| Revision as of 10:55, 5 May 2018 editTgeorgescu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,064 edits →Suspected sockpuppets: WP:DUCK← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:55, 6 May 2018 edit undoCealicuca (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users726 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit → | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| @]: And one last thing - really need to go to sleep - are you the person who does the checking, and draws conclusion from it (prosecutor, judge and executioner)? Just so I understand the process. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | @]: And one last thing - really need to go to sleep - are you the person who does the checking, and draws conclusion from it (prosecutor, judge and executioner)? Just so I understand the process. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| @]: I don't know what happend, but I did post this last evening. this morning it was gone... anyway, reposting my answer. | |||
| ::Wow, where to begin... So - this will be a long answer. I will thoroughly answer your accusation. Nevertheless, so far I have tried to give you the benefit of a doubt. The latest "evidence" that you brought, in my opinion, is nothing but a fishing expedition. So, I will also ask a couple of questions to you. Since in the talk page you dismissed them all with "the pot and kettle" stuff, would this be a more appropriate forum to answer those questions? I do hope so. Anyway, here goes my long answer (preceded by a lot of questions - which of course you will dismiss because hey, you CAN :) ): | |||
| ::1. On what grounds do you qualify as obsessive what I said? Care to give a context (don't worry about this, I will give it for you)? Care to bring examples, quotes of how many times I did say that? Obviously, I do not deny saying that - and I will also explain why I said that. | |||
| ::2. Since we're on the topic of obsession, why don't we give a little context before we continue. | |||
| :::My OP is: | |||
| ::::''The Immigration theory should be renamed to Immigration hypothesis throughout the entire article. There are several difference between a theory and a hypothesis and as such, Roesler's south-to-north immigration doesn't amount to a theory. It stands opposed to the Daco-Roman continuity, which is supported not only by several author's research (just like Roesler's) on the subject but, more importantly, by archaeological findings which, in turn, coupled with linguistic evidence and primary sources form a cohesive base that support the the hypothesis - transforming it into a theory. This comprehensive and diverse evidence pool is lacking in support for Roesler's hypothesis. | |||
| I would have not proposed this editing, but this false equivalence (and the Misplaced Pages article) are often times used to support certain nationalistic views. I believe that it is important to underline the distinction between a supposition (Roesler's immigration) that lacks crucial evidence (especially archaeological) and a supposition (Daco-Roman continuity) that is supported by a wide range of evidence, from linguistic, archaeological, toponymy, geographical and not least, lately, even some genetic studies. Equally important is the fact that while any of those evidences might be disputed, individually, they form a cohesive base for the theory. Imagine a criminal investigation - where there are few individual pieces of evidence that provide a definite answer - but rather the totality of the evidence is the one that paints the whole picture. Simply put, evidence support each other so that while individually they might have several explanations when put together they point towards a single common one.'' | |||
| :::::Now, immediately I got the following replies: | |||
| ::::::''Oppose. The immigration theory is at least as well supported by archeological research, linguistic evidence and written sources as the continuity hypothesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Oppose, as well. Moreover, the Daco-Roman continuity theory have numerous weak points, that the other theory does not have. It's a bit odd that the IP is identifying i.e. "linguistic", "toponymy", "geographical studies" roughly as a "comprehensive and diverse evidence pool", although especially these are in the strong support regarding the Immigration theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::::Definitely oppose. Both theories have their weaknesses when it comes to evidence, but to call one a theory and the other hypothesis is dubious, especially considering that the immigration theory doesn't solely rest upon Roesler.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I concur: accurately speaking, both are just hypotheses, they never made it to "theory". Conclusive evidence is severely lacking for both. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)'' | |||
| :::::To which I reply: | |||
| ::::::@Borsoka, KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Please list those evidences - that support/prove the migration/admigration hypothesis. Saying that some evidence that supports the Daco-Roman theory - or comes into conflict with it gives more credence to the other two hypothesis is a logical fallacy. Such evidences that support those two hypothesis are not present in the article, while the article does present evidence supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Evidence of a Latin-Speaking population south of the Danube does not support those two theories - you need to present evidence proving the alleged migration (especially in the light of abundant evidence of a Latin-speaking population north of the Danube, present in this article). Until those evidences are listed under the same section, in this article, those two (migration, admigration) cannot and should not be presented as "well supported" and "competing" theories. It's simply ridiculous that those evidences are not referenced/presented in this article, for all of us to see how well supported they really are.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::And then I get the following answers: | |||
