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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Suspected sock puppets/Bormalagurski

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Bormalagurski

07 August 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• UrbanVillager (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cinéma C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bože pravde (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

First of all, I apologize in advance for me coming in with a murky, ancient-looking case :)

Secondly, I must note Bormalagurski and his sockpuppeteering practices featured prominently at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo

Back in October 2011, an anonymous user accused this person of sockpuppeteering at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies, and after that I went through:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741#Boris_Malagurski in February 2012, where people told me "meh, could be, dunno"
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Boris Malagurski in March 2012, where nobody commented

I'm bringing this up here so someone else can examine the problem - it looks like another prolific sockpuppeteer to me, who's been at it basically since 2006. I almost admire their tenacity, but I absolutely don't admire the POV pushing. Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

More of the age-old Malagurski cold haddock with hot curry sauce. I won't devote too much time to the niceties of assuming good faith as I've wasted far too much time and effort in the past at Wikipedia responding to the manipulative activities of Boris Malagurski and his Band of Serb Nationalist Brothers.

Malagurski, not the most emollient of collaborators in the task of editing Wikipedia articles: [8], [9] - and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bormalagurski/archive_5&diff=prev&oldid=58649657 doesn't seem to be trackable further back - , is irrepressibly persistent but personally I have my doubts that User:UrbanVillager is in fact Malagurski. The style is too different. For all his deviousness Malagurski is quite a bright spark and nimble on his feet in his combativeness whereas UrbanVillager is a plodder, and User:Cinéma C is rather similar, so my guess is that they're (possibly Global Research) proxies rather than direct incarnations of Malagurski.

UrbanVillager's record of hagiographic and misleading edits at The Weight of Chains and elsewhere offer - my POV at least, as can be seen on the TWoC Talk page - ample confirmation that if not a Servo mechanism he is at the least a prolific sucker-up to the real-world Boris Malagurski. In the past suspected "sockpuppets" of Malagurski have been determined to be separate editors [10]

This one will run and run, Malagurski has never been deterred, he's just too clever for his own good.Opbeith (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that UrbanVillager/CinemaC can be treated as BM's sockpuppets under the provisions of the WP:MEAT policy? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff you popped in the storage drawer is historic, but relevant as evidence of a pattern of bad misbehaviour (and the common identity of Bormalagurski and Boris Malagurski). From my experience of Cinema C during a few encounters on Wikipedia, my impression is that he's a sympathiser, drifting along in the same general direction as the Malagurski rather than being a member of his identity group. UrbanVillager appears to be a devoted acolyte of Boris. His level of commitment to promoting Boris's work is remarkable, but his style is quite different. The relevant wording in the guideline you cite appears to be "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." Certainly puffing Boris's achievements is an objective that UrbanVillager and Boris appear very clearly to have in common.Opbeith (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so lenient towards Cinema C to describe them as simply "drifting along", I think it's merely a concealed Boris. They started editing BM's biography on sr: exactly one day after the article was created there, and BM's biography within a day of its creation here, and two months prior to that, 2009 Kosovo movie three days after the article's creation - having created the account six hours earlier. Sure, maybe it's all a coincidence, it's just some WP:SPA groupie with exactly the same interests, but I don't buy it. Particularly after this or this or this or any number of controversial edits. Within six months of their 'tenure' here, they told someone who accused them of being BM to "do a checkuser" and proposed a topic ban on someone else (after having complained about them at WP:ANI earlier). That's... not something I've seen many actual newbies do. And then when he got blocked/unblocked for the second time, in September 2010 - poof, he's gone. He quit while he was ahead, figuring people will be more likely to be on to him after his block log showed issues. I'm surprised he didn't pack up sooner after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cinéma C - I guess the positive result encouraged them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and then, ten days later, UrbanVillager suddenly starts being much more active. I wish we had logs for a checkuser for the year of 2010... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking as a random passerby, I have no technical evidence of sockpuppetry. per se, but I think there is a pattern of problematic editing in areas which suffer from a lot of POV-pushing. It is also a little worrying that:
  • UrbanVillager's first three edits spanned a period of three minutes - first turning their userpage into a bluelink, second turning their talkpage into a bluelink, and the third was a revert on a controversial article.
  • Ditto for Cinéma C ‎- account starts with a brief burst of editing which first turns userpage and talkpage into bluelinks, then edits on a controversial topic... bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked back at the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? article, I still think there's a difference of person between the three main protagonists but they clearly share a common intent. UrbanVillager is utterly dedicated to Boris as his Mastermind special subject, while Cinema C appears to have had rather more of a life. It was because my encounters with Cinema C were in other (Serb propaganda-related) areas that I hadn't noticed what an assiduous curator of the Boris heritage he's been in the past. Suddenly in March 2009 after meandering around Serb-related subjects he suddenly locked into Boris-promotion ahead of the release of Kosovo: Can You Imagine?. (Incidentally he seems to have managed to delete his pre-2009 history of contributions).

