Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz

Kaz

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

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

07 February 2016

– A checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• YuHuw (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 31.154.167.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.159.177.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

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

YuHuw claims to be a new editor. It is odd that he uses terms like "refactor",[1][2] even though he claims not to have seen the policy.[3]; this is not an everyday word outside the Wikipedia community. Though it was a word Kaz was familiar with.[4][5]

The YuHuw account was created on 8 January 2016.[6] By 11 January 2016, he was asking " May I also ask if anyone here recognizes this IP address? 202.9.41.173 It looks like a WP:DUCK from User:Ancientsteppe." [7] This does not sound like a new editor.

Kaz and YuHuw made the same error of thinking that Неполканов means anti-Polkanov:

• Kaz's sock Budo said "User:Неполканов (whose Russian Username name clearly identifies his anti-Polkanov bias and POV)"
• YuHuw said "Nepolkanov means "Anti-Polkanov""

Kaz and YuHuw talk in a similar way:

• Kaz in edit summary "Due to prejudiced harassment"[8]
• YuHuw "So I am asking you and your Tag-team to re-consider the group tactics you are currently employing (harassment and bullying)"[9]

Both Kaz and YuHuw put their heading above another user's comment on a talk page, even though the other user objected.

• Kaz (and his IP): [10][11][12][13][14]
• YuHuw: [15][16]

Kaz and YuHuw have the distinctive habit of creating large numbers of redirects in a short period of time:

• Kaz between 12:48 and 13:16 on 30 August 2012.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
• Kaz'z sock Budo between 13:51 and 14:13, on 9 November 2012.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
• YuHuw between 17:42 and 18:23 on 25 January 2016.[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
• YuHuw between 12:08 and 12:27 on 24 January 2016.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76]

Kaz and YuHuw share a common interest in the Crimean Karaites, and in an unrelated Mogolian group called the Keraites. Kaz's sock Budo talked about his interest in the Keraits and then said: "Naturally I became very interested in… Crimean Karaites". He said that the Crimean Karaites "really do believe that their religion is a from the Kereits being a form of Torah observance which includes belief in Jesus Christ and in Mahomed." (Kereit is a redirect to Qarai Turks.)

	Crimean Karaites	Talk:Crimean_Karaites	Karaim_language	Talk:Karaim language	Qarai Turks	Talk:Qarai Turks	Keraites	Talk:Keraites
Kaz	239	186	9	5	10	1	1	1
Budo (sock of Kaz)	13	26					4
Polkanov4 (sock of Kaz)					2	2	3
YuHuw	12	29	11	7	41	9	65	46

Toddy1 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

IP editors

YuHuw complained below under "Accusation 1 New User" that I had omitted his earlier edits as IP editor. So I have added the two he used on holiday in Israel. He has admitted that 94.159.177.65 was him.

The following demonstrates that 31.154.167.98 was also him. 31.154.167.98 made eight edits to Karait. He turned a redirect into a content fork of Keraites.[77]. After Неполканов reverted this back to a redirect, 94.159.177.65, reverted back to the content fork.[78] Both these IPs were Orange Israel IPs. They were the same person.

YuHuw continued the development of the content fork.[79],[80],[81],[82]. Naturally this involved mixing the Crimean Karaites (Karaim) up in this.[83]

Readers of the archive will be familiar with Kaz sockpuppets turning redirects into content fork articles about the Crimean Karaites. This one was slightly different in that it was about a Mongol tribe, but naturally (being Kaz) this involved mixing the Crimean Karaites (Karaim) up in this.[84] -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I finally managed to grab a few minutes to start this, but it turns out to be too much for one night. therefore I have skipped over some things I thought were too obsessive and irrelevant to countering the behavior issue I am accused of, but please don't judge me on the absence of extra diffs if they are required please just ask for them.

In response to my repeated requests (most recently here) for him to engage in discussions to establish a consensus on sources which his team like to remove from certain articles, my accuser has instead "attacked" me here by opening a very bad faith sock-puppet investigation instead (having taken a break from his usual editing interests [85] to work practically full time on me) trying to build a fake case to prevent his own editing from being examined. Which I intent to keep a very close eye on from now on if I am allowed to do so.

Team-Toddy1's motive for this attack (to prevent his own Team's editing from being examined) is very clear.

Concerning Toddy1's so-called "behavioral evidence", there are good reasons -which must be pointed out- for what has been presented by my accuser above.

