Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Platanogenius

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:Platanogenius

Suspected sockpuppeteer

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

Suspected sockpuppets

Report submission by

Rosicrucian 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Original user was blocked for disruptive edits to Dominican Republic. Paneiro banned for being vandal sock though not confirmed after wholesale vandalism campaign on same article, blanking large sections. Comments on Talk:Dominican Republic indicated likely sock. Shortly after banning of Paneiro, Memeco account created with comments on article talkpage indicating intent to continue vandalism pattern. Edits are nearly identical, generally unsigned. Appears to also be attempting to create false consensus by "agreeing" with himself.[1][2][3]--Rosicrucian 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Platanogenius has already been blocked in the past and continues to express and use extreme POV and abusive statements" [4] Other IP's have continued on where he has left off as well as the username" [5] Platanogenius was blocked 2 days ago and Fabre08 shows up on the same article making the same edits with unreferenced sources.[6] [7],[8] [9], [10] [11] and [12] . Warned 3 times for vandalism [13] . Then leaves a mocking statement on the talk page. Please block. "Haha!! Don't worry, my friend. I will continue to undo all your sad attempts. Using websites is a simple and lazy form of getting information. I would also suggest you to not vandalize other people work and twist it for unknown purposes."[14] "has gone forth with calling others derogatory and slang terms including the word "cocola" which is feminine for "cocolo" which can equate to nigger"[15] YoSoyGuapo 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

same old story look at some of the contributions [16] [17] [18] [19] removing of links [20] , changing of demographics [21] , and same old removal of cited material [22] 64.131.205.111 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paneiro1122 Seems to be a fairly obvious block evasion for Paneiro.--Rosicrucian 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further examination, user also references Edgar181, the admin who blocked Paneiro [23]--Rosicrucian 18:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's admitted to being a sock evading a block.--Rosicrucian 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The number of users involved has been increased greatly by YoSoyGuapo after my initial posting of the case. I can't speak to the ones he added, but I have done my best to notify them of their listing in this case as I believe many of them were unaware. Personally, the only ones my current evidence covers are Paneiro and Memeco. I am now contacting YoSoyGuapo to see if he has any evidence he wishes to add.--Rosicrucian 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now he has. That's all good now, then.--Rosicrucian 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a request for checkuser here. If it gets accepted I think a checkuser would have better means to sort this out. VirtualDelight 08:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont think User:Avfnx is a sock Puppet!he has done constructive edits! User:Memeco is a new user but has not shown yet to be a sock puppet! ya have to be carefull of acussing wrong people! Ya could block innocent wikipedians!EdwinCasadoBaez 02:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the request for CheckUser came up dry, I'm willing to move forward in good faith and assume nobody here's a sock other than the one obvious one. I hope the other users will join me.--Rosicrucian 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much vandalism has occured by individuals who have utilized similiar attack methods. I would like to proceed. The checkuser didn't come up dry, the results were inconclusive. There was a geographic relation. It doesnt mean they were false. YoSoyGuapo 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "geographic relation" could be something as simple as most of the users involved being from the Dominican Republic. Which really is something that was at the least evident by the edit styles of those involved. A result of "inconclusive" on CheckUser means two things:

You cannot just revert the edits of these users because there is presently no actual proof they are all socks of Platanogenius. So the edit comments of "RV Platanogenius sock" are going to have to stop because that becomes unwarranted harassment.
If you want this sockpuppet case to move forward, you are going to have to narrow it significantly. The large number of users hurts you because there are too many of them to make CheckUser a valid tool. Oftentimes this is what wrecks sockpuppet cases. They cast too broad a net, and it makes it tough to catch the real guys.

At any rate, this has become a bit of a witch hunt in my eyes, and as the person who originally filed the case I can't say for certain that any of them are Platanogenius other than the one obvious one who signed posts as him. So personally I think the more constructive thing is to go back to the article talkpage and treat them as normal, decent users for once.--Rosicrucian 12:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I congradulate you on your good faith. The problem is when a bunch of high school kids from the inner city (which isn't a bad thing) [24] go out of their way to destroy articles and go around cursing people. " [25] . Similiar personal attacks have come from him "EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [155] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [156] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [157] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [158] ,[159]. He has been warned numerous times [160], [161], [162] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [163] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order." In any manner a sockpuppet was found [26] and blocked [27] . Thus our efforts were not in vain. YoSoyGuapo 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

All of the named accounts are blocked except for User:Avfnx, and I see no compelling evidence that he's a sock of anyone. The IPs will be left unblocked. If there are outstanding content issues I recommend an RfC or mediation. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]