The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kober[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Papa Carlo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

I am copying the evidence here on the suggestion of the folks at WP:ANI. I believe this is a case of meatpuppetry. Two checkuser requests have come up unrelated but they also show meatpuppetry in addition to what is shown below. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kober#Kober
Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Papa_Carlo
Below is what I posted to ANI here:

user:Papa Carlo meatpuppet of user:Kober

I request that you have a look at the editing behaviour of user:Papa Carlo. Most of his edits are to help user:Kober by tag team reverting after Kober has used up his 3 reverts or has gotten blocked for 3RR. Just recently on the articles Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and War in Abkhazia Kober has been blocked for 31 hours for violating 3RR and Papa Carlo has miraculously appeared to continue where Kober has left off. Papa Carlo rarely gives any description in his edit summaries other than "POV" and rarely offers anything informative on the talk page other than to agree with Kober. I believe that Papa Carlo should be considered a meat puppet of Kober. For the purposes of 3RR and voting they should be considered a single user. Please see below for some examples/evidence:

1. Georgian-Abkhazian conflict


Previous versions reverted to: 17:01, 25 June 2008 and 17:38, 28 June 2008

Kober's reverts:

Kober gets blocked for 31 hours for 3RR

Papa Carlo comes to the rescue after a six day hiatus:

01:01, 29 June 2008

2. War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)


Previous version reverted to:

10:18, 27 June 2008

Kober's reverts:

17:59, 28 June 2008
18:08, 28 June 2008

At this point Kober is blocked for 31 hours for 3RR on another article

Papa Carlo comes to the rescue:

00:59, 29 June 2008

3. Abkhazia


Previous version reverted to: 18:10, 20 June 2008

Kober's reverts 05:07, 21 June 2008
05:11, 21 June 2008
18:46, 22 June 2008
20:33, 22 June 2008

Papa Carlo comes to the rescue after a 2 month hiatus

02:45, 23 June 2008


4. Laz people


Previous version reverted to:

19:27, 10 April 2008

Kober's reverts:

05:27, 17 April 2008
10:51, 17 April 2008
13:06, 17 April 2008

Papa Carlo comes to the rescue:

15:12, 17 April 2008
21:38, 17 April 2008


5. 2007 Georgian demonstrations

Previous version reverted to:

18:01, 20 December 2007

Kober's reverts:

05:28, 28 December 2007
14:57, 28 December 2007
15:04, 28 December 2007
15:10, 28 December 2007
05:09, 29 December 2007
05:18, 29 December 2007

Kober then got blocked for violating 3RR

Papa Carlo then comes to the rescue after a 1 month hiatus:

18:48, 30 December 2007
21:34, 30 December 2007 Using an IP sock
03:59, 31 December 2007

More examples can be provided. Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Pocopocopocopoco, you are confused. Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other; they are accounts set up by separate individuals for the sole purpose of supporting one another (clearly not the case here). (PaC (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

This user Pocopocopocopoco has numerously attacked Georgian users of Wikipedia, initiated POV deletion requests of well-sources articles and carrying out blunt provocations (including this user check which he initiated previously and has failed) and openly engages in anti-Georgian activities on Wikipedia. In fact, this user must be checked for sockpopetry as there are some serious suspicions (reported by some users) on his activities (I will initiate check user after i compile enough evidence). This is yet another provocative attempt to disturb overly productive work of the long-time Georgian contributor to Wikipedia whose immense work and dedication has significantly improved Georgian related topics. I would ask administrators to play close attention to his provocations. None of his "evidences" suggest anything but his another dubious attempt to discredit Kober (again whom he has personal grievances) and Georgian users of Wikipedia in general. His disruptive behaviour and countless attempts to delete Georgian articles and wage rv wars against Georgian users is a clear indication of his intentions.

