Both accounts have been used almost exclusively to edit articles relating to ethnic Albanians. Maleschreiber has had a WP:PRECOCIOUS editing history, indicating that he is probably a returning editor and not a new one. He has displayed excellent reference formatting from the word go. Moreover, within 3 weeks of signing up, the Maleschreiber account had nominated an article for GA.


 * Both Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 have a habit of including an @ before other editors' usernames in edit summaries. Maleschreiber:  Crazydude1912:


 * In their edit summaries both Maleschreiber and Crazydude1912 have used scare quotes when referring to toponyms they disagree with. Maleschreiber: Crazydude1912:


 * On 3 June 2020, Crazydude1912 conveniently happened to back Maleschreiber's position at Articles for deletion/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13) (2nd nomination). This happened only around 40 minutes after Maleschreiber had left a comment challenging another user for his Delete vote. Remember, these two accounts started editing 13 minutes apart and now they're pushing the same position in contentious discussions minutes apart.

2. Maleschreiber and Atlonche


 * Maleschreiber recently attempted to sabotage the successful SPI into, a sock belonging to the prolific sockmaster . Maleschreiber also objected to my nomination of Fa alk's "articles" for speedy deletion and even went as far as to create an entry at WP:ANI. Yesterday, Atlonche went on something of a spree, nominating dozens of articles for speedy deletion on the grounds that they were created by a long-blocked sockpuppet  (see Atlonche's contributions). Atlonche explicitly stated that the reason for his actions was his opposition to the speedy deletion of many of Fa alk's articles, a sentiment that both Maleschreiber and Atlonche share.


 * Both Maleschreiber and Atlonche have referred to other users as "friend". Maleschreiber:  Atlonche:


 * On 17 June, Atlonche started adding a comma at the end of his edit summaries rather than a full stop, possibly in an attempt to avoid quacking after seeing what had happened to Fa alk, who hadn't taken any such precautions. . Prior to Fa alk's SPI, which was initiated on 10 June, Atlonche didn't display this idiosyncratic behavior.


 * Atlonche doesn't appear to have very many compunctions about socking and has described sockpuppetry as being "all relative", stating, "If spa's can just willy nilly create articles and make new socks after being discovered, then whats the point in blocking socks in the first place?"


 * And finally Atlonche has awarded Maleschreiber the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (really cringy if Atlonche turns out to be one of Maleschreiber's socks, as I suspect).

3. Theedardanian, Crazydude1912 and Atlonche


 * Since we've established that it is highly probable that Maleschreiber, Crazydude1912 and Atlonche are related, here are the similarities between Crazydude1912, Atlonche and Theedardanian (an account that hasn't been active in several years).


 * Both Theedardanian and Crazydude1912 have described articles that don't match their POV as being "Serbian propaganda". Theedardanian: Crazydude1912:


 * Theedardanian objected to the Prizren Fortress article containing a passage that describes its alternative name as being Dušan's Fortress. So did Crazydude1912.


 * Both Theedardanian and Atlonche seem to have a beef with the long-blocked user Zoupan. This is more bizarre in Atlonche's case than Theedardanian's because Atlonche is (supposedly) a brand new user. Theedardanian: Atlonche:  It is quite odd that a relatively new account is so well acquainted with Zoupan, who hasn't been active in many years. Keep in mind that this is a painfully obscure area and I doubt many users are keeping an eye out for these kinds of articles and user histories.


 * Finally (and least importantly) Theedardanian and Atlonche both have user pages containing face emoticons.  Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I request a checkuser check my ip and see if it related in any of the other accused accounts. AB twisted my words on sockpupetry. I do take issue with the way Fa Alks account was blocked, never being confirmed by any checkuser but basically community banished by users of the opposing national block. Its not beef i have with ajdebre, its the double standard i do take issue with. amanuensis balkanicus went on the same deletion spree as i did, tagging all of fa alks accounts with csd g5 and deleting them without even confirming if fa alk is an actuall sock, clearly stating he is a suspected one on the inquiry.

