Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZomRe/Archive

30 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

I know CU cannot check the inactive but, based on the evidence, the two suspected socks can be checked against each other. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Master and socks seem to have an almost reflexive dislike for the term "Byzantine conquest" and remove it any chance they get.
 * Evidence
 * Relentless, longterm, move-warring on Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria without participating in discussion on the talkpage despite warnings. Master and socks do not seem to understand the concept of requesting a move through WP:RM. The move-warring started with the master ZomRe who moved the article six times from October 2012 to January 2013. The two socks started the edit-warring over the past day, again, without discussion and despite warnings. For more background please see related report for ZomRe at ANI from October 2012. Despite the ANI report, ZomRe move-warred again in January 2013 on the same page. Please see move log of the article.
 * Similar edit-summaries during move-warring
 * Please see Page move log
 * ZomRe moved page Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria to War of 970-1018 (More descriptive title)
 * Walker.D.Pace moved page Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria to Byzantine Bulgarian Wars 970-1018 (More accurate title)
 * Ccseaseye moved page Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria to Byzantine Bulgarian Wars 970-1018 over redirect (Needs a more balanced title)
 * Interest in Bulgaria (theme)
 * Both ZomRe and Ccseaseye changed the term "Byzantine Empire" to Eastern Roman Empire" when performing edits related to Bulgaria (theme): Ccseaseye vs. ZomRe
 * Removing mention of "Byzantine conquest" from related articles
 * Both ZomRe and Ccseaseye removed mentions of "Byzantine conquest" from related articles: Ccseaseye vs. ZomRe while Walker.D.Pace modified my own notice header mentioning "Byzantine conquest" on his talkpage
 * Use of the terms "Clarity", "Clarification" in edit-summaries
 * ZomRe: "Clarifications", ZomRe: "Clarifications"
 * Ccseaseye: "Clarification", Ccseaseye: "Clarification", Ccseaseye: "Clarification"
 * Walker.D.Pace: "Clarity", Walker.D.Pace: "Clarifications"
 * Similar edits on Krakra of Pernik
 * Both ZomRe and Walker.D.Pace performed similar edits on Krakra of Pernik mentioning how the generous terms of the Byzantines caused the Bulgarians to join the Empire: Walker.D.Pace: after negotiating generous concessions from Basil II, including creating Theme Bulgaria and a separate Bulgarian archbishop choose to join the Eastern Roman Empire. vs. ZomRe: after the emperor offered remarkable good terms, the Boyars choose to join the Eastern Roman Empire ... Please note the ungrammatical present tense of "choose" in both edits.
 * Edits on the climate of Pernik
 * Both ZomRe and Walker.D.Pace performed edits relating to the climate of Pernik: Walker.D.Pace vs. ZomRe.
 * Performing edits on Bulgarian and other Balkan athletes
 * Both Ccseaseye and Walker.D.Pace have edited articles of Bulgarian and Serbian athletes. Please see their respective contribution histories.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I don't know who ZomRe is or who the other user, but I do know that user drK has been posting to other users to get support, this is against Wikipedia standards. Here is the example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACplakidas&diff=623453758&oldid=623292581 Walker.D.Pace (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't let the facts stand in your way when you falsely accuse me. I informed out of courtesy since he is the one who knows ZomRe since 2012 and also reported him at ANI in 2012. Kostas Plakidas is also the editor who got consensus to rename the article to Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria as can be seen from the talkpage discussion. You still have not explained why you don't request a normal move through WP:RM and instead you are move-warring reflexively just like ZomRe used to do. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there is no consensus as there are at least 4 users who tried to correct the title. You asked for support the other user, so that he can support your POV, the same as as you did it the previous time when someone tried to put a correct title. Walker.D.Pace (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong place to discuss this issue. You should have opened a move request at WP:RM to discuss these points instead of going on automatic move-warring mode like ZomRe. This page is for discussing your sockpuppetry. Do you have anything to say about that? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You are reaching out to other users to support your POV, this is against wikipedia rules. Say something about this first? Walker.D.Pace (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The move war continues. Could some sysop please protect the page while this investigation unfolds? I've already reported it also. José Luiz talk 20:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But the move war is over. I do not intend to revert the present title until the socks get blocked and the situation stabilises. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The two non-stale accounts are ✅ even with heavy proxy use. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Both accounts are blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

02 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

obvious WP:DUCK: right after the previous accounts were blocked, a new account, with the same username format of one of the last socks, pops up to challenge the accuracy of the Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria article (an A-class article written by me in collaboration with the Bulgarian user TodorBozhinov) and of course to raise the same point about naming at Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria. Constantine  ✍  13:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

I have been monitoring the pages that cplacidas is editing and his constant attempts to diminish or re-phrase certain historical facts. The removal of comments from talk pages is not nice either. Trying to shut everybody who disagrees with him should not be tolerated. Hoping for a fair investigation here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen.Kratz (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Stephen, as I reminded your fellow sock Walker.D.Pace (now blocked), in the previous SPI, this page is for you to account for your sockpuppetry. Do you have anything to say about that? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Also Todor Bozhinov did participate much in this article Stephen.Kratz (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hoping for a fair investigation. I have been monitoring a number of pages on Byzantium and will continue to add my comments to the talk pages to start a discussion, as a discussion is needed to improve these pages quality. The first two pages I picked had a lot of comments on them. Stephen.Kratz (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Clarifications
 * The very first edit of Stephen.Kratz was to the talkpage of the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria, his second  edit was to the talkpage of Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria, both of which were the main targets of Zomre and the recent socks.
 * In addition, Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria was targeted immediately after the first SPI by sock IP 116.193.159.52. IP 116.193.159.52 was subsequently blocked as a sock at the time of the disruption.
 * I think this sequence of events demonstrates a continuing pattern of disruption by ZomRe and his socks with Stephen.Kratz being the latest sock link in the disruption chain. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you imagine that there is more than one editor interested in the topic and more than one editor that believes that the articles are of poor quality? Stephen.Kratz (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The account decided to solely use proxies this time, and is blocked for being not new, using proxies, in a socking zone. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, what does it mean using proxies and socking zone? Stephen.Kratz (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)