Accusation 1 New Editor

Toddy1 is pretending I am a new editor rather than a new User. I have long been a keen wiki reader making anonymous minor contributions to articles (e.g. [86]) relating to Judaism as I wrote when I introduced myself here in my first Talk page post under my User account name [87]. I was drawn into the Karait discussion because I had spotted that many articles were suffering not having been cleaned up since blocking some sock-puppets of User:Ancientsteppe. Until then, I was more focused on minor edits than making much use of the wikipolicies I had digested, mainly because I find some of them difficult to get my head around as they require me to re-learn the basic meanings of a word (e.g. "re-factoring" one of the more difficult to understand policies). YuHuw (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Today Toddy1 added the IP which I mentioned I used when I signed up. But he tries to present it in a suspicious underhanded way. This is all bad faith again. There is nothing unusual about this, I am sure all Users on Wikipedia were IP addresses once upon a time.

This is all just part of his belligerent style to attack editors who challenge the content he wants to monopolize.YuHuw (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Toddy1 also tries in his new IP Editors section to make it look like I added comment about Crimean Karaites (Karaims) to the Karaites article of my own volition, while in fact again closer examination exposes it was later in the day in response to user Nepolkanov who brought them into the discussion here [88] and I simply put them in as a gesture of good will to the editor. Every reference concerning them which Nepolkanov brought up Dbachmann and I included into the section which Dbachmann suggested is where such info should go. It seems now our good will was un-be-known to us all playing to part of the manipulation game Toddy1's team/community of friends/colleagues have been playing from the start.

Everything Toddy1 and his friend presents here is nothing but mis-direction and deceitful playing about with with the diffs. There is no chronological order of events in their context. They deliberately try to obscure the context and confuse the order. YuHuw (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusation 2 Refactoring

Toddy1 says I use an alleged unusual Wiki word "refactoring" just like Kaz but look here [89] 3,750,000 hits without any reference to wiki. This article [90] is about 12 years old and it already shows how the word back then was becoming secularized "is often used when it's not appropriate". Anyone with a computing background should know this is not an uncommon word outside wiki. Moreover and more importantly, the links Toddy1 provided here [91] and here [92] show that the way User:Kaz uses the word is completely different from the way I use the word. The meaning Kaz presents is Edit/re-arrange/restructure while my use is very literal (change the base factor) [93]. So Toddy1's "evidence" actually supports my innocence! Completely different uses of a word.

Accusation 3 Polkanov

He had been trying to guess what my Username meant so I assumed his user name might be N.E. Polkanov and wanted to find out if he was a famous author or something because he presents himself as an expert on Karaites. Anti-Polkanov is the number 1 hit on Google when I google his user-name [94].

Accusation 4 Harassment

I have already submitted two requests for mediation to ANI here [95] and [96] concerning his aggressive harassment (there is no more appropriate word for it) which this accusation here is nothing but the next level.

Again Toddy1 shows how different Kaz uses his language from mine. He says "prejudiced", I say "bullying". So again his "evidence" actually supports my innocence! Very different meanings.

Accusation 5 Headings

Me deleting bad spelling from my Talk page and then trying top find a common factor between me and Неполканов is in no way comparable to the insertion of Biased POV headings by Kaz on Discussion pages. It must be pointed out though that Toddy1's behavior in this regard [97] is comparable to that of User:Kaz.

There is nothing unique about this.

I realize now though that Team-Toddy1 decided Nepolkanov should put bad spelling on my page in order to coax me into changing that painful heading.

Accusation 6 Redirects

Again closer scrutiny reveals a significant difference in behavior. I clearly state what I am doing on the Talk page here [98] I want to encourage discussion and I have been listening to advice on how to generate discussion.

The links Toddy1 provided for Kaz and Budo on the other hand do not even have any discernible pattern besides copying each other. I did not even know such redirects existed! Some of them do not even make sense. But all of them are clearly trying to mix religious community with secular community which is exactly what Nepolkanov tries to do, but diametrically opposed to what I am concerned with -namely why try to obfuscate Christians with Jews? The term Karaim clearly refers to a type of Jew not Christian -although Nepolkanov disagrees and claims [99] they not only accept Jesus and Muhammad but even Buddha (?!?) so maybe he is a better candidate for being a Kaz & Budo sock.