Cinema C seems to have disappeared suddenly in 2010 after a slight overlap with UrbanVillager but rather than him having become UrbanVillager I suspect he's simply handed on the baton, with the pattern of alternating intervention reflecting their working together rather than being the same personality. I could be wrong, and my impression of Cinema C was formed some time before all this Malagurski-associated activity, but the disparity of interests between him and UrbanVillager seems unusual. Opbeith (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ina any case, as Joy has effectively pointed out, all it takes is a meander through the history of the various Malagurski-associated articles to see how much effort both UrbanVillager and Cinema C have spent on promoting Boris and his films in a way that shows an almost total lack of neutrality. Opbeith (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean pre-2009 contributions? Special:Log/Cinéma C says it was created then, not before. Are you thinking of some other username perhaps? -Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake completely. I couldn't spot the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bratunac_massacre discussion which I thought was some time pre 2009 - I've found it now and it turns out to have been mid-2009. So I owe Cinema C an apology for that suggestion. Opbeith (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to suggest a connection to User:Bože pravde; that account went inactive a few hours before Cinéma C started editing (with remarkable proficiency for a newbie). The intersection between their edits is fairly strong considering their respective edit counts and there appears to be a correlation in their typical editing times. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 21:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that account, in turn, was created whilst Bormalagurski was on a 2 week block; they started their account by turning userpage and talkpage into bluelinks, before going to edit Bože pravde which Bormalagurski had edited a couple of days previously. Then they edited sparsely for a while, then ramped up their editing shortly after Bormalagurski got a 1-year-which-became-indef block. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 21:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egad, yes, I had actually noticed User:Bože pravde in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo#Bormalagurski has used abusive sockpuppets and tagged it, but didn't follow up on the dating. It actually provides a pretty clear link. So the timeline is:

• Bormalagurski - September 2005 - September 2006
• Bože pravde - September 2006 - March 2009
• Cinéma C - March 2009 - September 2010
• UrbanVillager - September 2010 - today

Bože pravde had some relatively innocuous edits before and after those months, but so did other accounts. It's actually amusing how their last edit was the upload of File:Scott-Taylor-2010.jpg for which they claim ownership - if someone were to contact Scott Taylor (journalist) and ask him who took that photo, they could actually confirm the RL identity of that account. And we all know who that could be, given that they uploaded that over this - File:Skot Tejlor (slika Malagurski Borisa).JPG, meaning "Scott Taylor (Boris Malagurski's picture)". D'oh.

Well, I rest my case. Even if they aren't literally BM, they're egregiously obvious meatpuppets at the very least, and should all be blocked indefinitely. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me.

I think that some articles associated with this editor have previously been AfD'd, and kept. If these AfDs could have been subverted by sock/meatpuppetry, maybe it's time to reopen one or two of those cases? (Without checking page histories, I assume none are G5 candidates because they'll have been edited by other folk) (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of articles created by the three accounts are at:

• http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=UrbanVillager&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects - 4 articles
• http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Cinéma+C&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects - 4 articles
• http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Bo%C5%BEe+pravde&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects - 22 articles

