Paintballxtreme (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

14 January 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ligavenezolana (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ligavenezolana2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ligavenezolana3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Truquero57 (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.

Paintballxtreme has been edit-warring over maintenance templates on an article he created, Daniel Ortiz (paintball player). He has also show an interest in many of the early 1900s America's Cup articles. After being wared a bout his actions, Paintballxtreme was created, immediately start editing early 1900s America's Cup articles, but within 20 minutes started making the same type of edits on Daniel Ortiz (paintball player) that Paintballxtreme had been warned for. Seems like an obvious WP:DUCK case, to me. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Mike, I agree with your assessment of the situation. But for the removal of the maintenance templates, this wouldn't be a big issue to me. However, because of the persistent removal of maintenance templates by both accounts—and after Paintballxtreme was warned about the behaviour—the situation is abusive enough to warrant this investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I only want to say, i don't know why that user is editing my article, eliminate his account, my account is older than he account, he create YESTERDAY... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintballxtreme (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New account listed. I have added Ligavenezolana2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the report as an obvious sockpuppet, though I'm not sure of which account. I have indefinitely blocked that account due to the quacking. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only did a new user, Ligavenezolana3, get created tonight, but there's some similarity in their edits. Compare this edit by Paintballxtreme [1] to this one by Ligavenezolana3 [2] It's the same edit, although L3 did not remove the maintenance templates—which I'd just final-warned Paintballxtreme for doing. Also, note that this new account was created one minute after Paintballxtreme's first edit to the Ortiz article tonight. To me, that's enough evidence to bring Paintballxtreme back into the sockpuppet investigation. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, compare when Paintballxtreme stopped editing yesterday, after I blocked Ligavenezolana2. Then note that after I blocked Ligavenezolana3 tonight, Paintballxtreme has not edited anything but his user talk page. Is he autoblocked? —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then see this talk page message from Paintballxtreme: "The user ligavenezolana still editing the article of Daniel Ortiz... in one moment eliminate the references and I try to repair but I dont know why I can't..." That sure sounds like he's autoblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• New account listed - I've added Truquero57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently showed up to remove maintenance templates from the player article, and to comment on the AfD. Interestingly, this "new" editor has the exact same habit of starting off a comment with a long series of dashes identical to those used by Paintballxtreme (see [3], [4], [5] for recent examples). MikeWazowski (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk endorsed this discussion seems to show Paintballxtreme claiming that Ligavenezolana is trying to impersonate and harass him. Some notes:

• Both Ligavenezolana and Paintballxtreme were originally created on eswiki and the accounts here were created automatically (this is not incompatible with the idea that Ligavenezolana may be harassing/wiki-stalking Paintballxtreme)
• Naming pattern of Ligavenezolana and Ligavenezolana2 is a fairly obvious cause for concern, and again, this seems to shift the blame onto Ligavenezolana rather than Paintballxtreme.
• Paintballxtreme moved the article on Daniel Ortiz from Daniel Ortiz (Paintball Player) to Daniel Ortiz (paintball player) ([6]), shortly afterward Ligavenezolana recreated the original page with the same content. This seems to be consistent with Paintballxtreme's claim that Ligavenezolana is trying to make it look like he [Ligavenezolana] wrote the content himself
• Ligavenezolana persistently removes whitespace added to articles by Paintballxtreme (see, eg. [7] [8], [9] [10], [11] [12], et al). Again, this is persistent with the idea that Ligavenezolana is harassing/wiki-stalking Paintballxtreme
• The only thing in which the accounts (incl. Ligavenezolana2) appear to have colluded is the removal of maintenance templates from the Daniel Ortiz article.

Given the above, I am endorsing for a check only on Ligavenezolana and Ligavenezolana2, so as to identify whether or not they are connected, and if so, to do a sleeper scan on them. Unless Paintballxtreme shows up in that sleeper scan, I would say that we should accept his version of events (and move this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ligavenezolana).
Best, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Compliments to you for your clear report, Spitfire. However, unless more compelling reason can be presented, I'm not really compelled to do a check. A connection between Ligavenezolana and Ligavenezolana2 is duckishly obvious, and given the time frame, I can't imagine there are any sleepers. Paintballxtreme's version of events checks out behaviourally and I don't feel there is any need to draw on technical evidence. WilliamH (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, a little more digging shows that Ligavenezolana and Ligavenezolana2 are both affected by autoblock #3768455 (by C.Fred), but that Paintballxtreme is not. This seems to confirm that Paintballxtreme is unrelated to Ligavenezolana, while also confirming that Ligavenezolana is related to Ligavenezolana2, which is all I really wanted a check for (given the evidence of copy-cat/harassment I thought a check in the best interest of fairness). I'll pass this on for an admin to consider if a block on Ligavenezolana is needed. Cheers, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 16:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Truquero57 is highly suspicious, so I've blocked on behavioral grounds. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

04 February 2012

Suspected sockpuppets

• Vayaloguei2 (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.

Another SPA account, trying to get around the results of an AfD by recreating an almost identical version of Daniel Ortiz (paintball player) at José Daniel Ortiz. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk endorsed - I think it's worth a look for sleepers. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, since there was no check for the last case. Paintballxtreme (talk · contribs), Truquero57 (talk · contribs), Ligavenezolana (talk · contribs), Ligavenezolana2 (talk · contribs), Ligavenezolana3 (talk · contribs), Sharealo (talk · contribs), Thundersport (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed

Vayaloguei (talk · contribs), Vayaloguei2 (talk · contribs) are also  Confirmed. No other obvious sock (but these are busy ranges). -- Luk ^talk 11:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Everyone's been blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]