Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Php2000/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Php2000

Php2000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

18 April 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I had this feeling days ago ([1] although this is Spanish text with orthographic mistakes, it is not how a native Spanish-speaker would say it). But not was until today that I started to pay more attention to this as I saw the ANI report on my watchlist. Urbanuntil et. al. have this WP:BATTLEGROUND chip installed ([2]), but what I found after a few links is that, as explained at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Urbanuntil, the user tends to make personal attacks based on geographic regions (like the link I provided before), and these "I have no doubt in my mind you are from the United States", "Looks a bit ridiculous - borderline North Korean", "Where are you from? North Korea?". (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Tbhotch? Spanish is my native language so if you feel "that is not how a native Spanish-speaker would say it" I can only conclude you don't speak Spanish very well. Are you perhaps not familiar with the past subjunctive? And no, I have never come across this Janitor person in my life and you have literally nothing which connects me to this user or his sockpuppets. We don't even edit the same articles or have the same interests. I vaguely remember coming across you though. In what way have I run afoul of you for you to waste your time on this nonsense? I kindly request you to read WP:NOTFISHING. This request is in itself a violation of policy. Thank you and goodbye.

Tbhotch and what orthographic mistakes? Not using accents because I don't have them on my keyboard? I don't make orthographic mistakes in my own language. --Huasteca (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huasteca: I didn't say that you don't speak Spanish, I said that your comment sounds weird in Spanish, at least in Central Mexican Spanish, which if anything, that be the only correction I'd make ("Buenos días, Axel Tbhotch No entiendo muy bien tu mensaje. ¿Serías tan amable de explicarme a qué te refieres? No veo conflictos editoriales entre ambos" is what I'd expect from someone from Mexico, the topic you are editing the most). Now, I don't know why you don't have accents nor the "¿", unless you don't have a Spanish-adapted keyboard, which means you are not editing from a Spanish-speaking country. Going back to the SPI, I didn't fish, I presented behavioral evidence that you never denied. Instead, you went again into ad hominem reinforcing the idea that you are hiding something. The " I didn't do it/I don't know them" excuse is not a defense, it's just deflection. And the "NOSFISHING" part, well using Pob3qu3's proposed account truly matches a sockpuppet. I thought you were Janitor because you both have indeed edited a page in common (Demographics of Mexico) and I found similar behavioral evidence. Do I discard that you are Urbanuntil? No, Urban has 6 different SPIs that were connected solely with behavioral evidence in 3 different websites, but now it's clear that you and Php2000 are the same person. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiarized enough with the edit history of Janitor102, but there is strong evidence of the editor Huasteca being a sockpuppet of the editor Php2000, which in turn was blocked [3] for being a sockpuppet of the editor Azerti83[4], the evidence I have gathered is below:

  • Both have added German Mexicans as a "separate identity" in Mexico-related articles: here's Php2000's edit [5] and here is Huasteca's edit[6]
  • Both have claimed that to include the white category on Latin America-related articles is Anglocentric: here's Php2000[7] and here is Huasteca's edit[8]
  • Both have performed similar edits in the article Afro-Spaniards: here's Php2000 [9] and here is Huasteca [10]
  • Both claim that there is no sources to confirm the existence of European/White Mexicans even though there are many: here's Php2000's edit[11] and here is Huasteca's edit[12]
  • Both editors also make accusations of nazism: here's Php2000's edit[13] and here's huasteca's edit[14]

