Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Umumu/Archive

Evidence submitted by Rokarudi
After a 24 hours block in January, on 6 February, 2010 User:Iaaasi received his 48 hour block, then he was soon blocked indefinitely. This is the period, when User:Iadrian yu re-activated himself after a year' silence (with only a couple of edits in 2009), and the accounts of User:Dicocodino and User: Umumu was created. Like in case of Iaaasi, their main interest is Hungarian placenames in Transylvania. They act in a co-ordinated way to delete bolded Hungarian placenames from the lead and the infobox. They are trying to get support from randomly chosen admins or respectful editor for their ideas. User:Dicocodino failed to get what he wanted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests, Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer here: http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlexiusHoratius#Question User:Iadrian yu put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Another very clear link to Iaaassi is that as soon as he Iaaassi blocked, Iadrian yu took over at once his role in the John Hunyadi article discussing his probable/proven Romanian ancestry on a daily basis.Rokarudi 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As my edit tactics were mentioned, anyone can see, who is disruptive and who is civil by the examples brought as evidence by User: Iadrian yu himself as to Rokarudi's ’tactics’:

In both cases there are no tactics, I only protected consensus, therefore, I reverted disruptive edits of User: Iadrian yu to the last version by distinguished Romanian editor User: Biruitorul here: My rvt: edit. Last version of Biruitorul: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A2ntimbru,_Harghita&oldid=323580854.

My rvt: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secuieni%2C_Harghita&action=historysubmit&diff=351986275&oldid=351876105 Last version by Biruitorul :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secuieni,_Harghita&oldid=206350077 User: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I see this accusation as an another attempt to discredit me and to tarnish my reputation as an neutral wikipedian due to the problem we have here. I will do whatever an administrator suggests to prove my innocence. I am just hooping that the user who accuses me stops with his uncivil attitude which we can see even here. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-activated my account? I sure hope you are not serious with this "argument". I did not know that i should announce my absence from Wikipedia. Since these "accusations" are banal, i will respond only to the administrator. Thank you. iadrian (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Then User:Umumu was not given the expected answer"  How have you concluded that I had an expected answer? I only asked some admins to choose which format is more appropriate because now there are different formats and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them, in order not to create mess. I didn't even tell what I would choose, the question was totally NPOV.

"User:Iadrian yu put up the same question here (to delete bolded alternative names):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents "

The thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hungarian_names_of_Romanian_places was opened by User:Mjroots, not by User:Iadrian_yu

"Like in case of Iaaasi, their main interest is Hungarian placenames in Transylvania" User:iaaasi is a sockpuppet of User:Bonaparte. I took a look in the history of that user and he never edited placenames from Transylvania "they act in a co-ordinated way to delete bolded Hungarian placenames from the lead and the infobox"

it's ridiculous to say that when 2 users have the same opinion about a subject, it is a coordinated action

Everyone can check my contributions and see that I made only constructive edits(Umumu (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

I explained why this accusation exist against me, and i would like to do a Check User please so i can show to everybody that User:Rokarudi in biased on this [matter] and is trying to avoid the real problem by discrediting me. Thank you.iadrian (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is just a "buying time" tactics to maintain status Quo on the problem at the hand. If i can, please, i want to do a Check User so we can get back to Hungarian names in Romania, the violation of the WP:PLACE rule. iadrian (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidence for Rokaurdi`s "tactics". edit, edit and many more.iadrian (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nmate Please be civil and keep your thought for yourself if you don`t have any evidence. It is clear that your account is shared by atleast 2 persons. 1 day you can speak English, the other not even a word one example. Please, respect the WP:CIV and restrain yourself from unsubstantiated accusations like "disruptive user" and "nationalist". Be civil, and try to be neutral, at least here. I don`t know who is nationalist here, the one who respects the WP:PLACE or the ones who replace Romanian names in Romania with Hungarian. Please Nmate, you are the last person who should accuse somebody of nationalist edits. When you speak English ,You are very rude example and quick to judge someone on your biased attitude. Perhaps since our last "contact" ended in a edit war you may hold that opinion, but that doesn`t mean that it is a correct one. iadrian (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Answer for Nmate ("I share user:Rokarudi's opinion regarding user:Umumu, who could be a sockpuppet of the banned user:Iaaasi.")

Please bring arguments for your affirmation, don't accuse me just because your misgiving is that I am iaaassi. A big difference between me and iaaasi is that he was a very disruptive user, while my edits were all in good faith and constructive (Umumu (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Nmate Here is the evidence of your neutrality evidence 5-6 row, clear hate toward Romanians. The validity of your opinions is inexistent. iadrian (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Nmate, just because I used the words "disruptive edits", "constructive edits", "good edits" or "please", you interepreted that I am User:iaaasi? Are these words trademarks of iaaasi? (Umumu (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC))

Nmate a though that it is clear you position in this conversation. Nationalist,rude, rude again and one example shared account, and many more available...  and now, suddenly you show great interest here with little, or no proof at all based only on the usage of some words. Please... iadrian (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC) + arrogant (Umumu (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Also Rokarudi is making some strange edits that imply a nationalist attitude. At villages from Romania with Hungarian majority he changes the country name from the infobox, writing that they belong to Hungary and he replaces official Romanian name from the infobox with the Hungarian one, as it can be seen here

What the unknown messanger claims is totally false.

The edits mentined were created by an IP adress. When I noticed that Iadrian yu deleted Hungarian names 23.01 24 March, 2010 I reverted the edits of Iadrian yu. Unfortunately I reverted to the IP adress disruptive edit. As I noticed that the result was the disruptive edit of the IP number (Băile Tuşnad (Hungarian: Tusnádfürdő) is a city in Csík County, Kingdom of Hungary), I immediately, in one minute, I corrected it at 23.01 24 March, 2010 by the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%C4%83ile_Tu%C5%9Fnad&oldid=351843720 I edited the following version: Băile Tuşnad or Tusnádfürdő (Hungarian: Tusnádfürdő) is a city in Harghita, Transylvania, Romania. This was revereted by Umumu (author of the above comment: Rokarudi) My answer: of course I reverted, because Baile Tusnad is still in Romania, not in Hungary as your versions specified (Umumu (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Nmate i thought i was very clear in my examples showing that the person who is writing from your account is not you right now. Your knowledge of the English language and your continuous rude and ultra-nationalist attitude. In several occasions you showed that you can`t maintain in a single matter a neutral POV and i think that you, of all people, should not comment or make any edits on wikipedia.iadrian (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Note The "conflict"  User:Iadrian yu and User:Umumu vs User:Rokarudi was solved. The administrator accepted that we were right, and not User:rokarudi (Umumu (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC))


 * This is archived in ANI archive 605 -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 09:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Though user:Iadrian yu is definitely a disruptive one, who is prone to engage in nationalist edit-warring. But I must recognized that he is a separate editor personality and not a sock of any other user I'm familiar with. However, I share user:Rokarudi's opinion regarding user:Umumu, who could have a sockpuppet of the banned user:Iaaasi. So that it would need to be investiged which sockmaster he is of.--Nmate (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Iaaasi's behavioral and technical evidence has tied him positively to the Iaaasi account. It is far more than merely sharing a common interest, there are substantial stylistic similarities between those ones. Yet when he used his other sockpuppet, user:Ddaann2, he appeared on administrator Sandstein's talk page, telling him to "I am the person who possesed the account User:iaaasi, I am not here to make disruptive edits and  I started making only constructive edits". And so were on the talk pages of administrators EdJohnston, Daniel_Case, Toddst1, Smashville and Bogdangiusca too.     
 * And what is Umumu doing? The fact that he is saying:

" A big difference between me and iaaasi is that he was a very disruptive user, while my edits were all in good faith and constructive" ,"please stop this. it is a good edit" and so on, which very reminiscents of Ddaann2-Iaaasi.  

In a nutshell: Despite the fact that not none of the administrators was willing to unblock him, he created a newer sockpuppet on the ground that he already became a "good editor", changing his behaviour in a constructive way to could remain on wikipedia.--Nmate (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same old story all over again. There is a major clash over the naming conventions between virtually all hungarian/slovak/romanian/serbian editors, therefore similar IPs edit similar topics and similar article parts. Nmate & co. are trying to accuse every person not sharing their views of sockpuppeting. This is an abuse of this page, their sole aim is to intimidate opponents. Wladthemlat (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wladthemlat has not been edited wikipedia for a long time. So it is almost impossible for him to have a proper knowledge of sockpuppetry of Umumu.--Nmate (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that Nmate has a shared account and no proper knowledge of this situation or any knowledge about sockpuppetry.iadrian (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian yu, comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section. Well, thank you for once again illustrating your ignorance even after you have been informed, your disrespect for advise and rules of Wikipedia, and your willingness to provoke others.--Nmate (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
, please explain why you think these accounts are related, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that they edit on the same topics (Hungarian placenames, John Hunyadi, sports, biographies) and have the same type of clashes on the same issues.--Rokarudi 15:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the edit history of the articles where I contributed and the only one where 2 of the users you listed above also contributed is John Hunyadi. Just because I made constructive edits on a SINGLE article where you say someone did disruptive edits in the past does it mean that I am his sockpuppet? (Umumu (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

After a thorough review of the evidence submitted, clear differences in editing patterns are shown. As insufficient evidence has been provided (and requested since March), I don't see any indication for violation of WP:SOCK. Feel free to provide additional evidence should it become available. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 09:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)