If me being an albanian on wikipedia is enough to label me a sock, then i guess feel free to block me because I am an albanian editing albania articles. The first edit i made on wiki was a map for covid 19 in macedonia, and i also did some stuff on names of villages. I did keep an eye on Maleschreiber since his articles i find to be interesting. I consider it Uncivil to throw around accusations without evidence, saying i didnt do something to not attract attention. The powers that be, will decide this, although I am very disturbed with the way Amanuensis Balkanicus is throwing around accusations. He has had complaints by male before about his unhinged use of sockpupett acussations, yet now he is deliberatly cherrypicking me putting an emoji on my talk page as me being a spa. What? And by all relative, i meant substantial edits by others. You took that out of context, flat out lying. Anyone can confirm this if they read my talk page. Check my ip and compare it to where I am and to where thedardanian or male or whoever is from. I will add other edtittors to discuss this @Calthinus @Resnjari @Ktrimi991

Atlonche (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What you describe is basically an Albanian editior who edits Albanian related articles. In other investigations you referred to the writing style of the editors. But of course not here since there is nothing that you can connect any of us together. Everybody can proof that all of us use a different writing style. It is still funny, since you have put so much work in this. Any other accusations?Crazydude1912 (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Not all sockmasters are as careless as Fa alk, crazy dude. Some go to great lengths to hide their tracks. The fact of the matter is that the account Crazydude1912 was registered on 30 December 2020 (16:49), four minutes after Maleschreiber's first edit on 30 December 2020 (16:45). Maleschreiber's first edit: Crazydude1912 registered: . The jig is up. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no such thing amanuensis, you are grasping at straws man. I just wanna do my part on wikipedia and i have to deal with this sort of tomfoolery? I would understand if you had any evidence, but you apart from full stops and emojis you dont.

Also, if there really was a grand spa creator who planned this out so grandiously, have a brain fart and create 2 accounts within 5 minutes?

First hes a genious sock spam who makes sure to have 4 different writing styles, taking care of punctioation and grammar, and then 10 seconds later he has a stroke and times their socks like that?

What are you on about mate? "The jig is up" keep it civil please stop the accusations and name calling Atlonche (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm really trying to figure out what jig exactly is up, but the clerck/checkuser will clear this up.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Calthinus
Firstly, Atlonche, I have no idea who you are and don't think (?) I've ever interacted with you (?) but I did not want to be pinged to this. Secondly, I politely but strongly recommend changing your user page as it doesn't look professional. Thirdly, none of these resemble Maleschreiber, not even a remotely similar personality; I am unfamiliar with the rest (many editors bother to study the rules, how to pipe links etc before starting out, example : ). Fourth: some of the evidence here is not as predictive as one may think -- using scare quotes for toponyms is typical for the topic area, emojis likewise, using "@" (Resnjari does this, I picked it up from him -- for example -- and it is widely used on other internet forums). Fifth: Zoupan is long gone (thank you Ktrimi) but his legacy is still around and what is obscure to most of us is probably not if you are actually from the regions covered by his edits, though I suppose I can't say much as I'm not willing to take the time looking through these new (to me) users. Lastly, I don't even see a credible motive here for the socking (avoiding 3rr, topic bans...?) to have occurred. I appreciate AB's work in exposing sock farms but this does not look like one. You're a good editor, you're better when you do actual page building. --Calthinus (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, not all sock masters are as careless as Fa alk. Having varying writing styles is relatively easy if you have a good grasp of English, which Maleschreiber most certainly does. Note how Atlonche attempted to jumble his syntax here and then transitioned to a more coherent style here. If you think that there isn't anything suspicious about the fact that only four minutes elapsed between Maleschreiber's first edit and the registration of the Crazydude1912 account then I honestly don't know what to tell you. The fact that these accounts, which started editing minutes apart, have not only contributed to the same part of Wikipedia but later went on to buttress one another in contentious discussions further reinforces my suspicions.


