Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Megistias

Megistias

Megistias (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Megistias/Archive.

Report date April 21 2010, 09:50 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• 88.218.90.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 88.218.82.53 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence submitted by ZjarriRrethues

Both of these IPs have only one edit on the same article that Megistias very frequently as seen in the history page of the article [1]. They also share with Megistias:

• the same ISP
• the same IP range
• the same firewall settings
• the same geolocation
• the same traceroute
• the same global settings

as seen in the whois of the IPs [2] [3] and the whois of Megistias, which I found in the previous versions of the talkpage of Albanian nationalism [4].

I wouldn't report him if it was a common mistake, but I have repeatedly asked him if that's him editing from his ip and he has either not replied or replied making unsubstantiated personal attacks against me and removing my question[5]. I have discussed this thoroughly in the past with several experienced users of wikipedia and I think this passes WP:DUCK. Also note that Megistias in the past has been disruptive in many ways as seen in his block log.

Today he edited using this IP [6] and then logged in to edit with his username [7].

This IP edited the same article as the first IP (Albanian nationalism) only to revert me [8], as Megistias edits in the past weeks that are over 80% reverts of my edits [9]. Note the summary which is "rv", meaning that the IP user is familiar with wikipedia.

When asked on the talkpage if that was his ip Megistias again decided not to reply but make claims that other users were disruptive [10].--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Since these ips have only one edit in total, the report can not be considered reasonable. Off course everyone might accidentally be logged out for technical reasons, it happens to everyone [[11]], and here we have 1 edit. This investigation is simply ridiculus: Megistias, if it was him, didn't break any rule, actually he reverted a massive deletion barrage by Zjarri.[[12]]: he noticed a Wikipedia:Brddisruption and reverted it.

On the other hand Zjarri. was highly disruptive removing large parts of the article in some minutes without waiting to discuss anything. I've informed him to relax [[13]] but without any result. He was also adviced by EdJohnston [[14]] to get concensus first. Not to mention that two ips immediatelly followed for Zjarri's support, but they were reverted by a bot since such kind of massive removals by ips are considered de facto disruptive.

I can name numerous examples of Zjarri's highly aggressive behavior. Some example are this ([[15]] 7 days after his account creation participated actively in a combined report against me) and this [[16]]. This is just one more weird bad faith report.Alexikoua (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No this isn't a bad faith report, since I had asked him if he was making those edits and he decided to reply in a totally inappropriate manner and basically not answer at all, but continue his activity. Also please avoid wp:npa for which admins have warned you not to initiate against me.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

---