| ::::::There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans. On the other hand, the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers from Slavs, Hungarians, Turkic peoples and Germans (which can hardly be explained based on the continuity theory). The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples, although the Gepids dominated the territory for a longer period than the Romans had held it. The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary. The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords. The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Question (set) no. 1: Were the article editors providing an unbiased, neutral answer? If so - then please explain the statements, of you and the other article editor, in the light of what the article itself presents. Moreover, as anyone could see in the talk page, I offered you a most respected source (Britannica) that clearly states the exact opposite of both your and Borsoka's statement. Care to explain, in light of those answers and the information in how the article editor's answers were not supportive of a certain POV (Immigrationist) while at the same time dismissing another POV (Daro-Roman Continuity)? | |||
| :::Question no. 2: Considering your statement that both me and another user seem to "obsess" over a specific point (that we both mention) could you please explain why did such a keen sense of "proxy" was not triggered by, for example, the user ]. I did check his activity log. He has exactly 1 contribution - this specific comment on the talk page. | |||
| :::Question no. 3: Would you care to explain how come ] said: "I warn you again, better stop with groundless, prejudicative accusations like "all the Hungarian "nationalist" propagandists here" or "well-coordinated agents" just because some editors disagree with you, such may have heavy consequences in WP." at 10:49, 5 May 2018, so IMMEDIATELY BEFORE you brought up this point in the investigation (10:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)), considering that nowhere else in the debate (not even after I made the oh-so-troubling obsessive statement, on 13:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::Question no. 4: Why did you leave out an important part of my "obsession"? Of course, I will give more details, but I believe it is quite important. This is exactly what I said: "''Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent, your arguments so far and the way you support them are precisely taken from the "book" of Hungarian nationalistic propaganda. A simple google search will lead to forums filled with so-called scientific talk where the arguments always start with " and as we all know the Romanians are a migratory shepherd people ".''" | |||
| ::And now onto my explanation - why I said that. For the other accused, his reasons - ask him, I cannot speak for him. | |||
| ::Not a long while ago I discovered on Quora several users (some of them most likely bots) who would literally swarm every topic about Romania/Romanian history or, especially Transylvania. Some of those users are (so that you can check them out): | |||
| :::John Caliber | |||
| :::Jánossy János | |||
| ::: - still counting | |||
| :::Dez Szatmari | |||
| :::János Kovács | |||
| and others. | |||
| ::Those users had in common many things - not saying anything about the nationality here - but about their posts. They were all a variation of the 1st hit that you get on google (or any other hit on the 1st page as well as the next, and the next, and the next etc.). Examples: | |||
| ::: | |||
| ::: | |||
| :::WOW, you get hits on Quora, Reddit, Youtube and even Misplaced Pages. . Last result. Missing "reality" from the search string. | |||
| :::And, of course, "history" forums - and go check them out to see where the message comes from. | |||
| ::Here is the entire post. Feel free to simply google phrases from it to see the extent of how well spread the "message" is: | |||
| ''"In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherd tribesmen (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a "NATIVIST" state-propaganda. This chauvinist propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. It's the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central part of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century. | |||
| Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe. | |||
| 1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal. | |||
| 2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained. | |||
| The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language. | |||
| 3rd: The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process. | |||
| 4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS. | |||
| 5th: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. | |||
| 6th: The complete LACK OF any LINGUISTIC INFLUENCES OF BARBARIANS of the area on Romanian language: There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans: The the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania. | |||
| 7st: The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc.. | |||
| 8th: There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. | |||
| 9th There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"? | |||
| 10th Only the BALKAN Valchs were recorded as neo-latin speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary Chronicles (4th-13th century). Which is not surprising, because the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlach neo-latin speaker nomads were very often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles) | |||
| 11th: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS: Other interesting fact, that Romanian language borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice if immigrant populations. | |||
| 12th: The "great latin" Romanian vlachs always fiercely resisted against the Latin (Catholic) church and its latin liturgy, they chosed the Slavic Orthodox church which used church-slavonic language istead of Latin. (It was due to the fact that old romanian language contained more slavic words than latin, so the liturgy was more understandable for their people. | |||
