Anittas
- Anittas (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 August 2017
– This SPI case is open.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Cei Trei (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.
- Editor interaction utility
The long-defunct Anittas used to be famous, and was blocked, for his minute and peculiar obsessions of trolling and ranting against users not from his native Western Moldavia (or Moldavia at large): a summary of one of his interactions on that subject, about 10 years ago, can be found here, after he called people from Muntenia "a different class of mammals". His other contributions, though he tried to diversify them, made circular returns to a few topics, mostly from the family of articles relating to Stephen III of Moldavia (for instance, the Battle of Vaslui, which I believe he created). As a corollary of both, he made a show of picking on editors such as myself (who edited those pages and are not Moldavian). Notice him trying to get his account back in 2013, commenting: " I'd like to say that I (no longer) find it stimulating in 'teasing' "Dahn" (there's a reason for that and it's enough that "Dahn" knows the reason)" (which is him admitting to having stalked and taunted me in particular). You will also note his pattern of trolling with new sections on pages that relate to regions outside Moldavia (as here, one of the comments which contributed to his block).
Cei Trei has reemerged with exactly the same preoccupations: his very first contribution is trolling on my page, to which he keeps returning and returning and returning and returning (note: these diffs overlap with the period where the Anittas account admits to stalking me). This he enhances with trollish comments on articles I contribute to (in particular those relating to themes that preoccupy Anittas: here and here, because he has "a moral obligation to intervene in an article that I'm interested in"); and here he is returning to the other Anittas obsession, the Battle of Vaslui; here he's discussing his belief that Stephen "is the symbol of our struggle, it's how Moldavia expressed herself in a single man", with an Anittasesque theory about how Wallachians are responsible for bringing the Turks into Romania. But not only: he started new trolling sections in articles I have recently contributed to, for instance here, or came to pages I had commented on with replies such as "What's the justification for the existence of this article? That there exists some sources in Romanian that uses this term is not justifiable. Before clicking on history, I thought this article was created by Dahn." Also this: "This article is the biggest hoax on Wikipedia. Dahn created something out of nothing. From now on, he shall be known as Dahn ex machina." -- in perfect continuity with comments made by Anittas. Here, he is disputing the rating of an article I created, with a section opened up right after, and because, I had returned with some edits to it.
And he actually barely conceals being a sockpuppet; although he most recently denied it, here's him admitting to being one: "If the two of you are gonna start an argument, I'm gonna start an argument with Anittas." This is in reference to his theory that I and Anonimu are the same person (a theory outlined here and here); in the preceding diff, he says that me having a dispute with Anonimu is like him, Cei Trei, having a dispute with Anittas.
I believe therefore that Cei Trei is the reincarnation of a blocked user, which is disruptive in itself; I also believe that, while not all of his edits are disruptive, his potential use of the account as a tool for stalking and trolling is quite clearly disruptive, as the original offenses for which Anittas was blocked. Dahn (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As I've said before, Dahn often misinterpreters what is being said to him. Not just from me, but from other users as well. It is for that reason that I exited our recent discussion and allowed him to have the last word. It is true that I believe that Dahn has a different account, and other users have suggested the same before (which is the reason why he placed a disclaimed on his userpage about not having other accounts), but I don't believe this can be easily proven, which is why I only mentioned it a couple of times. Perhaps he thought that I, or others, would ask for a sockpuppet investigation against him. Dahn has accused me of being "Anittas" ever since I joined Wikipedia that I'm starting to believe it myself.
I'm not entirely certain what to make of the message posted by Anittas on his talkpage (which Dahn linked to), but I don't believe that saying that he (Anittas) no longer, "find[s] it stimulating in 'teasing' "Dahn" is an admission of his trolling, just like when I wrote the following to Dahn: "I don't think you are able to see things clearly; and the more complex things become, the more confused you become, regardless of the subject at hand. It was therefore a moral obligation for me to intervene in an article that I'm interested in." I made that reply after Dahn made a serious allegation against a living scholar by accusing him of being a Holocaust denier, which he then linked to the Wiesel report as proof and, which in fact, said nothing of the sort (see my previous reply here). So the moral obligation was to set things straight and indeed, it involved a subject that I'm interested in, which is Romanian history.
