Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opbeith/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Opbeith

13 October 2014
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


As someone who is interested in the topic of Boris Malagurski related articles (including The Weight of Chains), I've noticed something very strange. User:Opbeith, who supposedly left Wikipedia on November 19, 2012, was most involved in Malagurski-related articles before he left, and in fact in one of the last 5 edits he made on Wikipedia, he discussed a sockpuppet investigation in which, among others, I was accused of being Boris Malagurski, just because I was interested in these articles. After two sockpuppet investigations, the checkuser concluded that I was Red X Unrelated, which was a day before Opbeith disappeared. Opbeith's last edit was a revert on the Bosnian Genocide article, while from his user page, we can note that he talks about the Srebrenica Genocide, and from the briefest look at his edit history, we can conclude that he's very much obsessed with the topic of Srebrenica (most of his edits deal with the Srebrenica massacre, more specifically posts on the talk page) and the war in Bosnia in general. And, about a month before Opbeith left, Malagurski came on top of his agenda, with Opbeith starting to edit Malagurski-related articles more and more, while spending less time dealing with Srebrenica-related articles.

Around the end of October of 2012, Opbeith's editing of Malagurski-related articles intensified, while on October 18, 2012, another user appeared - User:Pincrete, whose first edit was on Talk:The Weight of Chains, a comment right below Opbeith's, supporting Opbeith, of course. Opbeith later calls Pincrete "Brave and self-sacrificing". They edit in parallel for the next month, and after exactly one month and one day, Opbeith vanishes, while Pincrete takes his spot, at least when it comes to Malagurski-related articles. But, recently, something happened that further aroused my suspicion.

Yesterday, Pincrete edited The Weight of Chains article and added text about the Srebrenica massacre. Now, we know that Opbeith's obsession was the Srebrenica massacre, together with two of the people interviewed in The Weight of Chains, Srdja Trifkovic and Lewis Mackenzie, whom Opbeith sees as "genocide deniers". The second edit ever made to The Weight of Chains talk page was by Opbeith, in which he attacked Trifkovic and Mackenzie, and continued to do so throughout his engagement regarding Malagurski-related articles, desperately trying to link Malagurski and Trifkovic (for example, by creating a section titled "Boris's guest Srdja Trifkovic and the Canadian border authorities at Vancouver airport" on the Boris Malagurski talk page [1], saying that "Boris Malagurski continues to provide Trifkovic with a platform for expressing unchallenged views distorting and contesting the established truth about genocide at Srebrenica."), and, to a lesser extent, Malagurski and Mackenzie. In any case, the primary focus is - Srebrenica, Malagurski, Trifkovic, Mackenzie.

Turning to Pincrete, if we look at one of his latest edits, Pincrete added the text "The film presents the Srebrenica massacre "as a stage-managed ploy by the Bosnians and Americans to justify NATO military intervention against Serbia". Interviewee Srđa Trifković asserts that there are "trustworthy witnesses" who claim that Bill Clinton had indicated that "5,000 dead Muslims would be the price of NATO intervention" and that these witnesses believe that "Srebrenica was deliberately sacrificed by Izetbegović in order to provide this burnt offering, to the White House". The film also presents the Srebrenica "civilian death toll as no larger than the number of Serbs killed in the surrounding area"." So, Srebrenica, Malagurski, Trifkovic. And, recently, Mackenzie as well, though, again, to a lesser extent.