| 13th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century: During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages. | |||
| 14th: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in old romanian language: Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the linguistic reforms. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. This also supports the balkan migrations in the high medieval period. | |||
| The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality: | |||
| The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878. | |||
| Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history..."'' | |||
| ::Wait, wait... seems awfully familiar to one of the editor's (or even several) "neutral", "non-partisan" etc. response. | |||
| ::So... Quora did start and kind of shut some of them down. Now I ask - if you see the same content pushed on all forms on media, would that amount to a propaganda program or just mere coincidence? | |||
| :::Anyway, don't know if you followed but the gist of it is: bots and real people "push" a pre-prepared post on every medium you can think of. Reddit/Youtube/Quora. Same post (and sometimes I mean exactly the same, with the "in the reality" laughable mistake even) is found on, surprise surprise, nationalist Hungarian forums. And then... ] shuts me down with something that is awfully resembling the very text I quoted - the one that you can find all over the internet. So either he is a PART of all this (which, in my newbish and humble opinion disqualifies him from ever touching an article again) or he is NOT a part of it but then he clearly favors the same views. Which again disqualifies him. | |||
| :::Final Question: I have my suspicions too. I might be wrong, and of course this is just too much, and you will dismiss it out of hand with some smart quip of evoking yet another set of rules. So again - explain how my suspicion upon which I acted by calling ] a propaganda agent is an obsession while your suspicion, that somehow everyone who supports different POVs than you and the rest of the article takecareers (and oh boy... you ALL have the same neutral non-biased opinion) are bots/socks whatever. | |||
| One final note: Mr. Georgescu - I am really tired. I am on holiday and really wish to enjoy it - so good luck with your "investigation". If it so happens that this will be over before I come back - then so be it. And, please take the time to read what reputable Encyclopedia say. And maybe - just maybe - ask yourself why that Encyclopedia, although mentioning several POVs ends up actually presenting on POV over the rest (hint - theory vs. hypothesis). As for me, i will always remain with the following quotes from you: | |||
| ''"There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect."'' | |||
| ''"I have repeatedly stated that it is not the task of Misplaced Pages editors to engage in WP:OR in order to evaluate evidence"'' | |||
| ====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== | ====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>==== | ||
Revision as of 07:55, 6 May 2018
Iaaasi
Iaaasi (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive.
A long-term abuse case exists at Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi.
04 May 2018
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Suspected sockpuppets
- Iovaniorgovan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Cealicuca (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Copy/paste from WP:ANI:
At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at . Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: , namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Iovaniorgovan displays awareness of his probable wikifate, Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA
, at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Read WP:SOCK and WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
End copy/paste. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Diff for Cealicuca: his first and till now only edit at enwiki. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca:: When Iovaniorgovan brought it to my attention
provide diff, please. Are you aware of WP:MEAT? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca: If I can check those comments, then it is quite easy for you to provide the required diff as evidence: it should be a matter of public record. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca: I see, replies from 4 May 2018, about the fifth day after I had opened the WP:ANI topic, see . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca: I'm saying that I have reasons for being skeptical of your defense in respect to WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. If there is no sockpuppetry involved, as you claim, will you agree to a checkuser verification? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca: I had noticed lots of WP:PROXY activity at the talk page, so of course I am suspicious about it. Especially since Iovaniorgovan bickered twice about being blocked for using a WP:PROXY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:DUCK test: P.S. Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent,
, revendicated by Cealicuca at and or a group of well-coordinated agents
by Ioaniorgovan. Both users are obsessed with agents of influence, so they could be the same user. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- I just opened my Wiki account this year and it's my first ever Wiki account, which I alone use. Additionally, I try to sign all my comments in the "Talk" pages (even though it appears it's not required). Tgeorgescu's accusations are completely unfounded and baseless.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I am really surprised by this. I hope this is the right place to appeal this, if not please redirect me to where I can do that. Anyway, my "evidence" is the following:
- 1. I am a "newb" in what Misplaced Pages editing means.