Can you offer any comment as to why Papa Carlo keeps coming out of hiatus whenever Kober gets blocked or has used up his 3 reverts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your endless harassment of Kober and other Georgian Wikipedians (I want to remind that you have initiated similar checks on me with groundless accusations and has obviously failed), with your provocations and dubious user checks which are not based on any concrete evidence but only based on your grievances of particular users who oppose your numerous POVs. Your so called evidence does not suggest even the slightest doubt of Kobers sock poppet use of Papa Caro and vise versa. It only suggests that you dont cease provocations and harassment of not only Georgian users but also users from Azerbaijan. Iberieli (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The folks at WP:ANI also seemed to think there was something fishy going on with these accounts. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats funny, even you admitted that your previous user check was unsuccessful [1] [2] and [3]. It only confirms my previous claim about your harassment of this user and provocative actions. For admins, can you please review Kobers explanation of 3RR block here [4]. Instead of finding solutions to the blunt vandalism attempts by dubious newly created acconts [5] , [6], [7] he refused to discuss civilly with Kober and reach the solution, but again attempted to harass this user with his user checks (failed ones which are shown above). Not only he wasts time of long-time contributors of Wikipedia but also of Administrators as well. Iberieli (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I belive that it will be fear to check if User:Pocopocopocopoco is user:Papa Carlo. I notice that this user makes provocations agains user:Kober and interfere him. User:Kober is a uniqe wikipedian that wrighting about Georgia. User:Pocopocopocopoco bothers in the talk pages sometimes about minor and silly things and this accusation is one of them. Geagea (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are upset because Kober defends your POV and he got blocked. Fine, however above there's a pattern of Kober getting into trouble either by getting blocked or reaching the third revert and Papa Carlo coming in for the rescue. I believe that it should be looked into whether there is some sort of coordination and whether it's meatpuppetry. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Pocopocopocopoco take a break, it better to contribute rather making provocations. go make some nice articles. Geagea (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Geagea, he can not make any nice articles, because he is busy harassing other users who don't share his blunt POVs on Wikipedia. After this useless (which he had done before and has failed accordingly) user check we will file harassment charge against him for stalking, harassing and provocations. Until then, this user will be ignored, as Wiki guidelines indicate, lets not feed trolls. Iberieli (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what are you trying to accuse me of Pocopocopocopoco. That I revert your numerous POVs? Is that a new "Do not revert Pocopocopocopoco" Wikipedia rule? Would you like me to just let you do whatever you want? Allow you to remove well-documented facts, that you do not like? (PaC (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The truth is, Pocopocopocopoco, that your behavior IS extremely disrupting and damaging to Wikipedia, in my opinion, as this and other cases quoted here clearly testify to. Instead of trying to argue your point on discussion pages you've picked a strategy of "physically eliminating" (through numerous provocations and accusations) the editors that oppose your POV. It only proves that your real goal is pushing your POV at any cost. As for when and what I choose to edit on Wikipedia, I believe it is my right to pick these, is it not? Or do I have to check with you first? (PaC (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE TO ADMINS: Is it really useful to Wikipedia to look lightly at the pattern of behavior that is displayed by User:Pocopocopocopoco and just cater to his ridiculous accusations? For months he is trying to push his POV into Abkhazia-related articles, going through many rounds of edit-warring initiated by him. Failing to prove his case on discussion pages or muster any sort of support for his POV he employs another strategy. He is throwing around numerous unsupported accusations of editors who consistently oppose his blatant POV pushing, trying to get rid of them (I believe it is the fourth time he is accusing me and Kober of something). Shouldn't this type of edit-warring (and it is clearly an example of a very vindictive and obstinate edit-warrior) be considered disruptive and dealt with in some way? (PaC (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Iberieli, Geagea, and Papa Carlo. Let’s leave the guy vis-à-vis his paranoid ideation. He can entertain himself by filing CU requests whenever he wants. I simply don’t care. I’d suggest ignoring his behavior. Best regards, KoberTalk 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kober, you are totally correct, this provocateur will be fully ignored by us. However, I do have evidence of his harassment of you and suspicion of sock popetry Its a meter of time, when his provocations and harassment will cease to disrupt your creative and significant work on Wikipedia. Glad to see you back. მურამ ერთად! Iberieli (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone care to offer a comment on the links that I have posted? Like I said, it looks as though there is a pattern of Kober getting into trouble either by getting blocked or reaching the third revert and Papa Carlo coming in for the rescue. The thing is that if I had been away for editing for even a few days, I would not be aware of any editors reaching 3RR or getting blocked. Papa Carlo is sometimes away for a month then comes back to help out Kober when Kober gets into trouble. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this continued? Is there more recent evidence? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away the past week and other editors who in the past have had content disputes with Kober have either been inactive or away. Frustration at constantly being reverted by Kober's tag team also plays a factor in that people will not bother to edit the articles that he edits as much time gets wasted if he even remotely disagrees with what you edit. So to summarize, there hasn't been a situation where Kober has reach his revert limit since this report and hence Papa Carlo hasn't showed up. I still would prefer if we can be proactive and look at the links I have posted above as I think that many of the articles that Kober edits have the POV of the article skewed by the actions of his tag team and haven't been edited based on consensus. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has what continued, Rlevse? Are you saying that you see some evidence of meatpuppetry in what was provided by Poco, rather then just two editors who happen to agree in confronting Poco's disruptive editing and POV pushing? Or do you mean Poco's disruptive behavior and edit-warring tactics of trying to eliminate editors who cause his "frustration"? If latter, then no -- as Poco said, he was out for a week, and was not involved in edit-warring or false accusations. If former, can you please elaborate on why this "evidence" is anything else but an example of two editors who happen to work on Georgia related articles and agree on certain issues? Granted, my contributions are much less frequent than Kober's -- I am otherwise busy and only have time to monitor articles of interest and make small revisions, as well as reversals of blatant POVs (of which Poco is currently a champion). I wish I had more time, but alas. (PaC (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Another East European/Digwuren dispute. Maybe I'll apply Digwuren arb case restrictions to everyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully Rlevse, I ask that you not just write the whole thing off as another wikipedia ethnic dispute. If you look at the links I have posted above, I believe it clearly shows a pattern where Papa Carlo shows up simply to tag team with Kober. This comes 3 forms:
1) helping Kober avoid going beyond the 3 revert restriction
2) acting on Kober's behalf when Kober is blocked
3) Making a "me too" type response on that talk page to support Kober
Other than the above, there is very little else that Papa Carlo has contributed with the exception of very minor edits in a handful of other articles.
What I believe needs to happen is that Papa Carlo and Kober need to be treated as a single user in terms of 3RR and voting because their editing behaviour put together is very similar to a single user. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I suppose what you would really like is if all the editors that do not support your POV are treated as a single user. Wouldn't that be terrific? (PaC (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Well Mr Rlevse, we will file harassment charge (as per Wiki guidline on Harassment) against this user for abusive and disruptive behaviour toward hard-working and productive contributor Kober. He has been know for his harassment of Georgia users for a while now. Iberieli (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pocopo, if anyone is to be checked for sockpuppetry and other breaches of Wikipedia policy you are the one. Again, I don’t much care about your check-user requests, but I strongly recommend that you tone down a bit. Pocopo’s hostile behavior directed specifically against Georgian (and also Azerbaijani) comes in three forms:
1) Inciting edit war using highly possible sockpuppets or forging random alliances with (now banned) trolls to force the user whom he dislikes into 3RR breach; and then reporting the 3RR case to get him blocked;
2) Campaigning against his perceived enemies on the talk pages of Wiki projects and administrators, falsely accusing them of violations and requesting blocks for them;
3) Following his “adversaries” whenever they go (including to the talk pages of other users) and, when warned against such behavior, throwing accusations of “paranoia” around.
Other than the above, there is very little else that Pocopo has contributed to the mainspace with the exception of relentless reverts and AfDs (mostly of Georgia-related articles which don’t fit the official Russian vision of Georgia’s past and present). He has a very specific interest in Wikipedia: whitewashing the Caucasian policy of Russia and the biographies of Russian nationalistic politicians (e.g., Vladimir Zhirinovsky), and promoting the ethnic separatist agenda across the Georgia-related articles. It should also be noted Pocopo has recently become especially aggressive as most of his past efforts against his "enemies" or the target articles have proved futile and have failed to garner a broader support from the community.
I urge the involved admin to look into Pocopo’s wikibiography (I can provide evidences for what I just wrote) if (s)he decides to investigate the Kober-Papa Carlo case fabricated by that user.--KoberTalk 05:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add to the attention of admins, please review Kobers contributions [8] (solemnly containing creating new articles, inserting references and improving Georgia-related articles, a massive work indeed), than take a look at so called "Proco" [9]contributions which is full of arbitrations, attacks on Azerbaijani articles, users and provocative actions, its his trend rather than constructive work on Wikipedia. I would also wan to remind that this user has previously launched check user on me (because his POVs did not match my views on certain topics), than when failed he launched check user on Kober where again he failed. This is simply act of harassment and resentment which this user possesses against Georgian and Azeri users. As for check user of his account which is under suspicion of sock puppetry (reported by other users), it will follow as evidence compiles. Iberieli (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to all the bogus allegations posted against me above. I will say that I find it hilarious that Kober now puts me in the same camp as Vladimir Zhirinovsky just because I made a whopping total of 3 edits to the article all of which were fully discussed and supported at WP:BLPN. Iberieli's threats of filing harassment charges are equally humourous, I didn't know that being reverted by Kober means that I am harassing him. Please note that Kober, Papa Carlo, Iberieli have yet to respond to my concerns of collusion that I have outlined above.

