User talk:Belbrabas

Replied to your edit warring complaint

Please see my reply here, concerning the edit war about Viktor Prokopenya. I encourage you to disclose if you have previously edited that article with another username or IP, though if you do so you don't need to reveal the IP. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the AN3 complaint, in January 2019, can be seen at this link. The result was a week of full protection of the Viktor Prokopenya article. In the report, there is extended discussion between User:可愛い and User:Belbrabas. The recent closure of the SPI complaint with an indef block of Belbrabas looks OK to me. During April two more accounts that edited Prokopenya's article have also been blocked as socks of Belbrabas. It has not been ruled out that User:可愛い, who generally edits in support of Prokopenya, might have a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Please see this complaint about you at the edit warring noticeboard. It concerns your edits of Viktor Prokopenya. 可愛い (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belbrabas. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Belbrabas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reviewed the case and the accounts Columnist272 and CosWelbelis are not related to me, and I never edited from them.

As far as I understand ip-address 195.222.84.189 is being used as public address by internet provider Atlant Telecom for many users. I don't use static ip-address service with this internet provider - I could submit written evidence on this. On January my ip-address was revealed at the request of EdJohnston. I really suspect that that the editor User-multi error: "可愛い" is not a valid project or language code (help). who edit warred in article Viktor Prokopenya, and who is suspected to be working for Prokopenya, with Victor Prokopenya himself a former Wikipedian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prokopenya_Viktor) and is involved in IT sector of Belarus and knows WP rules, I believe they have used their IT staff to investigate my IP, used this opportunity to create two fake accounts under this IP address with internet providers and to accuse me of sockpuppetry.

I claim that I have only one account, registered under this ip-address - Belbrabas, and since January I am no longer using ip adress - which could be seen in logs.

The following issues must be investigated:

One could clearly see that these two accounts were created and used one day after another - on April 10th and Aril 11th. Which is strange - there was no any edit warring or any conflicts in these articles which were edited, nor there was any interaction between me and 可愛い. No brainer.
Edits done from these two fake accounts are absolutely primitive compared to mine. Example: "High Tech Park is just a park with no people living inside". They contain absolute rubbish, whilst my edits introduce useful information based on reliable third party sources - Deutsche Welle, Vice News, FBI. Both accounts vandalized the same pages - repeated pattern. Obviously person who made such edits is a person who either clearly acts as vandal or pretends to make vandal edits. Having this at your mind - you could see the long and unchanging pattern of User-multi error: "可愛い" is not a valid project or language code (help)., who despite being told and warned that my edits as Belbrabas and IP are not vandalism - still continues to accuse me of this at her latest report on ANI3 and SPI.
I've been editing for almost two years and made not a single vandal edit, never was penalized for vandalism. Is it logical for me suddenly, out of nowhere, to make such non-sense edits?
Immediately upon creation and use of these two fake accounts, 可愛い suddenly reappeared upon long break from editing! Her last edits at Prokopenya were done on January 30th. She made a sole pre-last edit on March 29th on Unemployment benefits and activated on April 16th, and 17th.
I have never edited WP on these days
Please list all accounts registered under IP 195.222.84.189 and prohibit creation of other accounts under this IP!
Please look into other ip-addresses, except for 195.222.84.189, from which I (Belbrabas) edited the articles, and compare these with the ip-addresses with those of Columnist272 and CosWelbelis, to see that these accounts are not mine
there was no any logical need for me to create and use these accounts!
Immediately upon my ban User-multi error: "可愛い" is not a valid project or language code (help)., reverted Viktor Prokopenya article to her personal version deleting all sourced reliable information that I've added to the articles since and describing this as return of "deleted" info". There was no attempt to present all points of view - the article is now literally whitewashed with a single POV.
I openly acknowledged back in January to EdJohnston that the before being registered as Belbrabas I was using this IP, so this information was known to User-multi error: "可愛い" is not a valid project or language code (help). and everyone reading WP.
I could also disclose privately MAC-addresses and other technical details of my devices for SPI to check against devices which created and used two fake accounts Columnist272 and CosWelbelis.

Previous story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belbrabas/Archive#Comments_by_other_users

Decline reason:

I"ve reviewed the technical and behavioural evidence. While there are some technical differences in the accounts, there is enough evidence technically to make a connection, and combined with the behavioural overlap, I think there is sufficient evidence to uphold this block on public appeal.