- 2. When I first posted I did not intent to be dragged into a debate. Nevertheless it did happen.
- 3. I did post without creating a user (which I admit was a mistake). Nevertheless I am confident any reasonable person could clearly see that all the posts were made by the same person, following the natural flow of the discussion, without any hint of actually hiding the fact or making it seem like there are several people involved. There was never any intention of Sockpuppet or otherwise creating a false impression that there were several people responding to the thread. I sincerely believe that this is clearly reflected by the content itself.
- 4. When Iovaniorgovan brought it to my attention I tried to rectify my mistake (see point 3) ASAP - as such I have edited the debate and signed ALL the posts (in case I missed one I will gladly take responsibility for it and sign it).
- 5. I do not have another wiki account but this one that I have created as a result of point 3 + 4.
- 6. On a more subjective note - I find this discouraging. I actually tried to rectify this mistake in a transparent and honest way, and as a result of that this happens. I thought editors were supposed to "guide newbs"... but anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu What are you talking about? I meant he brought to my attention that I should sign my comments - which I fail to see how it connects to the rule you cite, unless you deliberately misinterpret my answer. Check the content page please, especially the comments I exchanged with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Oh, a matter of public record... I see :)
- There we go - Iovaniorgovan said:
- "I agree. And you can clearly see the double standard applied between the Origin of the Romanians page and the Origin of the Hungarians page. Where's the consistency? Even though I also see Tgeorgescu's points, in some ways, it's just a matter of emphasis. As is, equal weight is given to both theories, which is not fair by any standards of proof. On a side note, you might want to sign your comments here because Tgeorgescu reported me for "At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan," etc. In other words Tgeorgescu appears to lump together everyone who contests the "immigrationist" hypothesis or his way of handling the page content and is trying hard to get us blocked. Nice guy otherwise.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- to which I respond:
- @Iovaniorgovan, @Tgeorgescu Yes, my bad. I apologise about this, never meant to be drawn up in this.There we go, I hope I signed all my statements (hope I didn't miss any).Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)"
Or, since I don't really know the accepted way to provide "diff", maybe you're referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AOrigin_of_the_Romanians&type=revision&diff=839579374&oldid=839574513 Note how I signed all (i hope I did not miss any) my comments on this, as well as adding the "My bad " part. Line 271, "paragraph" 6.
ETA: Ok, ok. I just got itchy hands but still... I mean, you keep on coming with some of the rules (and it's good that you do - we should ALL abide by them, right?). My problem is that you enforce those rules arbitrarily. For example, after more carefully reading the WP:MEAT rule, I have to wonder. Doesn't this apply also to: TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, Borsoka, KIENGIR ?
Those 3 users say basically the same thing - yet you didn't get triggered. I asked them to bring proof supporting their statements, even reminding everyone of the WP:BURDEN. The only reply was that the opposing idea is false (as if this would automatically support their idea) as well as you dismissing the WP:PROVEIT, WP:BURDEN - and I quote:
"In certain respects, experienced Misplaced Pages editors are a hive mind. You cannot therefore win a war against WP:PAGs. As for WP:PROVEIT and 500 years after the fact, Misplaced Pages editors do not make the call, WP:SCHOLARSHIP makes the call, see also WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)"
So wait a minute. So in certain respects it is actually okey-dokey to support (well, my contention is that it's just saying stuff without actually supporting it) the same idea - you know, "hive mind"? What would those "certain respects" be and how come some can fall under those while others can't?