The question is simple is there collusion between Papa Carlo and Kober? How is it possible that Papa Carlo is away from Wikipedia for months, then comes in out of the blue to make a revert after Kober has been blocked for doing the same revert over 3 times? How is this not anything other than off en.wiki collusion? I have posted multiple examples of this above, and I would be interested some feedback from anyone following this report. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple: your examples don't really show anything, except your excessive desire to get rid of wiki-editors that "frustrate" you by not letting you push your POV. But since your accusation is really about my behavior (I don't think anybody understands what exactly do you want to hear from Kober and Iberieli) I'll assume good faith and address this issue.
First, to answer your question on "how is it possible without collusion". It's simple really. I monitor Georgia-related articles and major contributors (as well as usual POV pushers) on a daily basis. Sure enough I do not edit often, for I am usually busy or lazy. But when I see blatant POV pushing or vandalism I try to restore the NPOV. Usually Kober is already there since he is by far the most prolific editor of Georgia related articles and is "present" on all of them. Ah yes, and he seems to also not like when people are trying to push blatant POV. Does that explanation satisfy you?
Second, I understand you get "frustrated" (as you admitted yourself) when your POV pushing is reverted and your edit-warring unsuccessful. But understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground. "Use of the site for political or ideological struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents (which is what you are doing with your constant false accusations) is extremely disruptive." "Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion" and not through edit wars and trying to get other editors blocked. Also "assume good faith". If other editors often revert your edits may be it's not because they are conspiring against you but because there is something wrong with your edits, or your explanations on talk pages. Think about it.
Third, when throwing accusations around, do not try to mislead the readers by "fabricating evidence". Here you are trying to show how I keep coming out of "hiatus" to help Kober. Let's look at your 4th example that supposedly illustrates that. It is easy to check that in this case I wasn't "coming out of hiatus" at all. In fact I already had a couple of edits that day and the day before! What was it: a deliberate attempt to mislead the admins, hoping they do not really check anything? Doesn't look good.(PaC (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Papa Carlo,
1) I never said you came out of hiatus in the 4th example, so I suggest you carefully read what I wrote before accusing me of trying to mislead people. You did make 2 edits prior to the 4th example, but guess what, one of those edits is a revert coming to the rescue of Kober and the other edit is a "me too" type response to a bad faith accusation that Kober made in an AFD.
2) The responses of yourself, Kober, and Iberieli above clearly demonstrates an intolerance for the input that others may provide to wikipedia. This is very much a clique mentality. According to you, everyone that belongs to your clique is NPOV and someone like myself who may disagree with you on certain things is POV. The three of you then accuse me of POV pushing, vandalism, harassment and go as far as to put me in the same boat as a Russian ultranationalist. Suit yourselves, but I am not going to cower to your bullying and as long as I see unacceptable wiki-behaviour such as tag-team reverts, I will continue to report it. Deal with it.
