Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Bonaparte

One case:I posted this comment:[1], then some hours later, User:Romania appears, and is supported by user:Iasi. user:Iasi is later blocked for one week, and almost immediately after that block User:Chisinau (hint, hint: both Iaşi and Chisinau are cities in the region of Moldova) reappears and User:Romanian is created. And you add this one line of evidence to the overall style & behavior evident in the contributions and these accounts should be identified as socks of Bonaparte or impersonators of Bonaparte; or editors who will just be the next Bonaparte but who most likely are Bonaparte; it doesn't matter. Alexander 007 03:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the reader to follow up, but if you haven't noticed, User:Romania, User:Iasi, and User:Chisinau all support User:NorbertArthur (not suspected of being a sock, and I'm sure he's not a sock)'s Romanian population numbers and are/were campaigning for them; AFAIK, the only other user who may support those edits is User:BaNaTeaN (not suspected of being a sock; probably not). I find this all a bit fun, and funny. Alexander 007 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Could somebody give some evidence here? Maybe you think it's obvious to the people involved, but any serious accusation should really have some clearly-stated proof to back it up, and I don't see any proof (or links to it) here. –Tifego^(t)_{21:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Just unblock them all, Tifego, you will be doing Wikipedia a big favor. It is indeed obvious to the people involved, but for the people not involved it would require an experienced government agent a week to compile the dossier, though it would be quite an ovewhelming amount of evidence. Hard evidence, however, is not something to ask for, and in many cases it is irrelevant, because even if they are not socks, these accounts should be blocked. I do not plan on wasting time & compiling an extensive dossier. Wikipedia rules are not that demanding for these cases. I can only laugh at those who demand unquestionable evidence. They are holding Wikipedia down. You are requesting a bit of evidence linked, however, and that's fine. I'm sure it will be forthcoming. Alexander 007 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me uneasy, is all. This doesn't seem to have gone through any sort of official Wikipedia processes from what I see here. I don't like the idea that nearly anyone could be banned for holding a certain view or acting like another user who held that view, without any rationale given, simply because the "Wikipedia rules are not that demanding" for cases like this. It's not even clear why Bonaparte was banned in the first place, and I can't seem to find a discussion where it was decided to block him. It seems to be very personal against him. The apparent amount of hatred for him and pleasure being taken in the situation (and lack of respect for some admins) is a little disturbing. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure you have plenty of valid reasons and as far as I can tell these users do seem to be the same person, who felt the need to state the same POV quite a lot... I'm merely asking that all of this be made more clear on the page. It shouldn't be too hard, I think, to link to the relevant discussions that took place elsewhere (both on this sockpuppetry and the original ban) and a small handful of telling edit diffs. –Tifego^(t)_{01:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

I am willing to help do this; however, though I have watched Bonaparte's activity since before he created the User:Bonaparte account and I corresponded with him via email (we were on good terms), I was not involved directly in much of the edit disputes, nor was I involved in blocking Bonaparte or even his socks until recently. So, the responsibility here goes to those editors who were directly involved during that period. Alexander 007 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tifego, see this. --—Khoikhoi 01:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also, important point: these accounts are not blocked for just POV-pushing; aside from being suspected socks and pov-pushing, they also constantly engage in personal attacks (often in Romanian, often in English), harassment, they do not participate in resolving edits through careful discussion, rather they constantly revert, troll, and bully other users. Nasty bullying is a hallmark of these socks. Alexander 007 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that settles it for me, especially some of the edit diffs of his that were brought up there, and the similar pattern of reverting with increasingly angry-sounding accusations across these usernames. It was hard to tell before from the user contributions just who was the initial aggressor and how many of the edits were simply a reaction to feeling harassed, but this makes it pretty clear. –Tifego^(t)_{02:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