Thank you for taking the time to explain the thought process. Cealicuca (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: "@Cealicuca: I see, replies from 4 May 2018, about the fifth day after I had opened the WP:ANI topic, see . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)"
- Really sorry, but I cannot understand the relevance. What exactly are you saying here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: "@Cealicuca: I'm saying that I have reasons for being skeptical of your defense in respect to WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. If there is no sockpuppetry involved, as you claim, will you agree to a checkuser verification? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)" - while I have no idea what a checkuser implies, and what it's relevance is - go ahead. Yes, I agree with a checkuser (for my part at least).
- As for your reasons - did you actually read about how things happened? The guy told me to sign my stuff, so i DID. ALL of them (again, I hope I have not missed one). I say his message today, so of course it's today that I created the account and made the changes. I was not aware of any investigation you requests - until today (like when this whole thing started). Anyway - as I said, go ahead with whatever checks you like :)
Oh, always forgetting. Will you also do the same checks on the 3 users I mentioned? Would you care to elaborate how come your suspicion falls on me (and the other guy) for arguing on the same side but not on the others? :) Especially the relationship between TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit and, maybe, Borsoka? Cealicuca (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: "@Cealicuca: I had noticed lots of WP:PROXY activity at the talk page, so of course I am suspicious about it. Especially since Iovaniorgovan bickered twice about being blocked for using a WP:PROXY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)" - Wow :)) So wait, you suspected me for being a proxy... of whom exactly? Even when my comments were not signed, you yourself responded to some of my comments a number of times - in a way that clearly shows you were talking with the same person (me). Anyway, pfff... :) As I said, go ahead with the checks please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs)
@Tgeorgescu: And one last thing - really need to go to sleep - are you the person who does the checking, and draws conclusion from it (prosecutor, judge and executioner)? Just so I understand the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cealicuca (talk • contribs) 21:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: I don't know what happend, but I did post this last evening. this morning it was gone... anyway, reposting my answer.
- Wow, where to begin... So - this will be a long answer. I will thoroughly answer your accusation. Nevertheless, so far I have tried to give you the benefit of a doubt. The latest "evidence" that you brought, in my opinion, is nothing but a fishing expedition. So, I will also ask a couple of questions to you. Since in the talk page you dismissed them all with "the pot and kettle" stuff, would this be a more appropriate forum to answer those questions? I do hope so. Anyway, here goes my long answer (preceded by a lot of questions - which of course you will dismiss because hey, you CAN :) ):
- 1. On what grounds do you qualify as obsessive what I said? Care to give a context (don't worry about this, I will give it for you)? Care to bring examples, quotes of how many times I did say that? Obviously, I do not deny saying that - and I will also explain why I said that.
- 2. Since we're on the topic of obsession, why don't we give a little context before we continue.
- My OP is:
- The Immigration theory should be renamed to Immigration hypothesis throughout the entire article. There are several difference between a theory and a hypothesis and as such, Roesler's south-to-north immigration doesn't amount to a theory. It stands opposed to the Daco-Roman continuity, which is supported not only by several author's research (just like Roesler's) on the subject but, more importantly, by archaeological findings which, in turn, coupled with linguistic evidence and primary sources form a cohesive base that support the the hypothesis - transforming it into a theory. This comprehensive and diverse evidence pool is lacking in support for Roesler's hypothesis.
- My OP is:
I would have not proposed this editing, but this false equivalence (and the Misplaced Pages article) are often times used to support certain nationalistic views. I believe that it is important to underline the distinction between a supposition (Roesler's immigration) that lacks crucial evidence (especially archaeological) and a supposition (Daco-Roman continuity) that is supported by a wide range of evidence, from linguistic, archaeological, toponymy, geographical and not least, lately, even some genetic studies. Equally important is the fact that while any of those evidences might be disputed, individually, they form a cohesive base for the theory. Imagine a criminal investigation - where there are few individual pieces of evidence that provide a definite answer - but rather the totality of the evidence is the one that paints the whole picture. Simply put, evidence support each other so that while individually they might have several explanations when put together they point towards a single common one.