 * Theedardanian called Zoupan "the king of Serbian propaganda" On this very SPI Maleschreiber assumed a somewhat more diplomatic tone and described Zoupan as "the most prolific Serbian editor" (not true, but that's irrelevant at the moment).  How the heck is Maleschreiber so familiar with the editing history of Zoupan, who hasn't been active in years, if he truly started editing 7 months ago?


 * Theedardanian accused Wikipedia of perpetuating "anti-Albanian vandalism". Remember that Atlonche awarded Maleschreiber the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar. Note Atlonche's use of the word "dude" on his user page and the presence of the same word in Crazydude1912's user name (as opposed to man, guy, homey--take your pick). Take note of the fact that Theedardanian and Atlonche both seem to be obsessed with the concept of adding or removing different toponyms on the basis of demographic statistics.     Look at the repeated use of face emojis in Theedardanian and Atlonche's writing.     Both Theedardanian and Atlonche seem fond of the phrase "double standard".


 * The evidence presented at this SPI is just as damning as that presented at Fa alk's SPI. There are likely many, many more socks but I don't have an infinite amount of time on my hands to investigate all of them. The socking, meatpuppetry and canvassing on Balkan topics has gotten out of hand over the past 8 months. I would love it if other users, such as or, carried out their own investigations, but at this point no one else seems to be willing to put in the time or the effort. Which leaves me. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AB, your report is heading towards a very low point. Your supposed points are very misleading at this point because the fact that Crazydude1912 created his account 4 minutes after my first edit doesn't highlight any correlation. Also, Crazydude1912 and I didn't go . He/she joined an AfD you had started on an article I had extensively rewritten, 6 months after this editor created his account and that was the first time I found myself in the same discussion with this editor and maybe the only one since then. You're trying to present the community with a narrative that doesn't exist when someone examines it.
 * I am aware of Zoupan's editing because the area of topic which I worked on when I created my account and still work on (Malësia, Cem and its communities) are articles which were all extensively edited by Zoupan and throughout the process of writing and rewriting those articles I have arrived at the conclusion that this now-blocked editor had a very damaging effect because every article I have rewritten had very bad use of bibliography.
 * Atlonche also used the word "mate" at this report. Maybe we should also seek for correlation and sockpuppetry based on that. The report now is at point, in which the use of emojis and the most common of phrases are now highlighted as "evidence". At the same time, timeline/editing comparison, an actual tool is nowhere to be found in the report. Probably because its examination makes the report impossible.
 * At the head of all this is supposedly an editor (Theedardanian) who has no reason to create any other account and hasn't been around for almost 3 years. A person with no motive and 68 edits in total created 3 accounts to continue editing.
 * I have asked from three SPI clerks to approve the Checkuser and will ask from other clerks to do so, too. After that assessment, an assessment of the report and the editor who filed it has to follow. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Maleschreiber
The report is basically nonsense, fueled by the fact that AB has had content disputes with me. Because of those content disputes, I believe that AB is now trying to file this report. The phenomenon of editors "weaponizing" reports in Balkans-topics has become all too common. In fact, only recently on AE such an action/warning was logged. I don't even understand what the supposed connection is at least between me and these other editors/accounts. In the ANI, which I started against AB nominating for deletion articles which shouldn't be deleted because they pass GNG, most editors who participated in that discussion were against this practice and most articles weren't deleted. What is then being suggested by AB here? By that logic everyone who sided against his actions is a sock. Also, just because someone backed up the same position as I in a discussion which has been had before and I'm the editor with the most comments in the previous discussion too (Articles_for_deletion/Plav-Gusinje_massacres_(1912-13)) doesn't make them a sock. Trying to back that up by saying that another editor left a comment is dishonest to say the least because it tries to frame a coincidence which definitely has happened with every other editor in that discussion in which I have written a total of 34k of text and 55% of that total content of the discussion. And it's also a discussion in which every active Albanian editor had something similar to say. So, by the same logic via which AB connects Crazydude1912 to me, every other editor is also connected. Crazydude creating his accounts in the same day as I hints again at something that falls apart upon closer examination and can be used as an argument for the opposite: that it highlights that these accounts are unrelated. Why else would an editor who isn't blocked, banned or under any sanctions create two accounts in the same day? There has to be some motive here. Editors create second accounts to avoid something or in order to use these accounts in some way in which the 1st helps the 2nd. I barely have had any interaction with Crazydude. Attempts to draw a connection via claims of similarity because I have referred to someone as "friend" or because someone...awarded me a barnstar make no sense. I've also gotten barnstars from other editors Are they my sock accounts too?