And just in case someone is wondering: this is not a case of something against Romanian POV; Bonaparte's edits cannot be called "Romanian POV"; the vast majority of Romanian editors do not align themselves with the edit technique of User:Bonaparte and his socks. Bonaparte is in fact isolated, aside from a few who, through his socks, occasionally support some agenda of his (User:NorbertArthur being one example; but rather, the socks were supporting Norbert). You can enquire at WP:RWNB if you want. This diff is a good example of how isolated Bonaparte's socks have become:[2]; it shows User:Anittas reverting User:Iasi; anyone who knows Anittas' history knows that he has been seen as a "Romanian POV"-pusher himself. Yet he reverts Iasi... (this content dispute was not major however, but it once again shows that these socks are isolated) and then Iasi responds by harassing Anittas on User talk:Anittas, saying "you should be ashamed" and "if you were Romanian, you would not accept the separation of Romanians and Moldovans. I'm going to revert the text.". Anittas does not listen to Iasi, however. There are many examples of Iasi being a jackass and harassing any Romanian who disagrees with anything he says. Alexander 007 01:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should compile a page of specific diffs that show the problems with these accounts (and this page will be updated as necessary), or post them on this page---but this requires a lot of time. I'm not going to do this today. Anyone else may do so. Alexander 007 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rybnitsa?

I'm not convinced at all about User:Rybnitsa. We will see. I don't think it should be blocked yet. As far as I can tell, it separated Romanians from Moldovans in the text (? not a Bonaparte move). Unless it progresses into Bonapartian behavior, it should be removed from the sockpuppet list. Let's not abuse the process/jump the gun. ---Alexander 007 02:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done already. Sorry. --Irpen 02:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you are mistaken. This user removed the Cyrillic moldovan interewiki link, which has been one of favorite Bonnie moves. `'mikka (t) 20:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was just because it got caught up in the edit war. Bonnie would never separate Moldovans from Romanians. Period. —Khoikhoi 20:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of questions

Could somebody explain since when is "the contribution style and overall behavior... matches that of..." a valid reason for blocking users? I checked WP:BP and couldn't find it there... Also, is a suspicion that some user is a sockpuppet a good enough reason for a permanent block (see User:Bidon for an example)?! Some of you folks seem to have very short fuses; maybe you should take a deep breath and think better before blocking users who happen to say stuff that you don't like. Dmaftei 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny actually - there are a lot of disruptive users that I never guessed were Bonaparte, not once. But he never fails to amaze me, as the recent batch of socks came in a few days ago, every single POV-pusher who was edit waring on Moldova-related articles (except for 1) turned out to be Bonny. And besides, he'll just make use of his open proxys (the exact reason why he was blocked) and just come back every day, probably for the rest of his life. :p His edits have hardly ever been neutral, and always seem to reek of Romanian ultranationalism. —Khoikhoi 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you missed my point... I'm not disputing the permanent blocking of Bonaparte and his reincarnations. My concern is that at times the attitude towards some user that sounds like Bonaparte is "shoot first, ask after". Now, if it turns out that the user is Bonaparte, by all means, block the lunatic; however, the mere fact that one sounds like Bonaparte doesn't automatically make one Bonaparte. I guess what I would like to see is a bit less trigger-happiness. Dmaftei 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well I agree with you about the instance for Bidon, but usually Mikkalai has given his socks plenty of time of stop the disruption, and all of these times Bonaparte has not taken his advice. It's not like he actually "blocks on sight" as this page suggests. But you're right, that's why I've been going to CheckUser recently or asking Jayjg directly if a user is Bonny or not. —Khoikhoi 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

217.11.42.142

Look at this IP's most recent edit to WP:AN. Is this an open proxy? 11:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

editprotected

The two cagegories on the page are now defective, using the old "Category:Wikipedia:" style. 68.39.174.238 17:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any categories showing up on the page, so I'm guessing that the problem is fixed.--Commander Keane 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed. Now I wish there was a template to request people unprotect pages after a few months! 68.39.174.238 04:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can we remove all the blocked socks/proxies? If anything, this is just a big trophy list to him. It would be better if we just list the ones that aren't blocked yet. —Khoikhoi 03:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the evidence of massive and continued abuse. `'mikka (t) 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the evidence can just be in the categories Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte. —Khoi khoi 05:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a year...

...since someone protected this... 68.39.174.238 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Khoi khoi 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]