- Now, immediately I got the following replies:
- Oppose. The immigration theory is at least as well supported by archeological research, linguistic evidence and written sources as the continuity hypothesis. Borsoka (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose, as well. Moreover, the Daco-Roman continuity theory have numerous weak points, that the other theory does not have. It's a bit odd that the IP is identifying i.e. "linguistic", "toponymy", "geographical studies" roughly as a "comprehensive and diverse evidence pool", although especially these are in the strong support regarding the Immigration theory.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC))
- Definitely oppose. Both theories have their weaknesses when it comes to evidence, but to call one a theory and the other hypothesis is dubious, especially considering that the immigration theory doesn't solely rest upon Roesler.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I concur: accurately speaking, both are just hypotheses, they never made it to "theory". Conclusive evidence is severely lacking for both. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- To which I reply:
- @Borsoka, KIENGIR, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit: Please list those evidences - that support/prove the migration/admigration hypothesis. Saying that some evidence that supports the Daco-Roman theory - or comes into conflict with it gives more credence to the other two hypothesis is a logical fallacy. Such evidences that support those two hypothesis are not present in the article, while the article does present evidence supporting the Daco-Roman continuity theory. Evidence of a Latin-Speaking population south of the Danube does not support those two theories - you need to present evidence proving the alleged migration (especially in the light of abundant evidence of a Latin-speaking population north of the Danube, present in this article). Until those evidences are listed under the same section, in this article, those two (migration, admigration) cannot and should not be presented as "well supported" and "competing" theories. It's simply ridiculous that those evidences are not referenced/presented in this article, for all of us to see how well supported they really are.Cealicuca (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- And then I get the following answers:
- There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, there is no evidence for the continuous presence of a Latin/Romance-speaking population in the territory of the former province of Dacia Traiana after the withdrawal of the Romans. On the other hand, the Romanians adopted the names of the major rivers from Slavs, Hungarians, Turkic peoples and Germans (which can hardly be explained based on the continuity theory). The Romanians did not adopt a single word from the Germanic peoples, although the Gepids dominated the territory for a longer period than the Romans had held it. The oldest Romanian chronicles wrote of the migration of masses of Romanians from the Byzantine Empire to Hungary. The Romanians adopted Albanian loanwords. The Romanians were known as a migratory pastoralist population even in the 12th-15th centuries ... Borsoka (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Question (set) no. 1: Were the article editors providing an unbiased, neutral answer? If so - then please explain the statements, of you and the other article editor, in the light of what the article itself presents. Moreover, as anyone could see in the talk page, I offered you a most respected source (Britannica) that clearly states the exact opposite of both your and Borsoka's statement. Care to explain, in light of those answers and the information in Britannica how the article editor's answers were not supportive of a certain POV (Immigrationist) while at the same time dismissing another POV (Daro-Roman Continuity)?
- Question no. 2: Considering your statement that both me and another user seem to "obsess" over a specific point (that we both mention) could you please explain why did such a keen sense of "proxy" was not triggered by, for example, the user TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit. I did check his activity log. He has exactly 1 contribution - this specific comment on the talk page.
- Question no. 3: Would you care to explain how come KIENGIR said: "I warn you again, better stop with groundless, prejudicative accusations like "all the Hungarian "nationalist" propagandists here" or "well-coordinated agents" just because some editors disagree with you, such may have heavy consequences in WP." at 10:49, 5 May 2018, so IMMEDIATELY BEFORE you brought up this point in the investigation (10:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)), considering that nowhere else in the debate (not even after I made the oh-so-troubling obsessive statement, on 13:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Question no. 4: Why did you leave out an important part of my "obsession"? Of course, I will give more details, but I believe it is quite important. This is exactly what I said: "Even though you do not declare yourself as a Hungarian/Russian agent, your arguments so far and the way you support them are precisely taken from the "book" of Hungarian nationalistic propaganda. A simple google search will lead to forums filled with so-called scientific talk where the arguments always start with " and as we all know the Romanians are a migratory shepherd people "."
- And now onto my explanation - why I said that. For the other accused, his reasons - ask him, I cannot speak for him.
- Not a long while ago I discovered on Quora several users (some of them most likely bots) who would literally swarm every topic about Romania/Romanian history or, especially Transylvania. Some of those users are (so that you can check them out):
- John Caliber
- Jánossy János
- - still counting
- Dez Szatmari
- János Kovács
- Not a long while ago I discovered on Quora several users (some of them most likely bots) who would literally swarm every topic about Romania/Romanian history or, especially Transylvania. Some of those users are (so that you can check them out):
and others.