I skimmed the lists and they mostly seem to be about reasonably notable topics. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's interesting that nobody notified me about what's going on here, I think that's quite important, no? In any case, I'm not Boris Malagurski (although yes, I do edit his article and articles concerning his work, guilty of that) and I'm not Bormalagurski, or any of the others, I'm UrbanVillager. I've been warned about a few things on my talk page, never been blocked, and for the two and a half years on Wikipedia, I've been a constructive member of the community (I think I lost my cool a few times, but I never went too far). I edited before I made my username without a username (just the IP address showed up), but that was way back in the day... In any case, since Joy seems to have a problem with me (as professed by him/her on my talk page) and Opbeith is into the topic of Srebrenica, and I'd assume that he doesn't agree with Boris Malagurski's film The Weight of Chains, which deals with the issue in a segment, I guess this is motivated by other things than promoting the rules of Wikipedia. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if this is all for the sake of attempting to delete every article that has anything to do with Malagurski (even though all of them have plenty of secondary sources and meet all of the requirements of WP:NOTABLE). If I've personally broken the rules in any way, please advise me as to what I've done wrong according to the rules of Wikipedia, and I'll abide by them. I think that's fair. All the best, --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How, pray tell, did you learn of this? Watching user pages of your old accounts? :p --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very hypocritical not to inform user in question in order to test your theses, which is obviously failed. That is gaming the system... --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, read the fine generic WP:SPI instructions about notification. There's nothing to be gained by explicitly telling the latest instance of the sockpuppeteer that we're on to him. But more importantly, it's disconcerting to see you here - I wonder if your sudden appearance to advocate for BM is the result of some coordinated effort to help him? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, slow down a bit. AGF, please. There requests are open to public, and i dont see any problem for anyone to write here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 09:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy Croatian. UrbanVillager is not Bormalagurski. Any user who does not agree with him is "a fake." Now, the Croatian, will say that I am the fake of UrbanVillager. (I like to laugh) --2.33.180.155 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oesterling, is that you again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Velebit? Who is He? An another name for "fake." (LOL) This user (Joy) is a fascist. Less paranoia about "the Fake" --2.33.180.29 (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've commented before, UrbanVillager's style strikes me as different from Malagurski's. Nevertheless his contributions began at the time The Weight of Chains was being promoted for imminent release, they are almost entirely on Malagurski-related subjects (even when for some reason removing someone else's reference to Malagurski at the Bunjevci article (about an ethnic minority with a significant representation in Malagurski's home town of Subotica). His created articles are on Malagurski-related subjects - The Weght of Chains itself, created prior to release, Nova Srpska Politička Misao, a journal which publishes articles by Malagurski, and Jože Mencinger and John Bosnitch, both of whom are featured in The Weight of Chains. Almost the entirety of UranVillager's contributions are to articles about other persons featured in The Weight of Chains - Slobodan Samardžić, Srđa Trifković, Škabo, Branislav Lečić, James Byron Bissett, Scott Taylor (journalist), Vlade Divac and Lewis MacKenzie. UrbanVillager's contributions have tended to promote the interest of the film, in particular at the Weight of Chains article itself. He/she has been determinedly persistent in defending the hyperpositive tone of the Malagurski-related content of the articles of interest to him/her and the way Boris Malagurski is represented, eg at the Lewis Mackenzie article. UrbanVillager is not Malagurski himself but his/her association with Malagurski appears to be a very long way from being an objective one. Opbeith (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• No clear evidence is given anywhere in this investigation. Therefore, no action can be taken. AGK [•] 10:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13 November 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• UrbanVillager (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cinéma C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bože pravde (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bolonium (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WhiteWriter (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I've been looking into the previous Boris Malagurski SPI case. And there are some suspicious things I've discovered through viewing contributions of the relevant accounts that were overlooked. First, a little background: it is known that Boris Malagurski has a history of stockpuppeteering and thus a predisposition to using sockpuppets. To expect that behavior not to continue would be naive. His previous accounts (that were discovered) include

• KOCOBO (talk · contribs)
• WikiMB (talk · contribs)
• TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs)

In addition to the previous suspected socks I've included a new one called Bolonium that was previously not looked into:

• On 16 April 2006, Boris Malagurski contacts Bolonium [12][13]
• On 21 October 2007, after Bormalagurski's block in September, Bolonium removes Malagurski's name from the Portal:Serbia/Portal info page [14]
• On 31 December 2007, Bože pravde replaces any traces of Malagurski's name with something else on his banned account's talkpage. [15] Who would bother with this?
• On 19 September 2008, the Serbian Youth League article (organization led by Malagursk) is article created by Bože pravde and later edited by Bolonium. Bože pravde even thanks the "President of the SYL in Toronto, for writing about the Serbian Youth League" and says he's glad he "could help with my "wiki-skills"".[16]
• In February 2009, Bože pravde edits numerous articles relating to Vojvodina and obscure villages near Subotica where Malagurski was born for the entire month [17] He removes "Bunjevac language" from the leads. Malagurski's last name, according sr.wiki, is used by Bunjevci who reside in Subotica.
• On 12 May 2009, Bolonium uploads the Kosovo movie poster to the Serbian wikipedia [18] two days later Cinema C uploaded the Kosovo poster to Serbo-Croatian wikipedia [19]
  • On 12 May 2009 Bolonium in fact creates the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? article at Serbian Wikipedia, the content of which is subsequently edited mainly by the three editors first Bolonium, then Cinema C, then Urban Villager (I won't attempt the link to the History, given the complications with Cyrillic. Perhaps someone else can try). Opbeith (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requested link: [20] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On 10 November 2011, a single purpose account, Charly Hofmann, created a Boris Malagurski article and Weight of Chains article on the German wikipedia [21] That account ceased all activity on the same day and two days later on 12 November 2011 the page began to be maintained by UrbanVillager from then on. [22]
• On 10 November 2011, a single purpose account, Dknez15, created the Boris Malagurski article on the Spanish wikipedia [23] That account ceased all activity on the same day and two days later on 12 November 2011 the page began to be maintained by UrbanVillager from then on. [24]
• On 29 November 2011, 178.148.12.58, a single purpose Serbian IP originating from Vojvodina (again where Malagurski was born), created the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? ‎article on the Romanian wikipedia. [25] That IP ceased all activity on the same day and UrbanVillager resumed its work there on 2 December. [26]
• On 1 December 2011, UrbanVillager creates the Weight of Chains article on the Greek wikipedia. [27]
• On 13 November 2012, Bolonium reappears to vote keep on a Malagurski article after a year long hiatus. [28]