While Opbeith clearly has personal issues with Boris Malagurski and his work, outing his personal opinions on the matter several times, including on Pincrete's talk page ("Boris is producing and distributing propaganda aimed at promoting a (pro-Serb obviously) denialist rebuttal of the legal finding that a plan was implemented that was aimed at eliminating the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia" [2]), turning Malagurski-related articles into a political issue, rather than an issue of reliability of sources, cooperation and consensus, Pincrete is much more careful in this regard. Perhaps this is where Opbeith saw the Pincrete account to be more useful in Opbeith's agenda. I wasn't so sure that there was a firm link between the two accounts, even though I voiced my suspicion on the Weight of Chains talk page a few times, but now I'm certain that there's something fishy going on and I'd like to ask a checkuser to see if there is something more to this than what we're seeing. --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC) UrbanVillager (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Reply by Pincrete This accusation is absurd, Opbeith would have no motive for having a 'sock', since he was neither banned, nor - to the best of my knowledge - censured. Nor does UrbanVillager offer any explanation as to WHY he and I would need to interact at length on my and Opbeith's talkpage for over a month, nor any evidence of our 'colluding' to affect content of an article. Nor any similarity in our 'interest area' (apart from Weight of Chains itself), and the 'editing in parallel for the next month' which UrbanVillager refers to is SOLELY on the talk page, not in the article, Opbeith made NO changes to the article in late 2012, and most of my changes in that period were correcting bad grammar and 'clunky' phrasing. Opbeith's final article edit is May 2011, here:[3], while my main late 2012 edits are here, and in the 6 edits that follow:[4], here, and in several edits that follow: [5] here ditto:[6] here[7] and [8], it seems we are socks that conspire to correct spelling!

I happen to know, (because of comments on Opbeith's talk page), that Opbeith lives/lived several thousand miles from me. UrbanVillager has been involved with several 'sock' investigations and therefore knows that any check-user would be stale, however I am happy to provide proofs as to exactly WHO I am, and who Opbeith is (and how I know this), though I would only do this OFF-Wiki. If an Admin wishes to contact me via e-mail I will happily provide these proofs.

Regarding the Srebenica edit I made yesterday,(which UrbanVillager misquotes, my text is 'the fall of Srebenica'), I gave my reasons here:-[9], what is surprising is that in the 4 year's this article has existed, NO mention has ever been included of what is - almost certainly - the most controversial section of the film, and which is almost universally referred to by RS critics. UrbanVillager also fails to note that every quote in this paragraph, has a source, which, he has acknowledged to be reliable (and, as it happens, the only parts of the synopsis to HAVE EVER HAD sources).

This is a crude attempt by UrbanVillager to retain WP:Ownership of this article, the previous attempt at which was on an ANI a month ago, here:-[10].

I ask that Urbanvillager be censured for blatant forum shopping and abuse of procedure. Pincrete (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Pincrete's changes, one quarter of the film's Synopsis section talks about the Srebrenica massacre, something that is discussed for about 2 minutes in a film that lasts 120 minutes (so, around 2% of the movie). Yes, the narrator does say "Perhaps the best example of what we're talking about here is Srebrenica..." and that does warrant the inclusion of the topic in the synopsis, but Malagurski lists Srebrenica as an example of a small section of the film, not the entire film (the film is actually about the economic background behind the war in Yugoslavia). So, a quarter of the synopsis for a 2 minute example? With quotes of an interviewee (who happens to be Trifkovic, Opbeith's favorite target), just for the part about Srebrenica? The obsession is apparent. Oddly enough, the only bit of previously unseen footage used in the film, something that is specifically emphasized by the author, had "excessive detail", according to Pincrete, and was trimmed down by Pincrete, apparently to make room for Srebrenica, Opbeith's obsession. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UrbanVillager, is this a sockpuppet investigation, or a content dispute? If the latter, why have you not attempted to raise the matter on the talk page? Pincrete (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a content dispute at all, but rather a matter of your behavior which matches Opbeith's mission. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UrbanVillager, I will reply to NO further posts from you HERE. Comments about the virtues (or otherwise) of the Srebrenica paragraph can be addressed on the talk page. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just revenge for a content dispute. UrbanVIllager's misuse of multiple accounts in order to promote Malagurski's films is well known; but there's obviously no evidence that Pincrete has abused multiple accounts. Lots of people disagree with UrbanVillager, and there is a very simple explanation for that - much more likely than the notion that some of the opponents are actually the same person. bobrayner (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

 Completed There are certainly striking similarities between the two accounts, which may or may not be due to sockpuppetry. Having looked Pincrete's early edits and Opbeith's editing from the same period, I think it is probably not sockpuppetry. However, even if it is a case of sockpuppetry, any abusive use of multiple accounts was restricted to a brief period two years ago. There is no current abuse, nor any reason to think that abuse is likely to take place in the future. Any action taken now would therefore be punitive, not preventive, and would serve no useful purpose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Opbeith/Archive&oldid=631771857"