- Those users had in common many things - not saying anything about the nationality here - but about their posts. They were all a variation of the 1st hit that you get on google (or any other hit on the 1st page as well as the next, and the next, and the next etc.). Examples:
- WOW, you get hits on Quora, Reddit, Youtube and even Misplaced Pages. Oh - it's actually the "Origin of the Romanians Article".. Last result. Missing "reality" from the search string.
- And, of course, "history" forums - and go check them out to see where the message comes from.
- Here is the entire post. Feel free to simply google phrases from it to see the extent of how well spread the "message" is:
"In the reality, the late-nomad Vlach shepherd tribesmen (the ancestors of modern Romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The irrational daco-romanian continuity myth is nothing more than a "NATIVIST" state-propaganda. This chauvinist propaganda was born & started with the teachings of the "Transylvanian School" (A politically very active "cultural" organization) in the era of national awakening & nationalism. The fantasies and myths of "Transylvanian School" served and followed strictly the romanian national & political interests since the very beginnings. It's the compulsory curriculum for children in romania since the communist Gheorghiu-Dej, and especially under Ceausescu's directives , this national belief/religion became the central part of modern Romanian identity. Fortunately it is not generally accepted by western academic scholars. That's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach nomad migration from the Balkans in the 13th century.
Vlach (name for medieval & early modern romanians in European chronicles) was the latest nation who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe.
1st: There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) proofs for the survival of Dacian ethnic group after Roman withdrawal.
2nd: Dacian vocabulary did not remain for the posterior, only same names of tribal leaders remained.
The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike in the case of other neo-latin/romance languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin romance language.
3rd: The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the Roman legions and dacians remianed very hostile. This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process.
4th: The BARBARIZATION of the Roman Army: Despite that average Romanian people believe that they are also descendants of the "Ancient Romans/Latins" it is very far from historical reality. The BARBARIZATION of the Roman army was very (shockingly) massive and rapid since the end of the first century: the 90% of the “Roman” army had not Roman/Latin or Italian ancestry since the end of the 1st century. The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS or LATINS.
5th: The migration of series of BRUTAL BARBARIAN tribes: There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations. The area saw serials of many strong powerful and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Goths, Huns, Longobards, Gepids, Avars, Pechenegs and later Cumans. UNLIKE the Vlach ancestors of modern Romanians, all of these barbarian ethnic groups WERE HISTORICALLY RECORDED countless times in contemporary (4th - 9th century) written sources in the dark age & early medieval period. After the centuries barbarian invasions, the written records mentioned only Slavic speaking populations in the area under turkic- Cuman rule, but they didn't mention the existence of any neo-latino /romance speaking population. However there are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval era , from 4th to 11th century) about the shepherd nomad Vlachs in the Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s.
6th: The complete LACK OF any LINGUISTIC INFLUENCES OF BARBARIANS of the area on Romanian language: There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans: The the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.
7st: The earliest romanian chronicle was Grigore Ureche's chronicle in the early 17th century(!!!), who wrote about the balkan migration of his Vlach people. There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia & Moldavia, even most of the monks and priests had to be „imported” from Serbia. Due to the lack of medieval literacy and medieval literature and own romanian history writing/chronicles, the poor romanians had to built up a so-called "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..
8th: There are no material proofs (cemetries or vlach cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s.
9th There are no CONTEMPORARY (from the 4th century to the late 12th century) written documents about the existence Vlachs (neo-latino/romance speaking population) in the territory of later Vallachia, Moldavia, and especially in Transylvania before the 1200s. WERE WERE YOU HIDING FROM THE EYES OF CHRONICLERS for more than 800 years dear "daco"-"romans"?