 * The editing timelines of the three editors should also be checked: . If these three editors were the same person, we would be referring to someone who is almost always online and editing wikipedia.


 * I created my account specifically to edit the Cem, a topic which is part of my studies in real life and a place with which I have a very strong emotional connection. It seems very narrow and one-sided if any wikipedia editor believes that the WP:COMPETENCE required to edit wikipedia arises only by editing wikipedia. Many editors are actually people who are specialized in the fields they edit. Also, I don't expect from anyone to assess my entire contributions, but if someone just checks the work I've done on Cem and then compares it with this editing history, it would be very difficult to argue that there is the slightest of connection here. It's also far removed from the editing interests of the other two editors.


 * I won't get into the details of editing comparison, but I have a small comment: Atlonche here has edited an article and a sidebar which is mainly written or created by me. Why would I create another account to use it to make small edits in articles I have writen (some of which also show that the editor isn't familiar with how sidebar linking functions) In the case of a "bad-hand" sock, why would I use the "bad-hand" in that way? This is another person who got interested in an article I have written.


 * I defended Fa alk and I stand by my decision that this editor who says that he has no relation to another blocked editor should be given the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't done any disruptive editing. Nonetheless, why is a dispute I had with AB about another SPI being used as something that makes my account a sock? What is the correlation between these two events?


 * Side comment: In my early days, I made the mistake of revealing a bit too much about my personal life and how anyone could track me down and check in which projects/studies etc. I'm involved. I did so because I wanted the other editor to understand that I'm not acting from the point of view of some anonymous editor but from the position of someone who does so publicly with his first and last name on every project. Then, I realized that it was probably a mistake to do so on a site where most editors edit anonymously and then I asked from an admin to delete my comment on 23:44, 17 March 2020. How many editors who are using sock accounts do that? And how does that relate to any of the other editors in this report? The clerk and the checkuser will answer that. In any case, the CU should proceed so this can be filed without any doubt.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If anything the fact that both you and Atlonche have contributed heavily to Mataruge is reason for further suspicion. What are the odds of two completely separate users having the same hang-up around an obscure sockpuppet (Fa alk) and having some of the the same verbal predispositions ("friend") contributing heavily to an obscure article with 1-2 daily views ? Slim. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we didn't "both" heavily contribute to Mataruge. I rewrote that article and added it to the sidebar I created about Albanian tribes, which then made it known to other editors - one of those being Atlonche, whose only edit in that article is that one month after I rewrote it, he added the sidebar that I created in a way that shows that the editor is not familiar with how sidebars should be formatted in article space. Why would I use another account to just add a sidebar to an article? I'm highlighting this because correlation that involves sockpuppetry has to be part of some framework of disruption, otherwise there's no motive to justify it. Your narrative is that another editor is my sock account because he made a minor edit to an article which I rewrote a month earlier. The same article has been edited also by, and other Balkans editors. You're trying to create a narrative of correlation by excluding the actual facts.