In your unblock request you make some very serious claims that cannot be dealt with publicly, and that I as an administrator and CheckUser do not have the ability to review, and thus cannot take them into consideration while evaluating your unblock request. If you wish to have those claims reviewed as a part of your unblock request, you should contact the Arbitration Committee using the details provided in the block message you see when you try to edit or by following the instructions for contacting them on the link I just gave you. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Commenting here since my name was mentioned. I handled a 3RR complaint at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive382#可愛い reported by User:Belbrabas (Result: Page protected) on 15 January. The result was a week of full protection for Prokopenya's article. (In responding to the complaint I suggested "If Belbrabas was previously active as an IP on the Viktor Prokopenya page, this would be a good time to make that known." Belbrabas says that he acknowledged to me his use of a certain IP back in January, though I am unsure where this happened, and he names no specific IP address in the AN3 report. One of the IP edits that happened right around the time of the AN3 report was this one by User:195.222.84.189. At the time of this AN3 complaint, I was mainly concerned about possible COI by the other party, about the precocious filing of an AN3 report by Belbrabas as a very new account, and of course the BLP issues about any unsourced defamation of Prokopenya. At the time of the AN3 I didn't see enough evidence for any sock activity unless you count Belbrabas's switch from an IP to a registered account, which he openly admitted in the course of the report. On 19 April, subsequent to the AN3 and due to a new SPI complaint by User:可愛い, I notice that 195.222.84.189 (talk · contribs) was blocked by a checkuser, and most likely this was justified on behavior if Belbrabas was already found to be socking with named accounts. I am surprised to be feeling a twinge of sympathy for Belbrabas after seeing his unblock appeal, because the two named accounts he is accused of using were performing inane vandalism. This is not his usual style. The possibility there could be a joe job to incriminate Belbrabas does cross my mind. If he weren't checkuser blocked and if normal appeals could be considered, I wouldn't unblock without at least a topic ban from Belarus. Checkusers would know if more than one account is using this IP, though they might not be allowed to say anything here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, no comment on the IPs, but the accounts were editing on the same relatively narrow range, and there were other similar technical details. There may be a valid explanation for this (CU is only a technical review), but there is enough overlap in edits and technical similarities that I am not comfortable unblocking. ArbCom can review other factors outside of what CUs can, and since the appeal relied on this to a degree, they are the best to handle it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "the accounts were editing" you mean these two vandal accounts?Belbrabas (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TonyBallioni, what do you exactly mean under "behavioral overlap"? I make life edits, making many changes, instead of publishing texts straight away as these both vandal accounts are.Belbrabas (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also clarify what I exactly mean under "no longer using IP" - I do not edit from this IP without logging into account Belbrabas. Belbrabas (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, here is my reply about IP back in January. No one then requested from me to provide the details.

Arbcom contacted. Belbrabas (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, TonyBallioni. Belbrabas is clearly trying to get attention. He doesn't understand that wikipedia is a community of authors. He thinks that he deals with some famous person when he makes vandal changes and that he gets their attention. He accused me of whitewashing and claims that I am working in the office of the person he was trying to edit. I live in Germany as you can see by my IP. My Linkedin. Initially, he was making some vandal changes from his account, which are hard to spot. Then he started to add more clear ones such as:

adds quotes from facebook to the page like "because the brains are more powerful than breasts and the brains are the new tits"

adds things like "Prokopenya claimed that he lost 20 kilograms"

includes other incorrect facts to the page mentioning russian articles, which are hard for English admins to understand.

He clearly has a personal grudge against, or resentment towards, the article he tries to edit as he hasn't added anything else to Wikipedia. He adds only incorrect negative statements about Prokopenya to his article - he does nothing else to contribute to Wikipedia. He is clearly motivated by a desire to harm others, and may be more persistent and/or engage in more serious types of vandalism than pettier vandals. He is clearly not interested in any contribution to wikipedia - just wants to put vandal changes. He put the latest ones in February. I was in the hospital and was away from Wikipedia and haven't got an opportunity to cancel his vandal edits. It looks like Belbrabas hasn’t received any attention and has decided to make new accounts recently to make even more vandal edits than he usually does. He has started to add things like “Prokopenya hates to wash his long trunk”. I can't check the new accounts are connected with him for certain, but by his behaviour it clearly is. I receive emails when somebody changes the pages I've edited. I have received one and cancelled everything and reported him accordingly. He has been trying to vandalise this page since July 2018 as you can see by the logs. Classical attention seeking vandal. 可愛い (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:可愛い. If you want to establish that you are editing from Germany, consider posting your IP here or telling a checkuser what it is. The pointer you provide above to your Linkedin account doesn't work. Certainly, if Belbrabas has actually improved 40 biographical articles on the Russian Wikipedia, as he stated earlier, he could inform us of what account he used for that. Under the Belbrabas account he has only nine edits on the Russian Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, you clearly confuse me with 可愛い herself, who claimed that before coming to enWiki she was editing in ruWiki. I never stated things like that. Belbrabas (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again all my edits were done with links to reliable third party sources. Yes, Prokopenya had made such wild claims as third party sources confirm. Anyone could use Google Translate to check, I suggested mediation, RfC - but instead faced personal attacks and charges of vandalism from 可愛い. I also made NPOV version for example with a case of Best Belarus vs. Best Minsk taxpayer. So, I tried to make a version accounting to all POV's unlike 可愛い. Belbrabas (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got that backwards. It was indeed User:可愛い who stated they had worked on 40 articles on the Russian Wikipedia. I recommend that User:可愛い watch their language here, especially using the word 'vandalism' so casually, if this matter is going to be referred to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EdJohnston, I wrote already an e-mail to ArbCom with a request to consider the case of these two fake accounts from which vandal edits were done. I am absolutely ready to cooperate with disclosure of any data in order to establish who was behind these two accounts and to absolve myself for things which I never done. As I wrote above, these two accounts barely resemble my editing at WP and there is no logical explanation of their purpose. If ArbCom has got the request and would consider it?Belbrabas (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of any further action on this request, I think that it can only be handled by a checkuser or Arbcom. Since this is a checkuser block, I won't be following up here and it's not necessary for Belbrabas to send me any email. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]