3) In response to your explanation that you monitor articles everyday yet only come in to revert blatant POV. I'll let the admins make their own conclusions but I don't buy it. If this were the case, your editing behaviour look far more independent of Kober. Your editing behaviour currently looks like someone who merely comes in to help out Kober when he is in trouble.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew i shouldn't have given in and offered you any explanations. You are clearly not interested in them. One more time Poco: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion. That includes situations when more than one editor disagrees with you. Tag-teaming (including imaginary ones) should not even be a problem unless you are trying to start an edit-war. Think about it again. (PaC (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note to admins. I think it is getting clear who is the source of disruption on Georgia-related (and it seems Azerbaijani ones as well). Apparently false accusations/fabricating the evidence aimed to harass other editors, constant edit-warring and POV pushing, being uncivil and "in bad faith" is what characterizes Pocopocopocopoco's wiki-behavior. Maybe banning Pocopocopocopoco or otherwise restricting his disruptive behavior is not such a bad idea after all to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. All the editors who posted here seem to agree on this issue (excluding Poco naturally) (PaC (talk) 04:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi and sorry to jump in here, I just have a quick comment related to the reporter. Pocopocopocopoco, I was wondering why you stopped direct edit warring with me on Sheylanli and Sheylanli tribe, and passed your job to an anon, 85.195.164.164. Therefore, I wanted to see what useful things you have been doing as I many times recommended you to do that in our discussion. I just read all of your claims above and felt sorry for not reporting you for sock puppetry. According to your reasonings above, the IP 85.195.164.164 is your sock puppet as it does exactly what you have been doing since you are restricted to one revert per week! Another one is User talk:Sevan79 who appeared when you reached maximum revert limit and started to revert instead of you, see. The later account did only 4 edits in favor of you and stopped editing after I brought to your attention that Sevan79 was your sock puppet. You, by your own have sock puppets and blame others for having sock puppets, which, according all above, is unbelievable and absurd claim. Please don't keep people busy(I know this because you kept me busy a lot!), let them work as they are making excellent contributions!
P.S. If I have a time, I will fill out a report regarding your sock puppets. But it is unlikely to happen as I don't want to waste my time for useless things. Gülməmməd Talk 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above was posted by the third-party user, but was deleted by Poco. Yet another evidence to his attitude toward other Wikipedians.--KoberTalk 05:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the edit summary, this is not Suspected sock puppets/Pocopocopocopoco. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: Please give the above diffs that I have posted the due consideration that they deserve regardless of the antics of the few people trying to disrupt this report. I believe it clearly shows meatpuppetry. This report was not filed lightly and I had posted it suggestion of an admin. Papa Carlo claims that he monitors articles every day but only reverts when he sees blatant POV. If this were the case we wouldn't see the pattern of him coming in right after Kober gets blocked or runs out of reverts. Whether there is collusion or whether it's Papa Carlo simply trying to help out Kober on his own, it's clear that the situation is such that Papa Carlo and Kober behave as a single user. I think it's pretty benign to treat Kober and Papa Carlo as a single user when it comes to 3RR and voting. If they are not going to tag team, then it won't make any difference to their contribution to Wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting to invent a new rule which would treat all users disagreeing with you as a single user, right? That only shows your hidden agenda. By that logic, you and numerous suspicious accounts, ips and apparent trolls with whom you have sided in a series of edit wars should also be treated as a single user when it comes to 3RR and voting. The only problem here is that many of these accounts emerge out of nowhere, preceding your quick comeback to their aid. Then they disappear for good as soon as their master(s) consider their mission accomplished.--KoberTalk 05:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a new rule, it's an existing rule called WP:MEAT which Papa Carlo has clearly violated.