It seems we are in front of a prolific, long-career sockpuppeter. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very disruptive sockpuppeter indeed, his behavior ticks all the boxes (says in edit summaries that reverts one thing but reverts many more, claims that there are no sources while simultaneously removing said sources, makes inflamatory accusations) he also has an obvious prescence in the Spanish Wiki and is likely proficent in the use of VPNs but I don't want to make the investigation wider and slower. Pob3qu3 (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to get a user blocked because you disagree with their edits and have decided to aggressively edit war against is covered by WP:NOTFISHING. I did not make accusations of Nazism. I just mentioned that considering Jewish people non-white is a position which is currently only held by neo-nazis. Something I do not feel the need to retract since I did not specifically accuse anyone of being a Nazi. My Spanish sentence incidentally was flawless neutral Spanish with no regionalisms. Yes I have a work computer from a company which is Geneva-company and no, I am not based outside the Spanish-speaking world. Huasteca (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its not because I disagree with you, its because you are being blatantly disruptive, a very recent example of your behavior is that you just reverted the article of "Mexicans" on the deliberately confusing argument that "There is no concept of White Mexicans outside of skin color in Mexico"[15] when one year ago you, yourself said that "since it (the concept of White Mexicans) exists in terms of sources I cannot argue against its inclusion on Wikipedia"[16] this can't be a misunderstanding, you are seeking to create conflict for the thrill of it, that's why you are using a recently created throwaway account [17]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attempting to get you blocked because I disagree with you. You said it in Spanish, we have not had conflicts of any kind. I don't care about your edits. What pisses me off is when people attempt to game the system using socks and believing that everyone else is stupid to not notice behavioral patterns. These edits are an example of what I mean: [18][19]. Shakira, a semi-protected page, was the fourth article you edited once you got autoconfirmed, and it was to remove something that was already contested. Or this, seven minutes here and you a) are using a talk page, b) are talking about "primary sources" and c) say "such controversial issues should not be included in the lead" (as indicated by MOS:LEAD). New editors don't behave like this and certainly don't speak like this. From time to time I ask established editors to discuss things on the talk page and the last thing they use is the talk page itself, yet you want me to believe you just used a talk page in your fifth edit. And if I go and check link by link, I will find things like "Recovering stable version". Which version? this stable version by Php2000 who added an unsourced statement not mentioned in the body of the article, yet you returned it? But here two months before you demonstrated that you care about "changes to lead which contradict body of article".
And I don't see any reason to use "neutral" Spanish in an English-language website. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Comparing this user to the CU logs of the master, I have to say that this is  Unlikely/Red X Unrelated in a technical standpoint. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, did you only compare to the master's logs or also to the non-stale socks in the archive (Eightbenny (talk · contribs), Costamasma (talk · contribs))? --Blablubbs|talk 07:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blablubbs - If I remember correctly, the master. Would you like me to compare to those accounts as well? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: I initially asked this for general clarification and housekeeping, but reading over the full case, including the evidence for a different connection in the "comments by other users" section, I think it's unlikely that they're Janitor102, but that there's enough for a comparison to Php2000 (talk · contribs) and socks, who NinjaRobotPirate suspects to be the same person as Azerti83 (talk · contribs) and the associated sockfarm. Based on date of last edit, those are probably stale, but there might still be other data available for some of the accounts (and NRP might know more details). --Blablubbs|talk 22:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember anything about Azerti83 or Janitor102, but this editor looks behaviorally very similar to Php2000, so I've blocked based on that. Was there anything else that needs to be done? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking was that a check might be useful for sleepers and some more current CU data, but a behavioural block does the trick too. Splitting this out into a separate SPI for Php, closing. --Blablubbs|talk 10:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I wouldn't have noticed this if it wasn't for this edit. It is an unmarked revert of this edit whose edit summary reads: "This article suffered from several misleading edits from different (now blocked) sockpuppet accounts to the point that it lost its NPOV and became mostly supported by a single source that was quoted repeatedly. Rewritten it trying to preserve additions that were made by other editors and trying to present a more neutral POV." Considering that Cristo removed the same amount of content it means that a) they read the comment and deliberately ignored it merely saying "mass deletion of sources" or b) they removed the same exact amount of content when they edited the page. The coincidences with PHP and Huasteco are non-trivial [21]. For example, all the accounts tend to say that others are "POV-pushing", including this and this. As I'm writing this, Cristo inadvertently left the following message: Do their findings hurt "Aztec" sensibilities? when talking about the Day of the Dead; Huasteca said "presumably due to a sense of hurt pride or unfulfilled desire for revenge" when talking about Astra-Zeneca. No one's pride is hurt. This is pure sockpuppetry. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is actually funny. If my grand total of 5 edits on two articles one article of overlap with these users you accuse me of being a sockpuppet of, how does it compare with the majority (well over 60%) of User:Alan_MBs 239 edits being on 39 articles being also edited by tou, User:Tbhotch?[22] You used a sockpuppet to blank an article and maliciously initiated a sockpuppet investigation against the person who reverted your edit and engaged with you on talk page. If anything merits an immediate ban, its this. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even try to understand that link? "15 years", "14 years", and the content of the edits don't even match.[23] And this doesn't make any sense. According to you, I'm the main account, I who joined in 2009, and Alan in 2004. Can you explain "my" weird edit pattern [24][25]? And if so, why I didn't log in as Alan and re-reverted your edit? (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • After Cristo opened my SPI, they accidentally left another clue. According to Cristo, and I'm not outing them, Cristo is from Spain, a Spanish-language country. Cristo said and quote "massive blanking of sources of the article Dia de Muertos". Absolutely no one in Spain will forget to accent the word "Día", it is one of the most common words in our language, and the lack of accentation is impossible, unless "[I] don't have them in my keyboard", as Huasteca did say. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Poirot! The accents!Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still no denying nor defending yourself, just like Huasteca did. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you know what else Huasteca said: "Attempting to get a user blocked because you disagree with their edits and have decided to aggressively edit war", and you just said: "Upon being reverted, the article was immediately and aggressively reverted by Tbhotch". What's wikt:aggressive in both instances? Where's the aggression? I mean, I can continue looking for phrases and words you both have said, those that start with "everyone is POV-pushing but me". (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Oi! A little far-fetched, don't you think, bruv? --Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my high percentage of caught sockpuppets, no. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it is beyond question that User:Tbhotch is currently maliciously using sockpuppet User:Alan_MB, his former account which he is using as a strategy for canvassing. The behavioral evidence is absolute. The sockpuppet investigation can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbhotch.--Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't even try to defend yourself and try to deflect the attention somewhere else makes things worse. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, an account with a 60% overlap with articles you edited distributed over 39 articles which has been dormant for 5 years. Suddenly, out of the blue, it makes a single mass deletion of sources in an article User:Tbhotch has been edit warring on for the past year, then becomes inactive. When someone reverts Alan's edit, tbhotch instantly reverts it and attempts to initiate a weakly supported pre-emptive sockpuppet investigation to avoid discussion on talk. Statistically, with the 60% overlap being distributed over so many articles, the likelihood of User:Alan_MB not being the resurrected dormant account of User:Tbhotch is close to zero, if not zero, rendering a checkuser irrelevant. Both accounts edit shared edits of rather obscure articles. Worthy of note is Nacaulpan (3 edits by tbhotch and 10 by Alan_MB). This is one of 2446 municipalities in Mexico, a relatively unknown satellite town of Mexico city with a population which is less than 0.7% of the total of the country. If this 60% of overlap was concentrated in a few articles with high user traffic, I would give you the benefit of the doubt - I don't initiate sockpuppet investigations on a whim. Its technically its impossible for Alan not be a sockpuppet of tbhotch. Its just plain math. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mucho texto. A simpler "I am Php and I can't defend myself" is enough. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to defend myself from an active sockpuppeteer who is accusing me of ommitting Spanish accentuation when writing in English (?!) and using the word "aggressive". It doesn't deserve a response. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You also forgot to accent reír in es.wiki. The CU results are here, and unlike my SPI that says unrelated, yours says stale. In simple terms, it is too old to determine by CU. However, these "thank you" and goodbye messages [26][27] are suspicious as well. This[28][29] is behavioral evidence, not simply saying "they have all edited the same pages throughout the years", as you keep insisting. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight, Tbhotch. Are you now claiming that User:Liberationthetruth and User:YxngRapunzel are also my sockpuppets? If so this should be a formal part of your accusation and you should add them to your list of suspected sockpuppets so a Check User can be performed. Otherwise it seems like you are trying to fabricate "evidence" out of thin air. A bit rich coming from a person against whom the behavioral evidence of current sockpuppetry is overwhelming. I cannot believe a seasoned wikipedian would simultaneously use sockpuppets and initiate bogus sockpuppetry investigations in the context of a single edit conflict. Has this ever happened before? Its the peak of cynicism. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm giving you the meaning of behavioral evidence. You should comprehend first what you read before jumping to conclusions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are those two edits suspicious? Its a friendly private message I accidentally sent to the wrong editor following a resolved edit dispute and then had to repost to the correct recipient. They are not "goodbye" messages nor a smoking gun. Hardly comparable to shared edits on 30 Mexican Presidents, January 1 and Nacaulpan, the latter incidentally created by User:Alan_MB. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic I'm Materialscientist or ClueBot. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's suspicious as you are thanking them for something that happened 15 days ago. You are thanking them after this SPI started, in a similar way a farewell is written as if you suspected you would be blocked. Even Callio said, "I fear that they are right about your sockpuppetry" because you are not even trying to argument you are not engaged in sockpuppetry. You accuse others without reasonable evidence (ad hominem), you have tried to ridicule me: "Bravo, Poirot! The accents!", "Oi! A little far-fetched", "I'm afraid it would be emotionally catastrophic for you seeing how invested you are in the project", (appeal to ridicule); you create an SPI with poor evidence (red herring) and even after the CU was conducted, you still using Alan as a straw man. What you don't understand (or you understand it and you know that if you admit it you're done) is the facts we have:
Two Spaniard users who speak Spanish, but somehow they don't use accents, even when writing at es.wiki. Both use similar words, always engage on edit-wars. There, insult the "opponent" and when the "opponent" gives reasonable reasons on the opposite, they feel they're losing their point, go to noticeboards to affirm the other party is doing wrong and that the case should lean in their favor. Out of the 6 million people living in the Madrid metropolitan area, you want me to believe that you, an editor that had solely edited the page Flamenco (also edited by Huasteco), somehow learn about Alan's revert and you unilaterally decided to ignore their edit summary? (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC):[reply]
I remind you I did not engage in an edit war. You reported me preemptively after reverting you once and leaving a single message on talk - the very definition of "aggression". But yes, my logic. Materialscientist has nearly one and a half million edits and you have over a quarter of a million edits. The percentage of your edits on shared articles with this editor are under 1% of your total edits and less than 0.1% if we exclude general admin pages. This compares with over 60% of Alan_MB's edits being on articles which you have also edited. It's probability pure and simple. Mathematically, the likelihood of you being the same editors is Almost surely. Please don't make me count the exact number of edits and provide the mathematical calculation. I can calculate the probability of you being unrelated editors but it will take me a while - its effectively zero. To anyone who understands statistics it is proven that you two are the same person, particularly in the light of this being a defunct account which has not been used in years and has suddenly been resurrected for the sole purpose of implementing mass deletions of sources on an article you have been edit warring on for months. You didn't want it to stain your record with vandalism and ended up doing something far worse. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically if you have two apples and I have zero, statistically we both have one apple each. Statistics mean nothing with poor rationales like saying: "You are Alan because he added information about Naucalpan here and 14 years later you returned to add a hatnote!". BTW, my SPI will be closed soon. It's time to stop talking about me and that you start to talk about your actions that are too similar to those sockpuppets (remember, this is your SPI). Unfortunately, I know what will happen next: You will push now your "If anyone buys your story its because they don't want to see it" and you will continue not denying being a sockpuppet. Because of that, I have to rest my case. If you want to continue playing this game, feel free to do it. I'm moving on and unlike you, I have presented enough circumstantial evidence to determine that both of you have several similarities. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain the logic here, since perhaps you some people don't get it. Imagine I open an account and edit an article on, say, Bill Clinton. I make 5 edits. I then edit another article 15 times on Zimbabwe. Can you confirm that I am a sockpuppet of another account editing Bill Clinton because 25% of my edits are shared? No. This is not enough since I will have edited too few edits to establish a pattern and this would mean that all new users could be potentially a sockpuppet of someone. However, if I open an account and I make 2 edits on Bill Clinton, 2 edits on Burger King, 1 edit on Paris, 5 edits on Madonna, 5 on Tony Blair and 20 edits on Zimbabwe and it turns out there is another user who has edited 5 of those 6 articles (excluding Zimbabwe) - then the likelihood of sockpuppetry increases dramatically even in the cases where the % of shared edits is lower (not your case). If this editor linked to you and behaving extremely abnormally (resurrected account for single edit) shares a 60% overlap over 39 articles (not just one or two), comes from the same country, has the same interests on and off wikipedia, and the sockpuppet's single edit is aligned with an overall long term edit war then the probability is a near certainty. Its a probability curve, the larger spread over the different articles, the higher the probability. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. In fact, this is a common mistake performed by sockpuppets. They continue editing in the same pages and patterns that their previous blocked accounts. This is why I exemplified it with the Liberationthetruth and YxngRapunzel accounts. If "YxngRapunzel" had started editing, using your example, Bill Clinton and then YxngRapunzel moves to Zimbabwe to restore material marked as changed by a sockpuppet (which is what you did), then it is clear that YxngRapunzel is a sockpuppet attempting to circumvent our policies. All the sockpuppets sooner or later start giving hints that they are a sockpuppet. This has nothing to do with mathematics. You caught my attention as you removed 20K of information with a weird edit summary: "removal of sources". Well yes, you were removing sources, but why? Then I clicked view history and I saw Alan's edit and his edit summary. Then I saw the history below and I found those accounts of Segura and Php, and then I remembered who was Php. Then I followed your edits, and the more comments I read, the more similarities I found with Huasteca. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. And the fact that you have attempted several times to divert the attention to other things worsens everything because it indicates you are hiding something. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other things = A sockpuppeteer launching sockpuppet investigations against editors who revert edits by his sockpuppet. Not at all relevant to this discussion. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean that you are WP:REHASHing your already disproven point? You don't even try to demonstrate that you are not Huasteca. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about PHP or Huasteco but I will say that Cristo is very interested in participating in ethnic disputes relating to Spain, which seems consistent with that MO. Also Cristo's 20th-22nd edits were reports to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which would be very unusual for a new editor. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm looking at the Huasteco edits to Flamenco I'm 100% convinced they're the same person. (1) Reverting that Alan edit with a deceptive edit summary to restore the Huasteco version and (2) two editors just happening to try to revise the intro (and only the intro! I always thought that was odd... Cristo was so worked up about the intro but never really the rest of the article, and Huasteca was the same) to the flamenco article with respect to the role of gitanos in the development of flamenco.Huasteca edits/Cristo edits, (3) the weird "goodbye"-ish message posted to my page as this SPI began. Even if the CU is stale, I would block based on behavioral evidence. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cristo's 14th edit used the abbreviation "rv", 15th edit used "es:" to refer to Spanish Wikipedia, 20th edit used abbreviation "POV"... obviously Cristo has been around the block. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in "ethnic disputes related to Spain" Calliopejen1. I'm interested in Flamenco and the history of Flamenco and that is where I predominantly aim to edit wikipedia since it is my area of expertise. I'm not a new editor. I used to edit Wikipedia ages ago. I don't know the password to that account though it has been inactive over a decade. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This IP, which you said is you certainly seems to be interested in ethnic disputes relating to Spain and Latin America going beyond flamenco. Plus this edit about churrasco (which I agree with but demonstrates a very unusual focus on these sorts of ethnic disputes). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit too... seems like anytime there is a dispute about whether something is "Spanish" as opposed to "indigenous"/"Roma"/whatever else, you seem to pop up, just like PHP and Huasteca seem to have done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok got it. I'm a hyper-nationalist who hates ethnic minorities because Churrasco. I have been accused of crazier things. Nice one, Calliopejen. Using a friendly message on your talk page as "proof" on a case initiated by a tactical sockpuppeteer. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any statements about your political positions etc. I'm saying that your interests are the exact same as Huasteca. you denied you were interested in ethnic disputes related to Spain, which denial is obviously false. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And LOL at tactical sockpuppeteer. you didn't notice that his SPI has been closed? stop deflecting, it isn't a good look. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Huasteca likes to insult users based on where they have/haven't traveled or where they're from"Well clearly you have never been to Spain, Portugal or Mexico if you hold such opinions." as does Cristo"No offense but I am quite convinced you do not speak Spanish, you have never been to Spain""gringo que jamas ha salido de su pais"="gringo who has never left his country". Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  In progress - ~TNT (she/her • talk) 11:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Stale for comparison,  No sleepers immediately visible ~TNT (she/her • talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing enough here to block without some technical support. In any case, they haven't edited in almost a month, so it would be hard to justify WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. Closing with no action. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