To date UrbanVillager's editing continues to revolve solely around the work of Malagurski: whether its adding links from interviewees of his film or creating the article of newspaper for which he writes. It is worth noting that when he created his account he immediately knew to make a userpage and talkpage. [29]

I note that UrbanVillager is as keen as the TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs) sock and IP 99.244.247.108 (talk · contribs) about writing about Malagurski's last name heritage. [30][31][32] The IP initially adds Malagurski's last name heritage info [33] which Bolonium later modifies [34]. The IP also removes infoboxes from the KOCOBO sock [35][36], edits Bolonium's language capacity on his Serbian wikipedia page [37], adds a picture of Malagurski's mother (uploaded by Malagurski) on a promotional article dedicated to her [38], frequents the Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport article like Bolonium [39][40], wants to get rid of the "Serbian" article like Bolonium [41][42], and even the obscure Đakovica city again pops up. [43] This is in addition various other airline related articles. [44][45] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious the IP was Bolonium and that he along with Malagurski's sock worked in concert to promote Malagurski. (en.wiki: [46],[47],[48]; sr.wiki: [49],[50]) To recap:

• Malagurski's use of multiple sockpuppets is again evident
• Malargurski's willingness and those of others to scheme in promoting him and his "heritage" with others is evident
• UrbanVillager's promotional tone set in Malagurski's articles and his repetition of this obscure "heritage" fact are both also evident as well --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanVillager's blanking of the SPI certainly isn't helping [83] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

You may already have come across this page - it includes the opinion of other administrators and editors that Boris is unlikely to change his malpractices (as well as the cheerful support of friends, most of whom clearly aren't bothered):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bormalagurski/archive_5&diff=58649657&oldid=58144190 Opbeith (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krytan, one of the Bring Back Boris petitioners above, is in fact User:Bolonium. Opbeith (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone looking at Bolonium and found two amusing items:

• Their and Cinema C's attempts at non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski - [84] [85]
• Their !vote to object to desysopping Bormalagurski from sr:wiki

That latter discussion (its final state) also brought up a link to User:C-c-c-c, who is in turn blocked for being a sockpuppet of another user. I still say they should all be axed under the provisions of WP:MEAT. It's all been a horrible waste of time, that could instead have been spent on actually improving the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, if circumstantially, Bolonium appears to be familiar with music venues in both Toronto and Belgrade - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studentski kulturni centar Opbeith (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's from Canada, in fact that's established in the first conversation between Malagurski and Bolonium: Malagurski: "Where do you live in Canada? I'm in Vancouver." [86], Bolonium: "I'm from Brampton (Greater Toronto Area)." [87]. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's another Boris identity that you may not come across that may be worth looking out for, because it still crops up in Histories even though it's "Not registered", User:Serbiana:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CrnaGora&diff=prev&oldid=60594836

That's just a piece of signature text, it's not an indicator of an actual changed username. Any user can change their signature at the user preferences. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here he's boasting under that identity that he's blocked User: Crna Gora at Serbian Wikipedia. Does that mean he would have been an administrator there?

I'm puzzled by this "Not registered" business. I come across this from time to time even when the name was obviously an active user previously. It seems to me as though users are helped to delete/hide embarrassing identities.

Certainly there appears to be an ability to get previous edits hidden. Someone involved in The Weight of Chains discussion seems to have edits quite frequently deleted from their list of contributions - of course I've only spotted apparent deletions fleetingly with a line through them.

