Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eldrewitsch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eldrewitsch (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 11 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Eldrewitsch

Eldrewitsch (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date September 8 2009, 11:54 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Stywerdoff

Karkeixa was reverting at least eicht times Leonese language article. He was told that could be considered as Vandalism and suddnly appears a new usuary (Panoleiro) with just one intervention in the same article in the way karkeixa was doing. --Stywerdoff (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Is an attack against my because I'm the only one who is arguing. The contributions that I'm making in the article are argued from trustworthy and prestigious sources (philologists and linguists). I don't know what is the problem for be unable to edit in this article.
  • Rastrojo is an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia.
  • If you see the contributions (all the contributions are made the same day) of the user Stywerdoff you will check that his contributions are ridiculous and random. ¿Who's the sockpuppet? --Karkeixa (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I will translate this text, but i need more time, please! If someone is able to translate it, I would be very grateful (I don't speak English properly)...

Yo soy un usuario de la Wikipedia española y es la primera vez que escribo en la inglesa. No domino el idioma inglés y pido disculpas si no se me entiende correctamente. Soy un usuario con muchas menos entradas pero eso no resta valor a mis ediciones, siempre y cuando mis referencias sean validas. Siento haber revertido más de 3 veces pero no he comprendido porque se borran unos datos que son ciertos y demostrables. Creo que es necesario conocer los antecedentes para comprender el problema:

El artículo de la Wikipedia es un panfleto político de la organización nacionalista Conceyu Xoven. Esta organización afirma que el país leonés esta dividido en 3 provincias: León, Zamora y Salamanca, de ahí su interés por afirmar que en Salamanca se habla en leonés, cuando en la actualidad no es cierto y los mapas de muchas instituciones de estudios lingüísticos así lo avalan. Esta división territorial también hace que lingüísticamente oculten a Asturias donde también se habla leonés, asturleonés o asturiano (para Conceyu Xoven leonés y asturiano son lenguas diferentes aunque filológicamente no sea cierto). Conceyu Xoven utiliza una ortografía inventada que ha sido criticada en algunos congresos sobre lengua leonesa, en concreto hay varias asociaciones leonesas como Facendera pola Llengua, Furmientu o La Caleya que no aprueban esa ortografía. Hace unos meses se creo una enciclopedia al estilo de Wikipedia a iniciativa de la Concejalía De Cultura del Ayuntamiento de León (El Concejal de Cultura del Ayuntamiento de León, Abel Pardo Fernández es el presidente de Conceyu Xoven), llamada Lleonpedia (el artículo de Llionpedia es idéntico al de la Wikipedia inglesa). En esa enciclopedia Auslli es administrador y ha realizado la mayoría de las ediciones del articulo sobre lengua leonesa. La enciclopedia Llionpedia ha recibido diversas críticas tanto en la prensa escrita como en diversos foros o blogs de internet. Se acusa a la Llionpedia de no ser fiable, transparente y objetiva (un usuario de la Llionpedia ha escrito un blog denunciando el punto de vista unilateral que tiene la enciclopedia y acusando al administrador Auslli de revertir sistemáticamente todas sus ediciones por no ser afínes a la ideolología de Conceyu Xoven). Las asociaciones culturales (El Fueyu y El Toralín) tienen la misma política lingüística y utilizan la ortografía de Conceyu Xoven, y también están dirigidas por miembros de Conceyu Xoven. El presidente de El Toralín, Adriano Martín, es Vicesecretario de Coordinación y Gestión Interna de Conceyu Xoven. El primer presidente de El Fueyu fue Abel Pardo Fernández y en la actualidad es Héctor Villazala Alonso (militante y antiguo Secretario de Cultura de Conceyu Xoven). En la Wikipedia española desenmascaramos a Auslli y despolitizamos el artículo. Se puede consultar en la página de discusión de esa Wiki. Creo que queda demostrada la politización del artículo de la Wikipedia inglesa.

Espero que aunque yo sea vetado en su edición, alguien razone y cambie el artículo a mejor. Prometo aprender inglés. Un saludo y gracias por aguantarme. --Karkeixa (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued in the discussion page (the changes that i've made) and nobody has disputed the grounds there. --Karkeixa (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstable, we are not talking about other Encyclopaedias, nor even linguistics or politics. We are not talking about philologists, associations or all that world that think in one different sense we do. We're talking about [[1]]'s behavior. Just about Karkeixa's behaviour specially in the English Wikipedia. We're here because someone denounced that Karkeixa has a puppy. First answer must be yes or no. We're talking about [[2]] had made spam (denounced even by a bot), publicying what he believes that is "the only truth". Yes or no. We're talking about Karkeixa erased referred contents in the Leonese language articles, some one them from Official Public Administrations or changed them by irreferences ones. Yes, or no. We're talking about more than he made three revertions in one day against wikipedia policies, that considere that as vandalism. Yes or no. We're talking about at least ten revertions in one day (also can be considered as vandalism). Yes or no. We're talking about accusations against othe users (just see above...), with no relation with his behaviour nor what we're talking about, against the Good Faith Policy, against the Wikipedia Etiquette. Yes or no. These are the questions. And I ask for you, sincerely, to answer them, to clarify them, and not to let vandalism, insults, accusations, Capital letters, Bold text and so much in wikipedia. We're civilised people and radicalisms must be off of here. Thank very much and I'm at your total disposal forclarifying this matter.--Auslli (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about Wikipedia. I'm not a vandal, I'm not insulting and I want to improve the encyclopedia articles with valid arguments and references. I'm sorry to have made more than three reversions. I will not do it again but I condemn the politicization of this article. I'm not a Sockpuppet. Can you say the same about Aifonaifon, Morteira, Stywerdoff, and of course, Panoleiro? Yes, or no. Please do not demagoguery and do not accuse without reason. You know that in the spanish Wikipedia you were unmasked and the article was rewritten objectively. Yes or no. --Karkeixa (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have translated the text above:

I'm a user of the Spanish Wikipedia and this is the first time that I write in the English version. I'm a user with far fewer entries but that did not give less importance to my articles, as long as my references are valid. I feel have accrued more than 3 times but I did not understand because they erased data which are true and demonstrable. I think we need know the background to understand the problem: This Wikipedia article is a political pamphlet of the nationalist organization Conceyu Xoven. The organization says the country of Leon is divided into 3 provinces: León, Zamora and Salamanca, hence the interest in to affirm that leonese is spoken in Salamanca but that is not true and the maps of many institutions of linguistic studies guarantees. That territorial division also makes linguistically hides that in Asturias leonese is also spoken (but many times with the name of asturian). For Conceyu Xoven both languages are different but for the majority of philologist and linguistic leonese and asturian are the same languague. Conceyu Xoven also uses an ortography that has been criticized in some conferences on language. In particular there are several associations as Facendera pola Llengua, La Caleya or Furmientu and the majority of writers in that language who don't approve that spelling. A few months ago a Wikipedia-style enciclopedy was been created at the initiative of Councilor of Culture of the City of Leon (Councilman of Culture of the City of Leon, Abel Pardo Fernandez, he is also the president of Conceyu Xoven), called Lleonpedia (Llionpedia articles (about leonese) is identical to Wikipedia English). In this Llionpedia Auslli he is an administrator and he made the most of language editions of the articles about Leon. The free Llionpedia has received various criticisms both in print and in various internet forums or blogs. Llionpedia is accused of not being reliable, transparent and objective (a user has written a Llionpedia blog denouncing the unilateral view that is free and Auslli accusing the manager systematically reverse all its editions for not being sympathetic to the ideology of Conceyu Xoven). The Cultural associations (El Fueyu and El Toralín) have the same policy language and spelling using Conceyu Xoven, and there are also managed by members of Conceyu Xoven. The President of El Toralín, Adrianu Martin is Deputy Secretary of Internal Coordination and Management of Conceyu Xoven. The first El Fueyu's president was Abel Pardo Fernandez, today he is Héctor Villalaza Alonso (militant and former Secretary Culture of Conceyu Xoven). In the Spanish Wikipedia we unmasked Auslli and depoliticized the article. It is available on the home page discussion of this Wiki. I think it is demonstrated the politicization of the Article from the English Wikipedia. I hope that even that I have been vetoed in its issue, someone reason, and change the article for a better one, more impartial and depoliticized. --Karkeixa (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Like you can see I'm an active user with more than 3,000 entries. I was on my holydays and returned few days ago. I think you can search all my profile and all the entries I've developed; some of them are articles about different issues. Also I try to wikify articles adding internal links or categories, improving the allocation of their internal categories and so others. I've tagged hundreds of Austrian entries or other languages as collaborative projects. I work for some Projects with contributions not just in articles but in Wikiprojects and images. I tried to resolve the problems I've had with other users, talking, and even when I think I'm right in my opinions, I let the others to keep their points of view until I've tried references or proofs that hold my arguments. I think Karkeixa must be investigated, specially with the policy of three revertions. He has been advertised twice in his discussion page, firstable by spamming, secondly for revertions. Even he was advertised too by other users. He reverted at least ten times in three days, acussing other uses against the policies of wikipedia of good faith. He destroyed references. I think he could be very close to try to vandalize Leonese language article and his collaborations are just in this article, with no references, destroying referenced items, and lots of times. That's the reason because I reverted him like are shown in the policies WP:VAN. Thank you all and simply, look the work our registers.--Auslli (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Auslli, you're just a single-purpose account. I'm going to translate the Karkeixa facts into English this afternoon. Regards. Rastrojo (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: D (3RR using socks )
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Stywerdoff (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed – I think there are other socks in there, as well, that needs to be checked (which I added in my previous edit to this page). MuZemike 18:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

The history of Leonese language looks like a sock war brewing on both sides. If the rationale above is sufficient, then the reporter, Stywerdoff (talk · contribs) and Morteira (talk · contribs) (among others) should be checked on the other side of the argument. Wknight94 talk 12:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress -- Luk talk 20:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still in progress, but I think Karkeixa (talk · contribs), Stywerdoff (talk · contribs), Auslli (talk · contribs) should better have some very convincing explanations ready very soon, before we block everyone involved here for sockpuppetry... I intend to pass these information to the es.wp checkusers if I am not convinced. -- Luk talk 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the statements made above about the war editions concerning the Leonese Language articles and I must say Karkeixa should stop reverting any change I do. I have always provided quotations from academics. I even don't understand why I am being investigated. Karkeixa has been acting like a vandal not only in the English wiki but also in other ones, reverting changes which provided information based on international research! It is incredible how a member of the wiki community can act so destructively. Let us discuss matters seriously, beginning by the used word "language" in Leonese, which is not "llengua" but "llingua"... Thank you for your attention. --Eldrewitsch (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eldrewitsch&oldid=313178532"