Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco

UnclePaco

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

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/UnclePaco

18 June 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by SamEV

User UnclePaco was blocked indefinitely in January 2008 as being a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Armyguy11, who himself had been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned user Mykungfu. They often used the IP address 64.131.205.111, part of the evidence here, too. The CashRules account began editing in April 2009.

• The CashRules and UnclePaco accounts have very similar interests. These include the rather obscure subjects of Dominican American street gangs and steroid use in Dominican sports. In fact, when it comes to the Dominican Republic and Dominicans, the two accounts are alike in that their interest is in the more negative aspects; besmirching Dominicans is a high priority for them. They edit tendentiously, violating a core principle of this project.
• The article Dominicans Don't Play, about a New York gang, had been edited by the UnclePaco account right up until the account's blocking, and after that, by IPs in a suspected range of Mykungfu (67.87.93.177, 68.199.126.40, 68.199.235.190, 151.202.75.4, [1]), until the article was deleted in April 2009. The CashRules account began editing 5 days after deletion and its very first edit was a request for the article's recreation ([2], [3]).
• Just 3 hours later, CashRules went to Dominican American and restored content that had first been added by UnclePaco ([4]; [5]). That content had not been in the article in over a year (removed January 2008): i.e. since the UnclePaco account had been blocked.
• Two IP addresses (24.239.190.219 and 150.210.176.64) from ranges tied to UnclePaco/to Mykungfu edited the article titled "Steroid usage amongst Dominican Athletes", which was nominated for deletion twice. It was deleted on the second attempt; only CashRules voted to keep it, and subsequently had it saved on his user space ([6], [7]).
• In the last 2 weeks, CashRules has repeatedly added content about sex tourism in the D.R. The content resembles additions originally added at user UnclePaco's suggestion, [8]: [9], [10], [11], [12].
• Regarding editing style, note how very similar their writing styles are.
• Zooming in further, they have similar wikilinking styles, as seen in the following examples: [13], [14] (edit summary); [15], [16], [17].
• Besides all this, there's their use of search engine cache pages as references: [18], [19], [20] (another sockpuppet), [21], [22], [23], [24].

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't really know what to say. Let me start off by saying I am not a banned user. I started editing on wikipedia in April 2009 and SamEv wrote on my page that I was a banned user during that time. [25] So why would he even make a report over a year later. When it was convenient to him?

I asked to have the article dominican steroids moved because I did want to save it. [26] I don't see Uncle Paco edits on any of it. [ This isn't the first article that I saved if you look at my history.

I don't see uncle paco edits for the sex tourism that u presented. all i see is [27] Rosicrucian putting in things for sex tourism.

I don't see similiar things in edit styles. For the search engine, I got those copy and paste from older versions of the article. Why not simply perform a checkuser? CashRules (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment of ranges " (67.87.93.177, 68.199.126.40, 68.199.235.190, 151.202.75.4) if you look at the history doesnt show anything. You're making a huge jump, the individual 68.199.235.190 should've been associated with UnclePaco and blocked right? [28] it should also conflict with 67.87.93.177 if you look at time/location. i don't see any warnings of being nor do i see any association with any of the usernames you've mentioned.

371 edits and 4 articles created. i'm not a professional, but i'm making a small difference. i don't really understand this, but this seems so much like a virtual community. a community where those make contributions that aren't liked by others can make their time here stressful.

SamEv seems to want to own a number of articles and I guess is making life difficult for others as you can see here [29] CashRules (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why this hasn't been addressed on wiki [30]

“ I tried to step back from what seems to be a constant edit war with SamEv. I even created an article Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour but everytime I try things seem to escalate.