This time the similarities revolve mainly around the editor Huasteca, which was found to be a sock puppet in a previous report on to this case [30]. The three editors Huasteca[31], Lonerism20 [32][33] and Rsk6400 [34][35][36] have sought to remove paragraphs that talk about the presence of the "mongolian spot" in Mexican populations under vague, unjustified arguments. Another similarity is found in the fact that the suspected editors[37][38] and Huasteca[39] share a notable interest on articles related to ethnicity, specially Latin America and Africa. Another point to consider is that Huateca and Rsk6400 also tend to engage conflicts with other editors across multiple articles and show rather combative attitudes (besides the article "White Latin Americans" Rsk6400 is currently involved in a conflict on the article "African Americans"[40]), deliberately ignoring consensus and Wikipedia policy, often using circular arguments that go nowhere and also incurring on WP:TAGBOMBING. It must be noted that while I request Checkuser as it may find sleepers, the basis to evaluate this case is mainly behavior, as there's plausible evidence that this editor uses VPNs, for example here I detailed an instance here [41], here [42] and specially here[43] on which the editor Huasteca was opportunely assisted by IPs from parts as distant from Latin America as Indonesia.

Other similarities that may be woth mentioning are that both, Php2000 and Rsk6400 names are composed of 3 leters and 4 numbers, and that Rsk6400 [44] [45] and Lonerism20 [46] [47] [48] have both attemped to remove several images from articles related to White Latin Americans (Rsk6400 cites the policy WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES but is being misinterpreted, as it applies solely to infobox images), I think this whole behavioural evidence put together points to a rather persistent conflictive editor. Thanks in advance. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • I don't find the evidence presented here convincing, and on examination it looks clear to me that these are different people. Rsk6400 has been editing since 2007. He discloses his identity on his userpage, and I see no reason to doubt this. His contributions show an interest in the topic of race in general, while the master and their sockpuppets were specifically focused on race in Latin America. Similarly Lonerism20 seems to mostly be concerned with Africa-related topics. The timecards for these two accounts are distinct from Php2000's & Huasteca's, and from each other's: [49]. There are also clear differences in edit summary style between each other and the claimed master. In light of this, sharing the same viewpoint on an editorial issue and a having supposed tendency towards conflict is not compelling behavioural evidence. I am closing this case without action.
    On a side note, Php2000 comes up in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Filologo2/Archive. Maybe the next person to look at this can decide if this case should be merged there. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08 December 2021[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

  • The name caught my attention (it reminded me to that of Huasteca (talk · contribs), Frijolesconqueso (talk · contribs), Chapulinesconlimon (talk · contribs) and Encomendado (talk · contribs)--all these names are Mexican-related). Yanga, Veracruz is not the exception. These names are specifically chosen to give the impression that the user comes from Mexico and is not writing Mexican-related articles with Spaniard bias ([50][51]). Yet, all these accounts are created specifically here and rarely edit es.wiki, which I must add, despite being one of the most biased and poorly written websites, they never have demonstrated any interest to improve it.
  • Like Php's sockpuppets the user is "new", yet, they justify everything they do: "removing questionable essay-type unsourced addition to lead", "unsourced and confusing assertions", "Statements unsupported by sources", and Php has the tendency to edit after 7 in the morning UTC as they live in Spain ([52]). The thing is that in Mexico that edit was made at 05:41 in the morning. Why would someone wake up at 5 just to remove content.
  • And last but not least both articles were edited by Php in the past as they are Spanish-related and about ethnic groups. If this SPI succeeds, maybe it's time for an LTA page. I don't know if this should be merged with the request above as I don't think the users above are related with Php a priori. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Mr. Tbhotch. I see from your edit history you are obsessed with this topic of pHp2000 and are a conflictive editor who enjoys launching these "investigations". Anyone reasonable will agree that my editing does not merit an SPI based on the arguments you provide.

These can be summarized as follows:

  1. My user name is deviously Mexican. I likely wear a sombrero and a fake moustache whenever I leave the house. Gah!
  2. I'm a new user who has tentatively improved sourcing of an obscure uncontroversial article. Shameful. How dare he!
  3. I edit at suspicious times of the day - way too early in the morning for a Mexican worthy of the name
  4. Nonsensical gibberish accusations I don't even understand related to your edit conflicts with other editors which don't interest me in the least. You seem to want to start an argument about whether a random fella I have never heard of is white or not? Here? As part of your investigation?

My understanding is that SPIs require behavioral evidence. What you provide is simply insight into your own fixations. Nothing more, nothing less. Yanga Veracruz (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I read is a newly created user listing things with hashtags and stressing with italics. Newbies don't do that, or the simple fact that you understand the meaning of SPIs and how they work. Further, your comment provides more "behavioral evidence" than what you think of. The sarcastic comments, that you, quote, "see my edit history" whereas my recent history provides just these unrelated links implying you know about this page, or how you are sidestepping with irrelevances like: "You seem to want to start an argument about whether a random fella I have never heard of is white or not" in the same way Huasteca and Cristo did in the past. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[I also find it curious that you are removing sourced content as "unsourced",[54][55] or removing content on this premise. What makes the New African a "terrible source"? That's more useful than discussing if someone is white or not. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Tbhotch, I have never interacted with you prior to you launching this SPI. The reason for my edits to an article are clearly stated in their respective edit summaries. If you have an issue with any of my edits, I invite you to discuss them, either on the talk page or even with me directly. But knowing how to defend myself from bad faith accusations is not behavioral evidence. Signing my comments is not behavioral evidence. Basing my edits on Wikipedia Policies such as WP:RS is not behavioral evidence. Using hashtags as a numeric list, - you have not shown any diff of any of my supposed sockpuppets using such hashtags - is not behavioral evidence. What we do have is very clear behavioral evidence of you misusing this procedure.Yanga Veracruz (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how, paraphrased, "never interacted with you prior to [me] launching this SPI" is something relevant for opening an SPI. However, I find it weird you are the second user ever to point out that we should have some sort of conflict in order to message you/SPI you. The first one being, well, Php: "Why are you sending me warnings on my talk page? I have no issue with your edits" and "I do not understand this message very well. Would you be so kind as to explain to me what it refers to? I did not see that we were in any editorial conflict." Certainly, we can all agree that Spanish-related articles on genetics and the colonization should be put upon some sort of sanctions like WP:CASTE, because, curiously, we have several users living in Madrid that are interested in enhancing the Spanish Empire more than what it actually was. We have to remember that Php was suspected to be a sockpuppet from another person.
You want patterns, we have patterns (sorry admins for the long addition):
Caption text
User Lives in Madrid Spanish language-related name Defend-your-position behavior User creates their userpage very early User uses talkpages on their first edits User removes a lot of content and justifies it with Wikipedia-related language User forgets to accent words in Spanish Enhancement of the Spaniard culture, i.e. whitewashes the Spanish Empire Is it a WP:Single-purpose account? Belittles anyone that questions their edits
Yanga Veracruz (talk · contribs) Only you know that Yes, Yanga, Veracruz Reverted by Xochiztli, then proceeds to revert Yes, from "I edit mainly on history of Africans in Mexico." to "I edit mainly on the history of Africans in Colonial Mexico and Central America." [56] Azcatitlan instead of Azcatitlán "Source is an end of year thesis for Master´s in Arts written by an Academic Support Writing Coach at Miami Dade College. Does not meet WP:RS And statement is wrong. Mexico did not have important slave ports)" New Spain did have important slave ports, including Vera Cruz. It's curious that a user named "Yanga Veracruz" doesn't know about Yanga being a town founded upon slaves. At the moment the only purpose is to edit Afro-Mexicans.
  • [57]: "Such-change47 I noticed you were relatively unfamiliar with wikipedia since my justifications were abnormally extensive for your average editor. Don´t worry, we all make mistakes."
  • Here, above: "My user name is deviously Mexican. I likely wear a sombrero and a fake moustache whenever I leave the house. Gah! I'm a new user who has tentatively improved sourcing of an obscure uncontroversial article. Shameful. How dare he! I edit at suspicious times of the day - way too early in the morning for a Mexican worthy of the name".
Php2000 (talk · contribs) Yes No There are several examples, the history of the user is bloated with POV edit-wars including [58][59][60] No, user took a while to create it with "User Php2000" [61][62][63][64] These are from es.wiki, where the user is expected to write in Spanish: "Slavery was not a core element of Latin American societies (with the exception of Brazil and perhaps Cuba). There is no similar section in the article on Anglo-America where slavery was more prevalent. Seems like bias." Main purpose was to edit Spanish Empire-related articles on genetics
Aquisigo2 (talk · contribs) Yes, blocked as a Php sockpuppet Yes, means "I still here" No edit-wars but created specifically to support Frijolesconqueso Yes, "Por amor tengo el alma herida", "Melancolia", "Vivir asi es morir de amor", "Aqui ando" (these are Camilo Sesto lyrics) The sole purpose: [65] N/A, user was never given the chance The words Aquí, melancolía, así and again aquí are accented. N/A, user was never given the chance Yes, self-confessed sockpuppet "You seem to have plenty of time to impose your "peculiar" views which are diametrically opposed to scholarly consensus with fabricated attributions"
Cuentaseria (talk · contribs) Yes, blocked as a Php sockpuppet Yes, means "Serious account" No edit-wars but created specifically to support Encomendado N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance "remilitari.com is self-defined as a forum/mailing list for military aficionados. It is not a valid source on wikipedia" N/A, user was never given the chance The content removed said: "One source claims the Spanish conquest was responsible for 1,400,000 to 2,300,000 deaths explicitly excluding tens of millions of deaths from New World disease" Yes N/A, user was never given the chance
Encomendado (talk · contribs) Yes, blocked as a Php sockpuppet Yes, means "encomienda owner" Yes, SPA at encomienda[66] N/A, user was never given the chance "For now removing this sentence since it doesn't seem to actually say anything. Whoever included it using fake references to cast doubt on another sourced statement." N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance
  • The user removes the phrase: "He also accuses Spanish colonisers of sexual abuse of Native women, referring to it as an acts of "biological genocide.[67]
  • The user removes the phrase: "portray a more accurate description of the human-labor issue (free and non-free workers) with completely different estimates to Eduardo Galeano alleged number of deaths."[68]
 Yes, just to edit encomienda.(see how the user uses the word "aggressively")
Frijolesconqueso (talk · contribs) Yes, user is not indef but was temporarely blocked and tagged as a Php sockpuppet. The user claimed on their user page that they were from Mexico Yes, means "beans and cheese" Yes, from the block log: "Long term edit warring at Spanish colonization of the Americas." Yes, "Here I am. Frijoles con Queso, salsa verde, shredded chicken and cream on some totopos. Don't be rude to me. Don't try to get me banned. I'm here to improve Wikipedia." (i.e, I'll do what I can do to get myself blocked) Yes, [69] These are from es.wiki, where the user is expected to write in Spanish: Yes, related to Spanish conquest of the Americas
Winstonzan (talk · contribs) Yes, blocked as a Php sockpuppet No N/A, user was never given the chance Yes, "Winstonzan" N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance N/A, user was never given the chance
Yonatan Perez Almeida (talk · contribs) Yes, blocked as a Php sockpuppet Yes Yes, sole purpose was to continue whitewashing the Spanish Empire Yes, "." N/A, user was never given the chance removing unsourced opinions and improving structure *Their very own name, Perez instead of Pérez Mestizos were never enslaved in Latin America Yes, related to Slavery in colonial Spanish America N/A, user was never given the chance
Filologo2 (talk · contribs) Unknown, tagged as a suspected Azerti83 sockpuppet. Azerti never revealed their location, but their edits were related to Spanish genetics Yes, means "philologist" Yes[72] No [73][74][75] "Please refrain from disruptive editing by removing tag from article. It is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Thank you" N/A, everything written in Spanish was copied from es.wiki Yes, the sole purpose was to edit Genocide of indigenous peoples "It is childish, I'm sorry. You have gone from pushing non-existent African admixture in Greeks, to non-existent admixture in Italians..."
Huasteca (talk · contribs) Yes, blocked as a Php sockpuppet Yes, Huasteca Yes, edit-warring at Covid-related pages as well as flamenco or demographics of Latin America No Yes[77] The user justified that they were omitting accents: "what orthographic mistakes? Not using accents because I don't have them on my keyboard? I don't make orthographic mistakes in my own language." [78] Yes, flamenco, Covid and demographics
Cristodelosgitanos (talk · contribs) Yes, user is not blocked but admitted being from Madrid[80] Yes, means "Christ of the gypsies" Yes, several issues related to Flamenco Yes, I won't quote it as their page includes copyrighted lyrics by Joan Manuel Serrat Yes, [81] "rv: TawagorShah's edits on the 28th of June have introduced plainly false information with sub-standard sources and I have thus reverted to stable version" The user justified that they where omitting accents: "I don't need to defend myself from an active sockpuppeteer who is accusing me of ommitting Spanish accentuation when writing in English"[82]. However, the user also omitted to accent reír in es.wiki "I have reverted this poorly sourced edit from the 28th of June which pushes the POV that Flamenco originates in India and that this is now the "mainstream" or "dominant" view." because "Although flamenco is often associated to the Gitano ethnicity who have contributed significantly to its development, its origin and style are uniquely Andalusian and flamenco artists have historically included Spaniards of both gitano and non-gitano heritage."[83] Yes, their original purpose was related to Flamenco, but suddenly shifted to Day of the Dead

What's the constant here, simple: excepting for you, they are all users from Spain. All come to the English Wikipedia to question content on topics related to the Spanish language. Their texts are provocative and the syntax is limited (repeat words like "aggressive", "nonsensical", or that things are "very x"). Those editing articles related to genetics think that the Casta system was made-up and that Mestizos and Caucasians are the same thing.[86][87][88] The content is always "wrong", "comes from unreliable sources", and if it is something negative related to Spain it is removed and "corrected" with the Spanish vision that says that Spain was never a colonizer, (common Spanish views like saying that the Fall of Tenochtitlan was not only justifiable but necessary to free Mesoamerica and that Hernán Cortés was a liberator), and if it is reversed or challenged, the forums are used to continue explaining such perceptions regarding the content, mainly with a patronizing attitude. If the forums don't veer in their favor, those opposing it are incompetent and biased. Ironically in many situations, although the content is also present in the Spanish version, there is no intention to make changes since it is easier for the Spanish site to notice such changes. And the reason might be because of this: "Has no one seen the English version of this page? Look at it, it's a f...ing xenophobic disgrace full of slander and unsourced falsehoods... Please someone take care of it" just to end up saying this "I find it weird that admins here don't understand the rules of wikipedia nor their purpose. What a shame. I'll stay with the English version which seems more functional" (although I agree with this last comment, I find it weird that the word Wikipedia is always lowercased). This is why I don't discard that Php et al are sockpuppets of JamesOredan when editing outside their common area and thus they have not been linked. James is a user that is editing under similar patterns, he said "I am Belgian, born in Ghent, in the Flemish region of Belgium, but I am half Castilian-Leonese from the Spanish region of Castile and Leon by my mother. I live in Madrid, and I am in love with Spanish history and culture."[89] This explains why the user tends to omit accents, i.e. the user has no idea where words are accented (I mean I've even seen the user writing "espana" instead of "España" as if the ñ had no purpose.