 * 2nd side comment (after actually checking the edits of Theedardanian): This editor isn't even blocked, banned or limited in any way from editing wikipedia . Why would this person with 68 edits - last on September 2017 - create another account (let alone three) when there's nothing prohibiting him or her from getting back to wikipedia? The report doesn't even cover the basic premise of sockpuppetry: a blocked/banned editor or an active editor creates another account to do double editing. The report is about a 2017 inactive account with no blocks. As for editing patterns: the SPI clerk, admin and checkuser should compare some of our talkpage conduct --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Another great point, I mean why would he stop edditing on one account then make e others years later? These sort of retaliatory actions really discourage me from editing wikipedia, the sheer nerve is baffling Atlonche (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of policy, there's no basis for this report as there's nothing about Theedardanian that would qualify as WP:SOCK. It's a pointless report but it should get processed for the sake of leaving no doubt even against such a very bad attempt to highlight any sort of correlation.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well even though in this case it doesnt hold up, whats to say he will stop from periodically succeding in blocking users who are innocent? He has gone after small users in the past i presume, so there has to be a way to hold him accountable for abusing tools against editors out of spite. Lets just see where this takes us. Atlonche (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Last side comment: Atlonche has CSDed several articles of banned editor Zoupan as articles written by a sockmaster. Zoupan is the most prolific Serbian editor I would say, so it would be hard to not edit an article about Serbs or Albanians which he hasn't worked on at some point. Despite the fact that Zoupan is banned, I wouldn't CSD his articles because as I argued when I defended Fa alk's articles against the same practice when followed by AB, I think that it is harmful to the project as a whole as notable subjects shouldn't be deleted just because the editor who created them was blocked as a likely sock. I stand by that principle, so in the one instance that I felt that an article written by Zoupan should be deleted I followed the practice of AfD (Articles for deletion/Gojko Mrnjavčević). The clerk and the checkuser can assess that small example about what it shows in terms of similarity between me and Atlonche.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

That was resolved without too much fuss, and I do realise such practce is unnecessary. But to tell you the truth when I saw AB do his tagging with such ease and with complete and uttter disregard for what others had to say, I thought that this is just the way things sadly work here.

But I'm glad to hear that's not the case, and I hope AB will cease such brash behaviour, or at least not hipocritically call somebody out when they've done the exact same thing. Anyways I probably wont be able to edit in a day or two, so I hope reason and logic prevails. Cheers Atlonche (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2nd comment about timeline comparison: On 29 June, Atlonche's first edit was on 16:35 and last on 02:17, 30 June 2020 with about 100 edits, almost all consecutively between 16:35 and 20:03. Then he had a break and made a few edits which ended on 02:17. On 30 June, he began at 12:35, 30 June 2020 had a break until 20:35 and then continued until 00:41 July. At the same time period, I made my first edit on 18:46, 29 June 2020 and my last on 00:00, 30 June 2020. After that, I continued on 23:07, 30 June 2020 and at the time of me writing this comment the signature clock stands at 03:00 1 July. Crazydude1912 made his first edit for that day on 15:52, 30 June 2020 and last on 21:43, 30 June 2020. Some of these edits are at the same exact minute. At the same time when Atlonche was making these CSD edits, I was expanding an article. Then, the same happened at 19:12.


 * To sum up: The report is about a 2017 inactive account with 68 edits and no blocks, bans, sanctions who supposedly and for no reason created 3 accounts, which in order for any connection to even be physically possible to exist must be controlled by a living human being that is almost always online - almost never sleeps or does anything else for that matter - logs different edits in entirely different fields in his or her different accounts at the same time (sometimes 3 edits per minute per two accounts), makes more than 150+ edits per day and is a functional part of different discussions in his different accounts in a very coherent manner throughout his extremely long and exhausting day. All of this, this person does for absolutely no reason as he's not blocked, banned or sanctioned. Do excuse the moderately humorous approach, but the more I try to make sense of this, the more senseless it becomes.


 * The editor who filed this report basically tried to create a narrative that doesn't hold up if someone examines even its basic premise. But by all means, it should be approved for CU in order for a clear result to be logged.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All ❌, closing no action. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)