He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet and an investigation is going on. I am fine with it, but he is also personally attacking me. He reverts my edits on sight even when they are properly cited. He only corrected one of them after I made a big deal about how he put the wrong information in. "I made a contribution and you basically did a revert and didn't bother to read what I wrote [31]! I know you didn't read because you placed Gabriel Mercedes as a Judo player rather than a tae kwon do player [32]. You think I have some kind of weird prejudice about Dominicans and you've stated this. If that were the case why would I even put in a silver medal olympian? I complained about it [33] since you have a history of reverting whatever I place in. It was after I complained did you bother to fix it! [34]. If I had made that type of mistake you would've labelled me a vandal! CashRules (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)"

This is the second incident I am reporting. [35] CashRules (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

He is fishing [[36]] and creating a distraction on a few pages. [37]

What should I do? CashRules (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been the main editor of the Dominican Republic article since December 20, 2007. That's why I edited the DR article today. It's the one I edit the most.

The accuser would like to get me out of the way because I'm pursuing an SPI against him. He figures that the more he opens this kind of thread, the more he'll somehow distract from his own actions, or drag me to his level and cause me to get blocked.

My contributions history speaks for me. Please see his. Please see this: he doesn't want it on his talk page for obvious reasons. It is rank disruption what he's doing by restoring that section there.

Now if I may, I'll continue with my editing and try to forget this distraction. SamEV (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have commented on his disrputive behavior as well.

BilCat (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [38]

BilCat (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [39]

BilCat Revision as of 22:47, 19 June 2010 (edit) (undo) [40]

FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC) [41] CashRules (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sequence of relevant edits, in chronological order: 17:00, 20 June 2010, 17:32, 20 June 2010, 18:57, 20 June 2010, 20:17, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:32, 20 June 2010, 20:34, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:38, 20 June 2010, 20:41, 20 June 2010, 20:42, 20 June 2010, 20:52, 20 June 2010, 21:00, 20 June 2010, 21:26, 20 June 2010, 22:12, 20 June 2010, 22:24, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:38, 20 June 2010, 22:40, 20 June 2010, 22:49, 20 June 2010.
SamEV (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, user CashRules: The matter of the tae kwon do guy was a mistake, and I corrected it soon after.

You say I've been reported before: yeah, by you, a few days ago. And your report was declined, with these words for you: [42].

Fishing? How? What is it? SamEV (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC); 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

”

There seems to be so much bad faith going on here it is getting ridiculous. CashRules (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have set off your quote from ANI into a box for readability so that it is clear what was written here as opposed to what was written elsewhere. To answer your question, there is no formal division of duties on Wikipedia and a lot of times, particularly complicated requests on ANI just get glossed over and nobody notices them. It's not anything deliberate on anyone's part. If there is something that is still unresolved when the bot archives it, probably the best way to raise it is by starting a new thread and making a very simple, "plain English" statement of the problem, refer to the old thread, and clearly state what you are asking for help with. --B (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

CashRules is accused of being a sock of UnclePaco. The reasoning for wanting to block CashRules may or may not be an edit dispute. The best way to resolve this would be for mediation and discussion of the edits in question.

The reason I am puzzled is because it is not clear that UnclePaco is a sock. So if UnclePaco was wrongly blocked, then CashRules may be a valid use of a new account. Even if CashRules is UnclePaco, the UnclePaco block may be in error (or may be correct).

I have evaluated the most recent UnclePaco edits that are not on user talk pages (evaluated only article and article talk page edits). I evaluated the following http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxwell_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=183565172 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183564288 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183558600 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183552883 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183550797 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183550511 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominicans_Don%27t_Play&diff=prev&oldid=183504691 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominicans_Don%27t_Play&diff=prev&oldid=183503229

None of them seem obviously POV. Further research may reveal bad or POV editing but I only looked at the above edits. WARNING: Sometimes, a vandalism edit escapes me because my English is not so good.