Accusation 7 Common Interest

The table shows that the main interest of Kaz has been Crimean Karaites, while my most main interest has been the Keraites article which are totally different groups but I can also explain in detail how and why I got hooked on that article and why I have touched a very small selection of articles which User Kaz also touched. By analagy, there is no 19 miracle in the Quran, but if you are selective on what you look for you can make it appear so. Toddy1 has re-created a 19 miracle. It is an old magician's trick.

From the outset, the accuser has been discussing with his community team-mates/friends[100] (e.g. here [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]) on how to set me up from almost a month ago practically as soon as I created my user-name here. It is clearly stupid to think that these public discussions are the only ones which have been taking place between them.

Toddy has a keen interest in Military strategy and has clearly used his advanced knowledge in that area to bait me and ensnare me in a trap which I walked right into without realizing.

They have baited traps for people to investigate those pages he listed my work on by bringing references to them up in unrelated discussions (e.g. User:Неполканов's unsigned comments here [httpshttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKarait&type=revision&diff=698741065&oldid=698739460]).

The truth is that I, having collaborated with User:Dbachmann on the Keraites article against suspected puppets of User:Ancientsteppe [108], have been drawn to the pages (which Toddy1 listed) while I was supporting User:Dbachmann's efforts [109], [110] who is an absolute delight to work with but by Toddy1's logic is another Kaz puppet! Of course the reason Team-Taddy1 does not run with such insanely ridiculous accusation is because Dbachmann is an admin. He is, however, not the only Admin that Team-Toddy1 has accused of being a sockpuppet (see for example here [111]. Because I defended that user editor here [112] (That is the anon IP assigned to me before I signed up my new account) I was then tagged as the next sock by Team-Toddy!

The other of the pages listed by my accuser I am sure I first touched by cleaning up the redirects to Keraites [113] after Dbachmann moved and renamed the Keraites page [114] to undo the work of User:Ancientsteppe [115].

I believe the only reason my activity on those pages is extended is because Team-Toddy1 try to create controversy on those pages (requiring more diligent activity) only while no one has on any of the other pages I have touched, hence no-need to dwell on them. If you turn away and give up trying to fix the substantial errors, then fine, but if you hang around and try to get them to engage in discussion on what is wrong then it seems you will end up here.

Anyway, as a result of these baseless accusations I have always volunteered to officially identify myself to an official of Wikimedia foundation and show I am not the user (who was entirely unknown to me prior to being brought to my attention). I even contacted a checkuser to discus about this option [116]. Once identified, it will be obvious (if not from my behavior anyway) that I have no connections to the user they accuse me of being.

Naturally though, having been accused of being a puppet of this user and having seen this sockpuppet's investigation page talked about frequently by Team Toddy1, common curiosity forced me to read through the history to try and find out what it is exactly I have been accused of. At the same time I thought Toddy1's Team (see below) might be User:Ancientsteppe puppets of some kind so I started a little background research of my own hoping to make a name for myself (perhaps exactly what Toddy1 is trying to do).

The great thing about wikipedia of course is that ANYONE can familiarize themselves with the activities of ANY user through the history pages and edit histories IF we have nothing better to do (which is something Toddy1 and I seem to have in common at least for the time being -how sad we are -time to get a life I think lol). While I have not been as obsessive as Toddy1, I have not been lazy either in doing my background research. Finding "Toddy1" on User Warshy's talk page has made it particularly easy to catch up with his team's hounding strategy as the reason why he does all this is explained on User:Warshy's wall. There we not only learn about his opinion that admins are clueless [117], but that the outcome to these sock-puppet investigations are not important to him because he has his own reasons and agenda [118]. The point as he explains is to tag editors that he does not like obviously thereby associating them with this user here which I have learned is punishment enough in its own right.

As you probably noticed from the above evidence already, the accuser has a long history of working with a very specific team (puppets of User:Ancientsteppe, puppets of User:I_B_Wright, Warshy, and especially Nepolkanov the only putting in appearances when Toddy needs him. Other random IPs [119] and sleepy users e.g. Vadcat also appear from time to time. It can be seen that they work together to set up anyone as being puppets of this user if anyone touches certain monopolized articles (as can be seen from the edit history and which Toddy1 selected from my extensive edit history). Credit where credit is due, long ago, it seems Team-Toddy1 might have been correct in identifying possible puppet accounts, but other times (the majority of times) their suspicions have been rejected by the admins. Someone might as well accuse Team-Toddy as being a sock puppets for all they know of each other and even are able to randomly answer questions for each other.