This is behavioral evidence. Of course, you will say this behavioral evidence is a fringe theory, but that's your prerogative as you have to debunk such information. But I've been editing this website for 12 years. I can distinguish truly new users and "new" users who are gaming the system. But if you are not a sockpuppet, you don't have to worry about all of this. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is really interesting. User Tbhotch has finally outed himself as launching this SPI in bad faith by providing us with irrefutable proof of him fabricating "behavioral evidence". In his Torquemadesque zeal and out of anger at not finding any real behavioral evidence linking me to these accounts, he decided to make one up, hoping that I would not catch on to it.
He claims that I, like users x,y,z don´t use accentuation (á,é,í,ó,ú) or the letter "ñ" when writing words in Spanish based solely on me writing Azcatitlan instead of Azcatitlán. Sadly for him, he has been caught red-handed. As literally every Mexican knows, Azcatitlan is an indigenous Nahuatl word in which the stress is on the "i" not the final "a" when pronounced correctly. Therefore it should not have an accent (tilde) in Spanish or in English. Ironically, it is primarily non-Mexicans (including Spaniards) who stress and accentuate the final syllable of Nahuatl words - a notable example being mispronouncing Tenochtitlan as Tenochtitlán. If Mr. Tbhotch were not Mexican, I could pass this off as a mistake by someone unfamiliar with Mexico and indigenous Mexican languages, but he very clearly is, both from his self-description and edits. He knows all of this perfectly well. This means that he has intentionally misled admins and SPI participants with false "behavioral evidence", despairing by the weakness of his own case. The rest of his wall of text seems to be a list of grievances, opinions and edit conflicts on a range of topics which have no relevance or interest to anyone but himself.
Tbhotch, you accuse me of "gaming the system" while intentionally lying on an SPI you have launched to get my account banned. A user you have never interacted with, who has not engaged in any edit conflicts and who has not edited any of these articles you mention in your above pseudo-analysis. If this continues or if you don't retract your accusations with an apology, I will take this to an administrator noticeboard and request some form of sanction on your account. I no longer want to be involved as collateral damage in your crusade. You are in breach of a good half a dozen wikipedia policies. They are windmills, not giants. --Yanga Veracruz (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn't read right, but this is not just about the accents. It's about multiple red flags, including an unconscious error you just wrote, a lowercased "wikipedia", just like [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] or [95]. Or this Cristodelosgitanos-like attitude that you want me blocked (Cristo calling me a sockpuppeteer while you wanting me to report me to the AN as if the report would proceed, especially because I'm providing evidence of constant patterns unconsciously committed by all these users that justifies the opening of this report). Because trust me, I can take random users and compare them with these accounts, including those that are open about living in Spain, and I will not find coincidences. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don´t want you banned, Mr. Tbhotch, although I would like to see you forbidden from launching SPIs which you seem to follow a pattern of weaponizing. I was not aware of the sockpuppetry investigation against you and your own failed SPI against cristo, but your vendettas simply don't concern me. Neither do all these topics you seem to have unhealthily strong opinions about. There Is No Cabal. [96].
As for me, I want to edit about the history of Afro-descendants in Mexico, a topic I have read much about and which I love. I'm not interested in any of these other topics you are ranting about. I have not edited any of these articles and don't intend to do so. I have no agenda but even if I did, it would be my right so long as I respected Wikipedia policies and principles, which I do scrupulously.
And last but not least, your behavioral evidence - the part you have not fabricated - is simply delirious. There are hundreds if not thousands of active Wikipedians who sometimes write wikipedia in lower caps while discussing on talk pages and noticeboards and yes, I just checked. And I´m still waiting for a diff with PHP2000 or any of its confirmed socks using a hashtag numbered list, your initial "evidence".
I really don't want to argue with you any further. You have proven to have launched this SPI under false pretenses and that is enough for me. Unless you detect any irregularities in my editing - which you are welcome to point out and contest in a policy-compliant manner rather than via weaponized SPIs - please stop hounding me. Pick someone else who writes wikipedia instead of Wikipedia. I can even provide you a list. Yanga Veracruz (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tamzin:. Good morning, Tamzin. I'm not really sure I understand your question. The vast majority of Wikipedians make unregistered edits before taking the decision to open an account. I'm quite sure you have as well. If you are indirectly asking whether I'm a sock puppet of php2000, the answer is evidently "no". I would also add that this is currently the oldest SPI on Wikipedia. Behavioral evidence is absent and/or fabricated, it remains open and there has been no action or input of any value for weeks. `
    I'm neither a Wikipedia expert nor clueless but it feels a tad irregular. After some investigation into this whole thing, my conclusion is that I have been caught in the cross-fire between two editors who recently launched tactical or weaponized SPIs against each other at the same time. Looking at the cases, it seems very likely they were both right and were both actively using sock puppets. However, both must be similarly experienced Wikipedians and neither managed to provide enough evidence to get the other blocked. No doubt they hold a grudge against each other but one of them seems to have mistaken me for the other and thus launched this SPI. I'm collateral damage in a drive by "SPI" shooting. It has been an interesting process to witness and research and I have learned quite a bit, even if it has made me a little paranoid about editing Wikipedia articles in general. I would guess that is the purpose of weaponized SPIs - to bully people into abandoning the project. Yanga Veracruz (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin:, I fully understand your perspective. Your caution and your meticulous demeanor as a trainee clerk is commendable. But do also try to understand my point of view. I have had a look at other ongoing SPIs and no accused party has devoted anywhere near as much time as I have in responding to accusations. My reading of SPI policy is that unless clear behavioral evidence of sock puppetry is provided - and none has - then the SPI must be closed without further action. Unsubstantiated or malicious accusations backed by fabricated evidence and conspiracy theories such as this one typically go unanswered altogether so I now regret having engaged at all. I'm now convinced that had I just ignored the whole thing, this would have been closed weeks ago. It's me responding that's prolonging this.
    Please understand that I have neither the time nor the disposition to spend hours searching for occasional edits to Wikipedia I may have made in the past. Nor to compile for you a list of IP addresses which I would struggle to find, would be of little value to you and would also be a breach of my own privacy. What if 5 years ago I made half a dozen unregistered edits on an article which might be embarrassing to me? The article on, say, pegging, for example? It would be my right not to disclose these edits or the IP addresses from which they were made here. I think you get my point. Wikipedia guidelines on how to react to SPIs tell us not to get upset or offended and to keep calm, but this is becoming very tiresome. I apologize in advance, I have answered you out of courtesy, but I don't want to participate any further. I will focus on contributing to the project, as I have until now, I believe, in an impeccable manner. Best of luck with your new responsibilities on Wikipedia, Tamzin, and thank you for the polite away in which you have addressed me. Yanga Veracruz (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience while reading all this content. I am aware that (assuming these users are directly related to Php) they will be looking for ways to circumvent the systems again. However, there are many aspects, often almost imperceptible, that always give away the evaders sooner or later. (CC) Tbhotch™ 06:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • @Yanga Veracruz: In all the back-and-forth above, I don't see a clear answer to this, so could you please answer directly: Have you ever edited Wikipedia before, either under another username or unregistered? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yanga Veracruz: I appreciate your response, but I already understood that you're denying being a sockpuppet of Php2000. What I'm trying to understand, though, is to what extend you'd edited Wikipedia before creating this account. You're correct that many editors edited unregistered before creating their accounts, and you're correct that that includes myself. There is indeed nothing inherently against policy about that. But it's my job here to analyze your behavior, and part of that is understanding whether you were new to Wikipedia when you created this account. So: Have you ever edited Wikipedia before, either under another username or unregistered? And, I'll add the follow-up in advance: If yes, to what extent and to what parts of the project? Thank you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Yanga is denying having previous extensive experience with Wikipedia (experience that would go beyond half a dozen edits to some NSFW article), I simply do not believe that from how they've edited so far, based on both technical skills and familiarity with Wikipedia procedures. Tbhotch lays out a good case, and I may yet see grounds for a block purely on behavioral for similarity, but for now I notice a strong similarity to Cristodelosgitanos' behavior in the October SPI, so  Clerk endorsed for comparison with 1) Cristodelosgitanos (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 2) any non-stale Php sox (I don't see any, but this case's archives are a bit muddled), and 3) log data relating to Php. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yanga Veracruz is quite  Likely to Cristodelosgitanos, and is  Confirmed to:
  • Clerk to make the call 👍 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Sammy. I think a "quite likely" is enough given the behavioral similarity (on articles and at this SPI) to conclude that this is the same person as Cristos. This trio of accounts would not necessarily be indeffable on its own, though, so we must still determine whether this is Php2000. As noted before, Tbhotch makes a compelling case. To this we can add the fact of socking qua behavioral characteristic. And then looking at the two sets of accounts' contributions I notice other similarities, such as a tendency to remove content sourced to "blogs" [97] [98] [99] (cf. [100] [101] [102] [103]). I also notice some further similarities in edit summary style and talkpage participation style which I can expound upon if the reviewing admin would like, but I think Tbhotch's evidence plus what I've presented so far should suffice. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action:
  • -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked. Leaving tags to Tamzin. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Dreamy.  Tagged, with slight variation on what I'd said above: Since Sammyeugene has three masters with different confidence levels of proof, tagging the two "highest" levels (Cristo and Php) even if that leaves out the only CU-confirmed level. Closing. (And with that, only one case left awaiting administration!) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19 December 2023[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Since yesterday the editor Flamebagging is editing the article of White Mexicans using almost identical reasonings and edit summaries to those used by the editor Php2000 and one of their blocked socks, the editor Huasteca[104] as on their edit summaries Flamebaggin argues that "White Mexicans do not exist as a separate identity in Mexico"[105] much like php2000 did back then [106][107].