I'm also puzzled how someone can transform one identity into another and prevent that former identity being disclosed when that former identity is described as the "sock-puppeteer" of a permanently blocked User on the blocked User's User Page. I thought "sock-puppeteers" were blocked along with the "sock-puppet". I've been told forcefully by the "sock-puppeteer"'s current identity that I may not disclose the concealed identity as it would be "outing" and not permitted by Wikipedia rules. I don't know whether that's bluster. I'd be grateful for advice as my impression is that this User is an ally of at least one of the Malagurski-linked User identities discussed here.

Sockpuppeteers are indeed blocked along with sockpuppets, but they may be unblocked if they repent, so to speak, or their blocks may expire. The ((sockpuppeteer)) template has various options to that effect. The outing that you mention does not refer to this situation, it refers to the situation where a user formally rescinds an old account and everything that's related to it, and starts anew; provided that they follow the rules, particularly that they don't repeat any abuse that they may have committed under the old account, they are indeed allowed to be disassociated from the old account. BM is not such a case. But if you're still having doubts, you may send an e-mail to an administrator (not a user talk message, but a private e-mail) to verify that you wouldn't be outing a legitimate user. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You look for one and more suspect names turn up. It's impossible for this to be dealt with by normal people without systematic input from Wikipedia administrators who aren't concerned with quick closures and turning a blind eye. Opbeith (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy: I find that evidence very disturbing. It's obvious that Malagurski and either his buddies from Serbian wikipedia or from his little Serbian Youth League organization (an article created by Bože pravde with original research and edited by Bolonium by the way) are behind this charade. I agree that such meatpuppetry should not be tolerated.

Opbeith: That's the name Malagurski adopted as his signature in place of his real account's name at some point in time. That's the same one that Bože pravde used to replace Malagurski's real account name almost two years after his sock was indef blocked. [88][89] It's most likely a copy of the nationalist "Serbianna" website. His openness about "eliminating" other people is troubling and again evidence of the lengths he will go to get his way on Wikipedia. It does appear Malagurski blocked Crna Gora on the Serbian wikipedia with admin powers. [90][91] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with "Serbianna" isn't implausible. However the name could simply be a noun formation using the Latin adjective neutral plural form convention for "Things related to (x)", ie "Serbiana" means "Things Serbian" or "Things related to Serbia". Opbeith (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if someone wants to rename this case to "Serbian Youth League", that would work, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see here, the only "evidence" provided that is supposed to prove that I'm Bormalagurski's sockpuppet is that I edited the Boris Malagurski article on Spanish Wikipedia a few times, edited the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles on German Wikipedia a few times, edited the Kosovo: Can You Imagine? article on Romanian Wikipedia a few times, added reliable references to Malagurski-related articles, "showed knowledge of creating a userpage and talk page" by clicking on the red links and writing "My username is a paradox" on my userpage and "You. Message. Now." on my talk page (I took a 10-week course for that one), and reverting one page to a version of some other editor before me. I fail to see how any of this constitutes any kind of evidence for anything at all, really. My comments on this whole issue are in the section below. --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "From what I see here" was carefully inserted. You selectively omit a fair amount of information provided earlier and elsewhere, so I'll just sum up what I've mentioned previously again.

As noted previously your contributions began at the time The Weight of Chains was being promoted for imminent release, they are almost entirely on Malagurski-related subjects (even for no explicit reason removing someone else's reference to Malagurski in the Bunjevci article about the non-Serb community in Malagurski's home town of Subotica).

The articles you have created are on Malagurski-related subjects - Malagurski's film The Weight of Chains itself, created prior to release, Nova Srpska Politička Misao, a journal that publishes articles by Malagurski, and Jože Mencinger and John Bosnitch, both of whom are featured in The Weight of Chains. As PRODUCER pointed out, after Psychonaut's listed your contributions in the attempt to show that your edits weren't almost entirely Malagurski-related, almost all the exceptions turned out to be edits to articles about other persons featured in The Weight of Chains - Slobodan Samardžić, Srđa Trifković, Škabo, Branislav Lečić, James Byron Bissett, Scott Taylor (journalist), Vlade Divac and Lewis MacKenzie - noting their appearance in the film.

Your edits at the articles inflate the significance of trivialities, slide over negative issues and show an extraordinarily determined commitment to excluding balancing cricitism of Malagurski and his works (basically the reason why we're all here).

You're selective in the references you cite of the scope of your commitment to the grooming of Malagurski-related information across a number of national Wikipedias. Now I note you are avoiding mention of your activities on Serbian Wikipedia that I mentioned in the Conflict of Interest discussion. Your contributions there are again almost entirely Malagurski-concerned (no fully Romanised version accessible - the title remains in Cyrillic but the names of the contributing editors are shown in Roman characters:

Boris Malagurski article (principal editor, carrying on from Cinema C)

The Weight of Chains article (creator and principal editor)

UrbanVillager History of UrbanVillager contributions on Serbian Wikipedia (Cyrillic only, but Борис Малагурски is Boris Malagurski, Разговор:Борис Малагурски is Talk:Boris Malagurski and Тежина ланаца is The Weight of Chains - accounting for almost the entirety of your edits on Serbian Wikipedia *I'm so slow - I just realised that the other ones that aren't BM, Talk:BM and TOWC are "Косово: Можете ли замислити?" - "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?", so in fact -all- your Serbian Wikipedia edits are Malgurski-related). Opbeith (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even on Malagurski's home Serbian Wikipedia you are clearly making heroic efforts to ensure Boris and his work are regarded as meeting the criteria for inclusion. The main concern on BM's Serbian WP talk page is whether he's significant enough to warrant an article. You follow previous editors who've sought to defend BM's inclusion.

It's this less than straightforward behaviour, repeated time after time after time, in relation to a character confirmed to be a fraud from the record of his involvement in Wikipedia itself and works that have been pointed out a number of times to be untruthful, that would make all our doubts about you perfectly understandable to an alien from Mars, let alone anyone from the real world. But somehow Wikipedia is a bubble of unreality to which you are allowed to continue contributing. Opbeith (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for easy transliteration of Serbian Cyrillic, I recommend the Transliterator Firefox add-on. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, thanks for all the helpful suggestions. Opbeith (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I like to edit Malagurski-related articles proves only that I'm interested in that topic (Malagurski's Facebook fan page has over 12,000 Likes, a lot of people follow his work, this is nothing unusual). I still fail to see how that shows I'm anyone's sockpuppet. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanVillager, 12,000 likes isn't anywhere near as impresssive as the million links you offered to provide in the attempt to stop your Boris Malagurski article on yet another national Wikipedia, the Croatian WP, being deleted on grounds of insignificance! Sadly the article was deleted anyway but the Talk page remains with details of the exchanges there prior to deletion at http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razgovor:Boris_Malagurski (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=hr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhr.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRazgovor%3ABoris_Malagurski - Google Translate version).

And yet getting you to acknowledge the scope of your activity on behalf of vunderkind is like getting blood out of a stone. Opbeith (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=Comment by WhiteWriter=

This was again opened, but nothing really new was presented. I am afraid that this is only part of a WP:DISRUPTPOINT violation by User:PRODUCER on the User:UrbanVillager edits, including AfD nomination, and COI noticeboard thread. Nothing really convincing was presented, and no clear evidence is given in this again. Some years old diffs are no good for us here. By that logic, you can merge me with numerous other accounts, and ask for my sock puppets, or anyone's, at the end. This is not the solution to the dispute resolution from Boris Malagurski article... --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from you is hilarious. [92] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as i said. Instead of logical arguments for this, only skirmishing... --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, you seem driven by a sense of urgent righteousness. Are we to understand that the use of "sock-puppets" is a matter of time-limited relevance? Where do you consider the cut-off point for the statute of limitations stands? You also seem to be saying that having other accounts that may have "sock-puppets" shouldn't be a subject of interest to anyone. At how many identities' remove from the current identity would you say "sock-puppets" cease to be a matter of concern? You're dimissive about the legitimacy of our concerns about Malagurski gaming the system. So do I assume you have no Conflicts of Interest, either here or at the Serbian Wikipedia, that would undermine your credibility in dismissing other people's anxieties about the way Malagurski and his associates have used and abused Wikipedia? Thank you anyway for that declaration that your own reasons for changing identities (and removing edits?) are entirely legitimate whatever Malagurski may get up to. Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=Comment by UrbanVillager=

I find it very odd that I'm accused of being a sockpuppet of Bormalagurski (presumably the account of Boris Malagurski) after the previous case was closed by AGK, and a Conflict of interest case was just closed as well by Uzma Gamal where he concluded that "UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic. Accordingly, editors should refrain from asserting that UrbanVillager has a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic." And all this in the middle of a dispute resolution case I filed in regards to how several editors are attempting to bring in POV, original research and blog references to Malagurski-related articles. Very strange indeed. I'm certainly not a sockpuppet of anyone and I've hand enough of these personal attacks from editors who are upset that they can't circumvent Wikipedia guidelines to impose their own opinions on the disputed articles without providing reliable references. --UrbanVillager (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for everyone. Everyone is entitled to fair treatment. If Wikipedia editors provide evidence and effort, Wikipedia administrators should not be entitled - as they routinely do where you and your friends are concerned - to treat us like fools and incompetents who require no explanation of their arbitrary rulings and should be expected simply to shut up in the face of the continued system-gaming they choose to turn their eyes away from. I've said before and I'll say it again, this is a scandal. At the bottom of it all is a very serious issue, the determined attempt to propagandise the denial of mass war crimes, which is why it's important to waste our time on someone like you, but of course, as we're told so often, at Wikipedia the real world is meaningless. The scandal for Wikipedia is that this serious issue has been raised so many times with no sign of serious thought has been given to dealing with the fundamental problem of how tricksters can manipulate the system time and again. Malagurski has shown himself to be a fraud here on Wikipedia let alone anywhere else. His films are manifestly deceitful. You puff articles about them that exclude all criticism. Wikipedia then promotes your articles. Why do you think it odd that people should feel that something is wrong?Opbeith (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment, per the second paragraf of this section. --UrbanVillager (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanVillager, I see you've posted from a substantially earlier version of your Talk page in order to avoid my response appearing there as well. You're a sly one, and no mistake. So I'll repeat my question to you - Why do you think it odd that people should feel that something is wrong? Opbeith (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I should I have checked first. At Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/P-Z#U Uzma Gamal isn't even listed as an administrator. If the person deciding has no status of authority and can't be bothered to explain the reasons for the decision, the whole process might just as well be assigned to a random outcome generator. Opbeith (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is free to close discussions on WP:COIN. Being an administrator does not grant extra authority. Gigs (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=Comment by Uama Gamal=

I closed the COIN1 case and posted a comment in COIN2. The following is the status (as of this post) of noticeboard requests concerning UrbanVillager:

• ANI1 27 February 2012‎ - Outcome: "Old edits, no need for admin action right now. OP advised to carry on editing article and see what happens"
• NPOVN 19 March 2012‎: Outcome: ended without reply
• SPI1 7 August 2012: Outcome: "No clear evidence is given anywhere in this investigation. Therefore, no action can be taken"
• COIN1 6 November 2012 (12:26) - Outcome: "UrbanVillager does not have a COI with the Boris Malagurski topic"
• Dispute resolution noticeboard‎ 6 November 2012 (19:06): Outcome: Ongoing
• Reliable sources Notice board 6 November 2012 (20:37)‎: Outcome: discussion archived without close
• SPI2 13 November 2012‎‎: Outcome: Ongoing
• ANI2 14 November 2012 - Outcome: Ongoing
• COIN2 15 November 2012: Outcome: Ongoing

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massive WP:FORUMSHOP to the end of the wikipedia imagination, without any real stable reason or argument for violation of the editor in question. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are solid arguments based on behavioral evidence that UrbanVillager is a likely sock of Bormalagurski, and second a CU check there. Keep in mind that UrbanVillager himself started some of the wildfire discussions. Gigs (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it looks like UV/BM started most of the recent wildfire discussions, in what appears to have been a concerted effort to muddy the waters and make himself look like the victim here. There was a recent anonymous ANI report, which was the subject of much debate in and of itself; and bobrayner's October report at WP:CCN, a noticeboard I personally never heard of. I really resent the implication by WW that I was forum shopping - I've tried my best to have the problem addressed early (early as far as 2012), but people just plain didn't listen to me. I knew it was just going to escalate eventually, and it did. *sigh* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

=Comment by Opbeith=

Three queries regarding this investigation:

1. Is it possible to check whether more than one person is using User:UrbanVillager's account for editing purposes? The UrbanVillager who engaged with me at my Talk page User_talk:Opbeith#Malagurski seems, despite the content of the message, to be someone very distinct from the Urban Villager who engages with Psychonaut at User_talk:UrbanVillager or the UrbanVillager who frequents Talk:The Weight of Chains and Talk:Boris Malagurski

2. Is it feasible for this exercise to include the activities of the suspected parties at Serbian Wikipedia? There is clearly a lot of cross-Wikipedia activity related to Malagurski-swarm articles, but to date most of the non-English activity has been (understandably) at Serbian Wikipedia.