10th Only the BALKAN Valchs were recorded as neo-latin speakers in the Eastern European and South-Eastern European region in the contemporary Chronicles (4th-13th century). Which is not surprising, because the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlach neo-latin speaker nomads were very often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles)
11th: The problem of HYDRONYMS and TOPONYMS: Other interesting fact, that Romanian language borrowed the already existing Slavic, Hungarian and Saxon origin toponyms and hydronyms of Transylvania. It is a very well known and clear practice if immigrant populations.
12th: The "great latin" Romanian vlachs always fiercely resisted against the Latin (Catholic) church and its latin liturgy, they chosed the Slavic Orthodox church which used church-slavonic language istead of Latin. (It was due to the fact that old romanian language contained more slavic words than latin, so the liturgy was more understandable for their people.
13th: Huge LINGUISTIC REFORMS of the 19th century: During the creation of romanian literary language and language reforms in the 19th century, the high ratio of south-slavic, albanian and turkic words were purged from the vocabulary of the romanian language, and they were replaced by adopted modern French Italian and other modern-era neo-latin words, French and Italian neologisms and even full modern French expressions were adopted to replace the old ones. These new modern Western European (modern French & Italian) romance expressions and words simply did not exist in the era original ancient latin speaking populations or in the vulgar latin languages.
14th: ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM in old romanian language: Let's don't forget, that the old Romanian language also contained serious ALBANIAN SUBSTRATUM before the linguistic reforms. Moreover, the old Romanian language was the only language in Europe which contained Albanian substratum. This also supports the balkan migrations in the high medieval period.
The imagined "glorious past" and the opposing historical reality:
The territory of modern romania belonged to the Bulgaria first, later it came under Byzantine rule. From the late 11th century, the territory was occupied and ruled by the turkic Cuman tribes. After the brutal mongol invasions and attacks in 1240, nomadic Vlachs (romanians) started to migrate towards modern romania, and their (turkic) Cuman overlords (like the wallachian state-founder prince Basarab) established their first Vlach romanian principalities. Romanian lands became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and later they were vassals of Polish kings. In the 16th century, romania became an Ottoman province until the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Since the 16th century the settled life slowly became dominant lifestyle among the formerly mostly nomadic-shepherd romanians. It doesn't sound a very civilized interesting and important history..."
- Wait, wait... seems awfully familiar to one of the editor's (or even several) "neutral", "non-partisan" etc. response.
- So... Quora did start and kind of shut some of them down. Now I ask - if you see the same content pushed on all forms on media, would that amount to a propaganda program or just mere coincidence?
- Anyway, don't know if you followed but the gist of it is: bots and real people "push" a pre-prepared post on every medium you can think of. Reddit/Youtube/Quora. Same post (and sometimes I mean exactly the same, with the "in the reality" laughable mistake even) is found on, surprise surprise, nationalist Hungarian forums. And then... Borsoka shuts me down with something that is awfully resembling the very text I quoted - the one that you can find all over the internet. So either he is a PART of all this (which, in my newbish and humble opinion disqualifies him from ever touching an article again) or he is NOT a part of it but then he clearly favors the same views. Which again disqualifies him.
- Final Question: I have my suspicions too. I might be wrong, and of course this is just too much, and you will dismiss it out of hand with some smart quip of evoking yet another set of rules. So again - explain how my suspicion upon which I acted by calling Borsoka a propaganda agent is an obsession while your suspicion, that somehow everyone who supports different POVs than you and the rest of the article takecareers (and oh boy... you ALL have the same neutral non-biased opinion) are bots/socks whatever.
One final note: Mr. Georgescu - I am really tired. I am on holiday and really wish to enjoy it - so good luck with your "investigation". If it so happens that this will be over before I come back - then so be it. And, please take the time to read what reputable Encyclopedia say. And maybe - just maybe - ask yourself why that Encyclopedia, although mentioning several POVs ends up actually presenting on POV over the rest (hint - theory vs. hypothesis). As for me, i will always remain with the following quotes from you:
"There is no evidence for anything the (Proto)Romanians did for roughly 1000 years. So, obviously, too many pieces of the puzzle are missing to have conclusive evidence for any "theory" in this respect." "I have repeatedly stated that it is not the task of Misplaced Pages editors to engage in WP:OR in order to evaluate evidence"
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: