Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wladthemlat/Archive

14 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

At the article Bálint Balassi, I had reverted IP 90.181.12.24 whose edits were restored by Wlathemlat. Earlier, User:Bizovne against whom there is an ongoing investigation as to whether he is a recruited meatpuppet of the twofold indef-blocked and community banned User:Iaaasi, or isn't, had made 6 reverts on there related to the same matter. But because the IP adresses of Bizovne are located in Slovakia like this for instance, and the moot IP is located in the Czech republic: , by using the cunning plan of typing the username Wladtemlat into the search box of some popular Internet searcher and clicking on "Go", I think that there may be some connection between the username Wladthemlat and the Czech republic.-- Nmate (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually Wladthemlat has once made the mistake of revealing his IP address (89.102.208.228), which DOES show indeed that he's editing from the Czech Republic. And even though Bálint Balassi (and his alleged poetry in Slovak which up to this date has NOT been confirmed by any source including the ones Bizovne keeps reinserting again and again) seems to be one of the favorite topic of Bizovne, evidence seems to point to Wladthemlat instead. -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you all for notifying me about this, how very courteous of you. Second, starting an SPI after one IP edit, when it obviously wasn't used to circumvent any rules is an overreaction at best, as it doesn't even fit the very definition of a sockpuppet. (and were I not bound by AGF, I would even suspect a malicious intent, especially after Nmate's comments like |like this one) and a waste of admins' time. Third - no, that IP is not mine, thank you very much. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not notify the user as roughly 90% of his edits is nothing more than watching out the most recent contributions of the Hungarian users in order to confront with them, and with this past nobody may demand he should be notified about anything. Also, I do not want to open a debate about who have mallicious intents. I am not sure whose Ip is 90.181.12.24 ,however, the Ip did 2 reverts at the same article without having edited anything else on Wikipedia, and this act makes the Ip user suspicious to go on an errand at someone request.--Nmate (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that you're complaining about the lack of notification after you've done EVERYTHING in your power (ever since you've returned but even more so before your wikibreak) to mangle many (exclusively Hungarian) editors' work and attempts at improving countless amounts of articles. Anyone who'd take the effort of digging through your edits and (especially) your discussions would notice that there isn't (wasn't/will never be) a SINGLE occasion where you've agreed/compromised with Hungarian editors on ANYTHING. Your cynical (and utterly hypocritical) notes about trying to make only "logical" modifications and ones which are not "anachronistic" might convince people who know nothing about the covert nationalism which's prevalent all throughout Eastern (and Central) Europe. Unfortunately (for you) however there ARE people on WP who know exactly how ill-faithed are editors with a nationalistic agenda to push. So anyway since you didn't show ANY goodwill to other editors no matter what (including myself) it's hard for me to understand your surprise of the fact that you "didn't get the memo" (as they say) when the SPI was started.
 * Also, you've edited the Bálint Balassi in the same manner as Bizovne did (reinserted the nonsense about Balassi's alleged Slovak poetry). The IP above has also done the same (without even a summary or anything) so it's obvious that it's either your or Bizovne's sock- or meatpuppet. And since only you have Czech IPs (from the two of you), it's more likely for the IP to be connected to you than to Bizovne. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * (archiving clerk feel free to review) There is nothing to deal with in the way of socking, just because an editor has an IP, doesn't mean they can be blocked. If they are trying to evade the community, then sure. Also I don't see enough evidence to take this as Bizovne esp. because the IP has a different country location than the IPs of Bizvone I blocked. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)