Summary: The user should explain why the edits are objectionable. The user should describe failed dispute resolution steps. Then the user should explain why the UnclePaco block is valid and how UnclePaco is linked with CashRules. After these steps are done, then a CU may be appropriate. This is the best way to get along with each other in Wikipedia. Jumping straight to CU is potential incivil, particularly if the underlying question is an edit dispute. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this edit is because FT2 has said that CU are in short supply and because CU is not magic pixie dust. There is a level of uncertainty with any CU. Most Dominicans in the USA live in New York. There are few in Chicago or Tokyo. On the other hand, edits are out in the open to see. Editing "Hitler is the greatest man to have ever lived" is vandalism plain and simple. "Israel is the criminal party in the Gaza flotilla" is a controversial statement, even if there is a reference. Let's try to work things out. If some acts crazy or POV, then by all means CU. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Even FisherQueen agrees with my idea. Fisher describes his secret plan to block CashRules, which is by showing bad edits, not screaming "sock". See SamEV's talk page where administrator FisherQueen writes "...Instead of just saying 'we aren't going to do it because he's a sockpuppet,' explain why it's wrong for the article, in a way that others can understand and agree with. ... Please, keep your discussion of User:CashRules in more useful places- no one who is involved in investigating or blocking him will even see it at Talk:Dominican Republic, so it doesn't serve any purpose there other than to sidetrack the conversation there. I started that discussion so you could reach consensus together, because once you reach consensus, if he continues to push the edits against consensus, he'll be blocked for edit-warring no matter who he is, and the problem is solved. By preventing the discussion from happening, you're making my secret plan to block him not work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my tardy reply. I had not noticed this page on my watchlist until now.

I'm confused. Are you saying that if I come across an account that I suspect of being a sockpuppet, I should only pursue an SPI or CU if the edit is disruptive, and only if? IOW, if it's not disruptive, I should just let it slide? Are you saying that being a sockpuppet is not enough for an account to be blocked? SamEV (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC); 02:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw a discussion on RFA where one person suggested that all administrators should be subjected to a checkuser investigation. The consensus disagreed and was that this would lead to false positives (evidence showing sockpuppetry when no administrative sockpuppetry was actually done). If this consensus is still valid, then there should be evidence of disruption as well as suspicion. I am merely reporting what I read in Wikipedia! I, personally, have zero interest in the Dominican Republic. I have never met a Dominican, at least not from that country but I have met a Spanish priest in the Dominican order, which is an entirely different use of the same word. Good luck! I wish everyone in Wikipedia could work cooperatively and as friendly colleagues. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish that the people who've been involved in this hadn't been so quick to assume stuff, such as that the only reason I'm doing this is because it's personal or somehow a mere, sudden content dispute. I always suspected the user of being a sockpuppet. I actually did let it go for over a year, and have actually been faulted for that! But a few weeks ago he took it to a new level, so I decided that it was time to do this. It's also clear that it was worth waiting for him to edit more so there would be more of an edit history to compare with the blocked accounts.

I'll ask the admins involved in blocking the accounts to comment, since you've raised questions about such blocking. Thank you for your comments. SamEV (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here as one of the ones who previously dealt with UnclePaco. First off, on the WP:DUCK test, it's obvious that CashRules = UnclePaco. Just from looking at edit summaries and writing styles, it's painfully obvious. So the real question is do we consider UnclePaco to be banned. As I recall, it was a bit of a daisy chain to get from UnclePaco to Mykungfu (talk · contribs), who was the actual banned user. If you just look at those two accounts in isolation, their writing styles are similar, though they edit completely different topics. IIRC (and this has been a long time), Mykungfu's main editing interest was adding his POV to articles about historically African American fraternities. UnclePaco was more interested in articles about Dominicans and Puerto Ricans. So from that standpoint, they would seem to be different, but admitted UnclePaco sock Armyguy11 (talk · contribs) wrote a rather racist article Angry black man syndrome · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] and visited old Mykungfu stomping grounds to ask for help with it. It seems like a rather strange place for someone to pull out of a hat to go to ask for help if you've never edited before. Also, they clearly both used the same IP (64.131.205.111 (talk · contribs)) and UnclePaco's explanation - that he sometimes used wifi from the school across the street - made no sense as an explanation. If that were the case, there would have been other people on it, which there clearly were not. If UnclePaco wasn't Mykungfu, he was a pretty unlucky guy. Now all that said, if he is editing constructively, I wouldn't be opposed to lifting the ban after some finite period of time. By socking, he demonstrates that he does not respect our rules, but if he would be willing to abide by the ban for some finite time, I have no problem with allowing him back if that's something that you want to pursue. (See WP:Standard offer.) I do have an objection, though, to rewarding socking in defiance of a ban. --B (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

---