Poco, that is simply not true and you know it. Yet you continue with this silliness. Let me also point out that you are being uncivil since "the term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care" which you clearly do not show here. Doesn't look good. (PaC (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I did use care and I only filed this report here on the suggestion of an admin. Based on the links I have posted above, that is the conclusion I have come to but I will let the admins reading this come to their own conclusions. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is also not true, Poco. Your very first filing on WP:ANI was called Papa Carlo meatpuppetry of Kober. You showed no care at all, as any impartial observer can tell. In addition to that, you tried to tailor the evidence to support your apparently false accusations. Doesn't look good at all.(PaC (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Edit's by IP addresses do not carry any less weight than edits by wikipedia accounts, and the fact that you show such hostility towards IP's and new users that disagree with you is a clear violation of WP:BITE on your part. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have no authority to determine which Wiki rules are being violated, judging from your endless harassment (as per Wikipedia:Harassment) of Kober, me and now Papa Carlo (not to mention Azeri users). Therefore, by all means dont even attempt to lecture us on who violates which rule, in this case, you are on the top of the list buddy, pushing your luck to the limits. How many times did you try to harass Kober with your "suspicions" on Meat puppetry and Sock Puppetry? After Papa Carlos massage, I guess couple of times and unsuccessful too. Well, it only confirms the above mentioned statement of your endless harassment of the long time contributors who dont share your unique POV agenda here on Wikipedia. Iberieli (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and Papa Carlo act as if I'm not allowed to express my concerns here or at WP:ANI if I believe that I see an example proxy editing. I have every right to work within the rules of wikipedia to express my concerns when I see unfair editing practises. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the thing, Poco. As is clear from the comments, nobody believes that you actually believe that this is an "an example proxy editing". You keep filing complaint after complaint and people are starting to realize that you are just harassing other editors. As per WP:HA you are showing a "pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons". Doesn't look good. (PaC (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Meatpuppetry is a case of one user acting as a proxy for another user. Based on the links I have showed above I believe that is what's happening. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, one more time: Meatpuppets are NOT regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other. This is an official wiki-policy. 4 out of 5 links you posted are just showing me reverting YOUR POV edits. Unfortunately I have to do it quite often. As does Kober. As does Iberieli. As do many other editors. They are NOT meatpuppets. They just happen to agree to disagree with your POV pushing. Deal with it. But in an acceptable manner(PaC (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Conclusions

Papa Carlo (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account (well over 80% of its contribution have been in furtherance of edit warring on or about Abkhazia‎), that was created in early 2006. It goes into months-long hiatuses, only to revive at regular intervals when Kober (talk · contribs) nears (or, indeed, goes over) 3RR. In basically all cases, Papa Carlo returns from hibernation jumping directly into the fray to support Kober, or to continue a string of reverts. Papa Carlo also returned from inactivity both times Kober has been blocked during edit warring, to continue the same dispute.

The sockpuppetry policy is clear that "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.", and the Arbitration Committee has historically ruled that, "when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity".

Given that Papa Carlo's primary purpose is to continue edit warring for — or on behalf of — Kober, he is for all intents and purposes a sockpuppet. I am blocking Papa Carlo indefinitely (subject to the usual appeal and review), and blocking Kober for 55 hours for, at the very least, enlisting the help of a proxy in furtherance of edit warring in contentious topic areas. — Coren (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More