Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZidarZ/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Work on the same type of articles like Draft:Battle of Somlyó (1543) and discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. Account was created a few days before the sockmaster was blocked. ZidarZ was blocked because of suspected use of multiple accounts and so I thought this might be one. There was no SPI existing yet so I thought I'd create this one. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 6 October 2023 (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

 * The account is ✅; no comment on the IP.  Girth Summit  (blether)  11:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * IP hasn't edited recently, closing. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
On 9 October, IP 208.98.222.61 wrote a personal attack section on me at Talk:Nikola IV Zrinski, also claiming my supposedly anti-Croatian agenda, after it was reverted by me, on the same date IP 199.119.232.211 wrote a personal attack section on me at Teahouse, also mentioning article Nikola IV Zrinski and openly claiming my anti-Croatian agenda; both IPs have the same writing style, same ignorance and misunderstanding of the cited and not cited sources, they mention blocking of people (reference to ZidarZ and NikolaZrinski), deleted complaints (ZidarZ's at WikiProject Croatia and NikolaZrinski's at Administrators noticeboard). I probably should have filed a SPI report already in September, see my comment at User talk:Joy soon after which admin Bbb23 blocked both accounts; account NikolaZrinski can be moved from suspected to confirmed sockpuppets list as they at User talk:NikolaZrinski admitted and confirmed of using both accounts and asked the admins "to delete the account ZidarZ and keep active the NikolaZrinski account" ( with all the evidence of having same writing and commentary style, wording, arguments, usage of outdated sources, date of edits, making same personal claims and attacks, NikolaZrinski edited for example Talk: Šubić family, yet ZidarZ with whom I did not have any correspondence and who did not edit or comment anything about Šubic or Zrinski family and the siege of Szigetvar on articles or talk pages, suddenly shows big fascination and concern about the Šubic and Zrinski families (also claims to be an expert on the Zrinski family), instead of NikolaZrinski, ZidarZ went to report me and comment about Šubic family and again on their Talk page, stating "''because he told me that for stuff I try to write about Nikola Zrinski and events during the 1500s that books written in the 1500s and 1600s lack credibility because these primary sources are "outdated sources". To me, that is absurd''", I said that to editor NikolaZrinski not to ZidarZ, NikolaZrinski also said the same "Miki Filigranski's deletion based on the comment “outdated soures” is absurd" ).

To be dully noted, they were warned and adviced in good faith in September on what to do and what not to do for making a future unblock request. They are a new editor, I hoped they will reconsider it for the better. On 7 October, two days before the two IPs activity, NikolaZrinski commented on their talk page that although "read the rules and guides" they "do not think I did anything wrong", how "You have no idea how I felt being UNDER ATTACK" (they were not under any kind of attack by anyone anywhere and anytime yet are constantly targeting and attacking others), how they are "criticized for sharing information on Wikipedia in the hopes of contributing to having a better article written" (they were adding 84,604 bytes to the talk page which has barely over 20 thousand and article over 40 thousand bytes), that "the article in question was not very good" (both Nikola IV Zrinski and Siege of Szigetvár are well-written with high quality referencing), how "''is it not rather strange that after I submit a complaint about you that I get banned and deleted and now I see the message: Topic: “Complaint about Miki Filigranksi” was archived or removed from Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard. To me, it seems like corrupt cops protecting corrupt cops''". I understand their frustration, probably they are strongly wish to constructively contribute to Wikipedia (although don't know how to do it properly nor listen others advices), but am sad to say that at this point they are not focused on themselves and content change at all. They are going around Wikipedia making disruption. It is getting really annoying and uncomfortable being a target of their personal attacks because they wrongly consider me, as well as admins, guilty for the consequences that are the product of their own actions. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2023 (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

 * The one account has been blocked. The other IPs have not edited since this was filed. ANI is a better place to report personal attacks but it seems like the admins are all over the accounts. Marking as closed. Mkdw  talk 06:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)