Additionally, if the edit summaries of Flamebaggin and sockpuppet account Huasteca are compared they're almost identical, here are Flamebaggin summaries[108][109] and here are Huasteca's summaries[110][111].

Another similarity is found in the actions and edit summaries of Php2000 and FlameBaggin as in this case both of them remove "Arabic" from the list of spoken languages in Mexico using similar edit summaries, here's Flamebaggin's edit[112] and here's Php2000 edit[113].


As the reported editor is currently involved in a content dispute vs me and an administrator in the article of White Mexicans[114] more accounts that are likely sockpuppets keep appearing, for example Xuxo comes to revert to Flamebaggin's version[115] after the editor Flamebaggin has been warned by an administrator to not continue reverting[116] besides this sudden support, more similarities are found between Xuxo's and Flamebaggin's behavior, as both went on to target a cite from the book "The United States and Mexico" under similar arguments, here's Flamebagging's edit[117] and here's Xuxo's edit[118]

Xuxo's edits and arguments also bear resemblance to the edits of blocked sockpuppet Php2000, compare these edits by Xuxo[119][120][121] with these edits by Php2000[122][123] as can be seen in the article's edit history of that time[124] Xuxo and Php2000 were supporting eachother on this conflict from 2020 similarly to how Xuxo is now backing up Flamebaggin edits. I also found another blocked sockpuppet that Xuxo's summaries bear resemblance with: the editor EspanolMarroqui123 whose contributions[125] are also similar Xuxo's contributions[126], as besides articles related to Mexico it also frequents articles related to Brazil.

Another blocked sockpuppet[127] that edits and uses edit summaries in a way similar to Xuxo is the editor Mexico91, compare the following series of edits by Xuxo[128] and by Mexico91[129], like the editor EspanolMarroqui123[130] this editor was blocked due a separate sockpuppet investigation[131], which comes to show how persistent and prolific this sockpuppeter is.

Another similarity between Xuxo’s edits and the edits of already blocked sock puppet accounts is found on the comment that Xuxo makes here[132], which is almost identical to what the edit summaries of already blocked sock puppet account Espanolmarroqui [133][134] say, these comments in turn are also extremely similar to the comments made by the editor Kodosbs[135][136], who started editing the article of White Mexicans after Xuxo got reported on this SPI [137], Kodosbs in turn has been blocked from editing due proxy usage before [138][139], and as can be seen here [140][141][142] Xuxo and Kodosbs have been supporting eachother in the talk page of White Mexicans aswell.

In recent days, the article Demographics of Mexico has been targeted by yet another sockpuppet[143], the editor Uruguayan989[144], when one compares this edtor's name, which is composed of a nationality followed by three numbers a connection can established with already blocked sockpuppets such as

Irishmen122[145] EspanolMarroqui123[146] Marroqui200[147]

Who can be found in the archive of sockmaster Ghumen [148]

and Guatemalan555[149]

Who is from HiphopVisionary’s archive[150]

This is not the only connection that can be established to conclude that the sockmasters Ghumen and HiphopVisionary (with no mention of the accounts currently reported in this SPI) all belong to the same person, as in both archives one can find accounts with the naming pattern of "person from one nationalty" in a "country/city often followed by numbers. In Ghumen's archive[151] we find:

UkrainienFrancais[152] PolacyWeFrancji22[153] LituanianinFrance[154] SvenskaFrancji35[155] EstonianFrance[156] SuecoFrancais[157]

and in the archive of HiphopVisionary's archive[158] we find:

CanadianToronto8887[159] Atlanta boy 88[160] Suburban mexican Gypsy[161] American gypsy palmdale[162] African American Black Nigerian[163] Ohio African-American boy[164] Gypsy Aztec[165] Alabama editor[166]

Looks like the person reported in this SPI is, all considered, one of the worst vandals there's been on Wikipedia, and the articles that are affected by this person's actions go well beyond a single topic.

Requesting checkuser to see if other accounts show up and to see if a relation with other persistent sockpuppeters that frequent articles on the topic can be established as other sockpuppet accounts were blocked not a long time ago [167]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply The Wordsmith, I wonder nonetheless, if you could give your opinion in regards to the username similarities that I higlighted on this case, specially the ones in added this diff[168]? Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • CheckUser makes this Red X Unrelated but given the age I'm working with VERY limited data so  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavioral evidence suggests that FlameBaggin is a different person from Php2000, though they likely have a similar POV. Behavioral evidence also strongly indicates that Xuxo is unrelated to either. no Closing without action The WordsmithTalk to me 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01 April 2024[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Both editors exhibit an horribly combative attitude on articles related to ethnic groups in Mexico, to see the contributions of each must suffice [169][170], these two editors in turn are connected to an editor reported on a previous SPI, Flamebagging[171] as it can be seen, besides also being highly disruptive and combative[172] has the same comments on its edit summaries[173] that Analyticalreview does[174][175][176]

Besides this being an editor that switches accounts to keep edit warring, he does have direct connection to already blocked accounts such as Huasteca[177] as can be seen comparing the edit summaries of Flamebagging [178][179] with those of already blocked accounts such as Huasteca[180][181]

The complete previous case can be seen on this diff here [182] or at the case archive[183]

Requesting Checkuser to see if other accounts show up. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Ivanvector, somewhat disapointed with the result but its not the first time that such thing happens, in fact it took multiple tries to catch Php2000 itself [184].

Comments by other users[edit]

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

This is probable considering they have similar names both having to do with data “Analyticalreview” and “DataNStats” and were both the only users to dispute with me and my edits and start a long thread of showing differentiating data. Not only that but they have similar attitudes and mannerisms within their edits, possessing an aggressive style of editing. And they both edit Mexican pages trying to use data that make Mexico seem less European than it is. PedroDonasco (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to have a three year history of accusing every single person that disagrees with him of being a sock puppet. At some point you have to realize you are the problem. Analyticalreview (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Inconclusive with respect to the case - there is no technical data available to compare, and as far as I can tell there are no CU-confirmed socks. The two accounts are Red X Unrelated, but DataNStats has a second account which has not edited. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Php2000/Archive&oldid=1217282638"