Of course Toddy1 knows all this very well.

I thought making a user account would be a fun way to engage with intelligent people on topics of common interest having seen some of the camaraderie which emerged from discussions and realized I would never get to enjoy that same level as I can not afford to purchase my own static assigned IP address from my ISP. Any check-user can verify that the IPs I use, they are always the one(s) assigned to me by my ISP which is a major ISP company in my country. Since creating my account there are only very few occasions when I have edited Wikipedia without being signed in due to cookie clean ups on my computer.

I would like User:Bbb23 to know that since first being accused I have been asking for a Checkuser to allow me to vindicate myself. No relationship between Kaz and me is possible.

I really have nothing to hide from Admin who have won the trust of the wiki community. But I am concerned about people who "don't know you from Adam" suddenly deciding to equate you with an alleged pedophile -a seriously dangerous thing to say about anyone. That really causes one to be intensely critical of the accuser's motivations.

YuHuw (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is the alleged pedophile you are referring to, and where was that alleged? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Really,how YuHuw knows details from the internet page removed before his appearence on Wikipedia?!. The similiar familiarity is seen also here. Amazing ability for newcomer to dig in WP archives.

It is also amazing that with starting of this disscussion with this "Israeli" user ,user Kaz changed his page out of WP(the sentence "I have Israeli citizence that does not undermine my loyalty to Britain." was changed to "I don't have citizen rights in Israel and that does not undermine my loyalty to Britain. the sentence without any sence(So why you intend Israel at all?). Hurry to see this page because all Kaz's pages that intended in WP were very fast changed/removed.

But of course the main argument is the unique Kaz's style massive edits that they are not only massive and repetative but argumented on RS that obviously claim the opposite or not related things.

The best example is 4 times removal of concensus map

1)

2)

3)

4)

explaining that this map usage on other langugaes WP pages is mistaken because these pages (Kheraid) actually are ;mistaken translatioh of this English page' (while actuallty these pages are written in different manner with RS at their languages. He also refers to Dunlop that does not intend this map at all.The same thing can be said almost of every one of his edit.For example here his edits fully distort original source(later he "recognizes" his mistake by reverts the concensus version refering problematic source in spite of getting from me explanationby his request why this source is really problematic and outdate).Instead of looking for consensus considering other opinions ,he blames the other editors in conspiracy against him.

Of course his claims above that his main interest is Kerates is misleading: His interest is not Keraites but Karaites.His changes(see map changes above) are directed to cliam that the Karaites is the correct names for Kheraid. So he removed the map about Kheraides and added faked RS argumented page regarding connection between Kheraid and Crimean Karaites, It is the main purposeof his edits in similiar to Kaz. It is possible to see that most of his edits are in talks related to Crimean Karaites theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Неполканов (talk • contribs) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary

YuHuw is Kaz because:

• Edits thematics is the same
• Unique distriputive, ignoring concensus, RS forgery style is the same.
• Kaz changes his pages out of WP by content related to this discussion,in similiar manner as during his previous clones,
• Suspicious familiarity with claims and arguments that were archived during several previous Kaz's activities.

Неполканов (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Updates regarding extenal Kaz's pages: page that I referenced here was changed during this disscusion again from Palestine to P and after that to unexisting state Polce. Неполканов (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to Неполканов's claims

1. There is no evidence of "thematics is the same" in fact all the alleged "evidence" provided when scrutinized reveals significant differences in style, POV, method and very specific differences in use of language as illustrated above. The illusion vanishes as soon as we do not take for granted the deceptive words of these accusers, but instead wet check (even though it is tedious and time consuming) into the TRUE contexts of what they are talking about.
2. Douglas Morton Dunlop is not a forgery he is a very well known English language RS
3. Makes no sense to me at all. I have no idea what he is talking about. If someone can help translate please do.
4. Any sane person accused of being someone else will want to read through the investigations and history on that user and the users who are accusing him especially as this incessant accusation has been used against me every time I asked for discussion. It is tedious a bit boring but not difficult at all to find past information on wikipedia. Most of what is needed is in the history of this very page.

It is extremely clear from Nepolkanov's waffling that the only think he cares about is restoring the work (and very specific wording) of User:Ancientsteppe's sockpuppets which User:Dbachmann -and I in his footsteps- have been working hard to remove, although the task is far from complete.YuHuw (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Douglas Morton Dunlop is not a forgery he is a very well known English language RS is a typical claim of this unique style. This old RS is really not forgery.But reference to it while removing the Kheraid's map is a forgery. Because Dunlop speaks nothing against the map you have removed 4 times trying to claim that Karaite is the only and dominant name for Kheraid that you rejected because you have found such faimily name at Google, It is clear accoreding your other edits that your purpose to connect it with Kaz's style to favorite Kaz's Karaims.So the tematic is the same Qaraism,,Karaim Language ,Crimean Karaites, Isaak of Lutsk ,Simha Isaac Lutsk. Keraites are only small part of your edits. When you deny it you again recall me the Russian idiom that you failed to translate correct with Google translate like many other Russian RS. "The hat burns on thief's head" Неполканов (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The map you are trying to restore is one of many on wikipedia which have yet to be removed all created by the same absent editor who used the very precise wording and ideas introduced by User:Ancientsteppe's sock-puppets and no one else -it is therefore untrustworthy. Discussion is what will lead to a new consensus on that, not false allegations trying to get rid of your critics. YuHuw (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And why do you keep calling me a thief over and again here?

[120] [121] [122] [123]

Do you and your friends own some sort of business [124] [125] which is being damaged by the truth? YuHuw (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I never called your a thief. The sentence bolded above is Shiboleth -it is idiom unsderstendable to every Hebrew speaker:[על ראש של גנב בוער הקובע ]. It intends to lier's behaviour that extradies him. While you did not understand it it is clear evidence taht you are not Hebrew speaker and not Israeli in contardiction to your claims.

So there is enough evidents for permanent suspected users disinformation:

• He hides his interests claiming that Crimean Karaites are not his main interest(see above Accusation 7) , while history of his edits shows opposite
• He is not Hebrew Speaker while he claims, that he is Israeli explaing the use Israeli IP.

So I join the reques for his CheckUser. It looks me justified and essential. Неполканов (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw - since you clearly do not understand Hebrew - read this link, which explains the idiom.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Response to Wbm1058's request

User:Wbm1058 I discovered that reference in this [126] version of the current page here where you can also see that the same accusers were supporting sockpuppets of User:I B Wright in doing roughly the same thing to other people that they are doing here in support of User:Ancientsteppe's work.

That page is interesting also because you see they point out quite significantly different point of view of user:Kaz from my own although Неполканов has shown here that he support those points of view.

Whoever User:Kaz really was, a whole group of sockpuppet supporters have been using that account to silence anyone who has come along questioning their edits.

I feel uncomfortable with quoting directly what Неполканов alleged about (at least one of) the alleged identities of the person(s) behind User:Kaz, in case of legal backlash against me. But you can see the pedophilic reference very clearly just before the blue text in this edit [127]. Interesting to see there that Неполканов is making a claim that evidence has magically vanished from the internet. In other words, the only person who has seen the alleged "evidence" is the (can I say over the top?) Неполканов.

Anyway the intended insult against you is very clear whenever one of these users calls you a puppet of "Kaz". This is all just smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from critically analyzing the editing activities of this particular team of accusers. YuHuw (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail website said that the German count's son was innocent. He subsequently stood as a candidate in his home town in the 2015 British General Election. He is one of a number of notable people in Britain who have been falsely accused.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah so finally after weeks of me asking you to stop [128] equating me with someone you alleged to be a pedophile, and not once trying to reassure me, suddenly when an admin is watching you try to reassure me? Where is the article you mention? I am sure I will be forgiven at this point for not wanting to trust you on your word alone. YuHuw (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Having googled the election you mention, I now notice that the allegation by Nepolkanov makes in the diff above (again here [129]) is towards the end of the election campaign you mention, so your claims are increasingly unbelievable. YuHuw (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The accusations are increasingly cryptic, anachronistic, contradictory and eccentric. I await admin comment. YuHuw (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that this earlier incident discussion is now archived: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive913 § Same thing resumes as soon as last incident is archived.

As this is a "sockpuppet investigations" page, the scope of this is not about evaluating editor behavior per se, but I suppose only to investigate and determine whether behavior is so much like that of another user to circumstantially conclude, beyond reasonable doubt that you are the same person as another editor. Doesn't strike me as an easy task.

Have you been able to identify yourself to the Wikimedia Foundation? Though, I suppose that, even if you have identified yourself, if we don't know for sure who Kaz is, then it will still be difficult to say whether or not you are Kaz. Was Kaz ever conclusively identified? – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I have not had any reply to any of those requests yet Wbm1058, but good point, I don't know and I hadn't thought about that :( I assumed yes because Nepolkanov and Toddy1 continually identify Kaz as that politician, but now I really can't tell if that is a fact or just yet more eccentric hot air as I see above Nepolkanov at least seems to have also been suggesting possibly (at least) two people as Kaz. How many confirmed puppets of Kaz are there and how were they identified?

Concerning my behavior I think it has not been bad has it? I have only lost patience on very few occasions and always explained my actions in talk pages and sought amicable resolutions and discussion to understand if there are any points which other editors are trying to make. Both my requests on ANI (before these accusers went way over the top with this eccentric page of slander) were to seek advice on how to reassure these users. I still seek admin advice on how to do that and I am holding myself back from further edits as a sign of my sincere good faith until this investigation is concluded.

As for the reasonable doubt you mention, even the accusations presented above are out of context, anachronistic and contradictory -Kaz is Israeli / not Israeli, pedophile / not pedophile, etc.. Meanwhile the accusers can not even agree with the statistics they presented which show most of my edits were on Keraites following User:Dbachmann after I signed up! So sic ipsa loquitur as is said. It is extremely obvious that these accusers just don't like the new kid on the block (me) exploring "their turf" (Karaims), so they are waving about the only weapon they have (clearly) had experience using. It does hurt the heart. Whatever the Admin decision is though, I do hope someone will be scrutinizing the edits of my accusers from now on considering the users they have been exposed as supporting in the history of this issue. YuHuw (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

YuHuw, I'm calling your attention to a discussion on a third-party site: What Wikipedia defines as sock puppets. I can't dispute their assessment of sockpuppet investigations, particularly those that rely entirely on "behaviour investigations", though I have not studied any such investigations in detail, so I don't know. Wikipedia has a shortage of administrators in many areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were a shortage of administrators willing to thoroughly and fairly investigate cases such as this one. You don't strike me as lily-white here, and I don't know whether it can be determined specifically and without reasonable doubt which prior editors are the same person as you, but you seem to have familiarity with Wikipedia indicating some prior experience here beyond what I think you've let on. You might want to try calling attention to your case over at that other site, and see if anyone there is interested in giving their assessment. Or just have faith that this will close with no action taken on the specific charge of sockpuppeting, go back to focusing on issues regarding article content, as I suggested to you earlier, and take care not to do anything more that could get you sanctioned for other behavioural issues. Specifically, read or reread WP:Refactoring, and understand and abide by it. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Wbm1058. I need to keep it in mind again and again for anyone who might read that the context presented by Toddy1's team is deceptive first and foremost because even from my first substantial edit as a registered user here [130] I have never presented myself as a new editor, I only stopped being anonymous recently by setting up my User account. Not "lily-white" as you put it but obviously because I was still green enough to walk right into the trap set for me.

Moreover, I think most normal people if accused repeatedly of being a puppet of someone else will eventually want to find out as much as they can about the puppet cases of that person (all of the necessary info is in the history of this page here which Toddy1's team openly identified again and again no doubt to ensure I took the bait).

I have nothing to hide from normal non-obsessive editors who have never harassed me. I hope the personal attacks and harassment will stop from those who have shown they do not fit into that category. If it will help allay any doubts about me I still don't object to my IPs being checked by any check-user if User:Bbb23 can do that I welcome it.

As for WP:Refactoring I will do my best to understand it "the wiki way" and abide by it. I would like to ask, have I ever broken that rule so far? Many thanks. YuHuw (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• They're obviously the same character, as demonstrated by the similarities in response to both their SPI cases: walls of text, regular bolding of phrases and sentences, and a somewhat over-formal, stylistic, use of language which suggests a high level of taught-proficiency rather than nativeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Or maybe [131] is just another puppet of [132] let's look at their contributions [133] and [134]. Yep, pretty clear who that is if we use his own criteria. YuHuw (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Way to defend yourself in your own SPI to make personal attacks of socks etc (around dynamic IPs, ffs!). Same as on your last investigation. That lack of good faith did not help you; I imagine you will encounter a not dissimilar conclusion now. Good luck! 79.68.139.189 (talk)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• I've declined the CU request. The puppets in the archives are  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

---