As for my first edits on Wikipedia which were made on Dahn's talkpage, those comments were made by Gigi Becali, which I found to be humorous. The first comment, for example, is Becali claiming that he can learn English in a couple of months. Before creating an account on Wikipedia, I checked to see the activity of Romanians on Wikipedia and Dahn stood out (he is basically the most active Romanian editor on Wikipedia). I remember reading some message of him where he complained about other people's English and that's when I decided to post that comment from Becali on Dahn's page. As for me editing on some articles that Anittas also did, I clicked on the user compare report and it barely matches on some articles that I picked on and only made some minor edits on. Dahn has accused me of being Anittas so many times that, naturally, I went to check on this user's history and the articles he has worked on. For example, in the link that Dahn provides to the talkpage on the Battle of Vaslui, I merely questioned his change on the Moldavian flag which, in the new version that he posted, the coat-of-arms can barely be seen. I also found it strange that he only made this change on that particular article and not other articles that involved Moldavia, including other articles. I believe he did it in the belief that, as Anittas, I would be very upset about his change, since it involved an article that Anittas worked on. In a way, I find this troubling because it would mean that he changed the content of the article to a lesser state (I'll rather not use the word vandalized), in order to provoke me. All things consider, and due to Dahn's inability to comprehend what other editors are saying, I decided to stand down and not waste my time with him anymore. In my last message to him, I said that it must be difficult for him to be on the spectrum. I shouldn't have said that, even if it's accurate. My reply angered him greatly and his response consists of seven edits in the course of three hours. After waiting for more than 24 hours for a reply from me, he eventually decided to open a sockpuppet investigation against me. --Cei Trei (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: the disclaimer on my page is slightly outdated now, since it dates to before the time when wikipedia automatically created accounts under the same name on all projects. It clearly reads that all other accounts under the name Dahn, on other projects, at the time, were not mine -- and this precisely because users who had been banned on English wikipedia decided to create that account on ro:wiki (it has since been in any case handed over to me, by the admins there, then unified with my en:wiki account). It is true that I have been the subject of many a frivolous accusation, and for this reason I and other supposedly related accounts have actually been verified several times, which showed that this is indeed the only account I use and have ever used. I will submit to a checkuser at admins' convenience, should there still be any doubt about that. But in the meantime ask yourselves how is it that an account which claims to have appeared out of the blue in 2013, and immediately found its way to my page, with its first edit (which it admits was a case of trolling), is also familiar with the various allegations proffered against me circa 2007. Dahn (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please note that Dahn made the following addendum after I explained how I came to Wikipedia, how I found out about him, and the reason I posted on his talk page; moreover, he insists on saying that both Anittas and me "admitted to trolling". I don't know about Anittas, but I never admitted to trolling and I haven't trolled the guy. If, however, I had continued to reply to him instead of ignoring him, we wouldn't be here. --Cei Trei (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the prolific puppet master User:Bonaparte is known to have tried to impersonate editors sanctioned with active blocks in order to elicit stronger admin action against said editors (it happened to me; in this case "stronger action" may be preempting Anittas from taking advantage of the WP:OFFER ). Bonaparte was also active when Anittas was around (and they were both active on at least one external forum) so he is certainly familiar with Anittas' rather uncommon dedication to Moldavian regionalism, and, as far as I remember, some of his previous incarnations also had the habit of following Dahn around articles (though this sock seems rather civil). Furthermore, while I don't remember Anittas ever accusing me of sockpuppeting, Bonaparte is known to have made such accusations regarding users who pointed out his violations of policy (of whom I happened to be one). Whether Anittas or Bonaparte, Cei Trei is most likely a sock of a currently blocked user. Anonimu (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)