3. One of the current list of suspected "sockpuppets" I find difficult to see as being a clonal offshoot of Bormalgurski but I believe there is activity linking this individual with the group. However in searching back for past encounters that I remembered I have found that the record from before this individual had a change of identity (I've been instructed that I'm not allowed to go into details) appears to be defective. Some past edits under the old name have disappeared. Does the CheckUser procedure encompass the "non-visible" portions of Wikipedia? Opbeith (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk note: Guys (and gals), I know you would like to have everything talked out, and i'm not telling you to stop, but this case screams tl;dr and to review everything and go over my own investigation of the users to see if there is enough evidence would at least take an hour. Can we collapse any sections? I'm not saying i'm not willing to do the hard work, but this is a mile long... -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DQ, thanks for your bravery in venturing to consider taking this on, but I'd warn you. This is a long-standing and complicated case that has been investigated a number of times and still not been resolved, and it continues to fester across different national Wikipedias. It's currently the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ARBMAC enforcement needed (and immediately below in the sub-section A little more evidence), where you'll find links to some other discussions. In my view this should only be taken on as a comprehensive enquiry with the expectation that it may well take time and effort beyond run of the mill checks in order to try and achieve a definitive resolution that will be the basis for dealing with any subsequent (almost inevitable) resurgence of the problem. As far as my input here is concerned I'm happy to do what I can to help make things easier as long as the issue is tackled with a view to putting it to bed as finally as possible (Ha!). Whatever, thanks for your willingness. Opbeith (talk) 09:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The matter is complex and I think someone will have to bite the bullet and look at everything that is at hand. I've collapsed some bits of the report, but I'm wary it will lead to evidence being ignored. I added bobyrayner's analysis (collapsed) of UrbanVillager's edits because it is pertinent to this matter. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To the admins/clerks closing this SPI: If your looking for where the evidence is, the intro before the collapsed boxes are a good history, the 3 boxes provide quite a bit of evidence (I won't attest to how much it exactly is worth just yet, as I was looking for CU reasons, not block reasons. Also Joy's first two diffs are interesting. (Also if clerks could format up the page correctly, that would be great, TY).
• @All with questions about what is suitable to present at SPI: Interwiki links are fine, just make sure you make your point clear, not all of us are language experts (though I do have some language background to help me wiggle through some of this). Any questions about what is admissible for connections that could be considered outing can be brought up on my talkpage without links, email me if you have specific questions. Any evidence that could be considered outing that you would like to admit as evidence to an SPI needs to be done to a functionary, the functionary team (the former of the two probably best), or ArbCom. Any other process related questions can pop up at my talkpage.
• Now for the CU results.  Check declined by a checkuser for WhiteWriter, not enough evidence has been presented (or I missed it while it was right in front of me). UrbanVillager and Bolonium are  Unrelated, unless someone traveled half way around the world to use a different computer not to get caught socking. Please note though I only have CU data for the last 2 edits of Bolonium. The rest are  Stale and I can not provide conclusions for those users. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: I might be missing something in the massive amount of evidence and comments above, but I don't see enough evidence for any blocks here, particularly when three of the editors are very likely unrelated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR version from a mostly uninvolved editor

• Clerks and CUs: The top part of this report contains what I think is the most relevant evidence. Malagurski is a known sockpuppeteer, and the other accounts (except for WhiteWriter) have been extremely focused in this topic area, and/or have posted material that was not yet published and would only be known to Malagurski or someone very close to him.
• I added WhiteWriter to this request primarily based on the similarity to the username of one of Boris Malagurski's socks, the topic area the user primarily seems interested in, and their apparent POV which is aligned with Malagurski. The evidence against WhiteWriter in terms of socking is much weaker, since WhiteWriter is not a single-purpose editor like the other accounts mentioned. I will leave it to CU discretion as to whether to include him in any check since the behavioral evidence is weaker.
• This immediate matter came to my attention through the COIN report, and my involvement in this topic area has been limited to attempting to help with dispute resolution matters. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit unprofessional... You have included me in this list only per my username, and several articles in question? That was exactly my argument from above. You cannot accuse editors of socking if they are interested in the same area of interest, and specially after negative CU. And i am on wiki since 2005, so Bormalagurski would be quite a stunning sock master to maintain that... --WhiteWriter^speaks 11:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's what all this is about. Boris is indeed "quite a stunning sockmaster", directly until he was banned and now indirectly, as his articles continue to be groomed in his absence. He's still getting away with it, so q.e.d. Opbeith (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the facts, and not to the POV's please. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteWriter, I pointed out freely that the evidence against you in regard to socking is weak, but as Opbeith points out, Malagurski does seem adept at gaming the system. That combined with your dismissive comments here, and your similar username, lead me to suspect you. I admit it was a pretty weak suspicion and I hope you don't take it personally. Gigs (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]