Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/95.122.136.229/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

On Oct. 31, ip user was banned for 48 hours for edit warring on Genocide of indigenous peoples and Spanish colonization of the Americas. On Oct. 31, User:Frijolesconqueso was created. ip consistently edit warred r/t Spanish Colonization of the Americas. Specifically, they continually tried to add a questionable source from an interview and delete a link from academic Clifford Trafzer on the page, and was combative about the link itself on the talk page. On Nov. 4th, after they had been confirmed so they could edit Genocide of indigenous peoples, User:Frijolesconqueso added the questionable interview again. They then tried to call into question the Trafzer source and added a POV banner to the page. In addition to coming out of nowhere to question a source that a previously banned account called into question, the POV banner and reasoning for it ("stonewalling," "own," etc.) is very similar to language used by User:Php2000 on the Spanish Colonization of the Americas Talk Page during a debate r/t the same content, during which ip user and Php2000 supported one another in an argument before Php2000 was outed as a sock puppet.

Following all of this, recently User:Frijolesconqueso has gone to the Spanish colonization of the Americas page to call the same sources into question where ip user previously deleted sections multiple times, and then ip user and Php2000 worked together to make arguments. This time User:Frijolesconqueso removed sections of the lead that previously banned accounts called into question, deleted the Trafzer citation again, and continued to call into question "extremely weak sources" in much the same manner as the previous accounts. Finally, User:Moledecaderas, a fifteen day old account, stepped in following Frijolesconqueso's edits to add more sources only on this new edit.

In short, ip user and User:Php2000 were both banned for contentious editing and sock puppeting, respectively, and then User:Frijolesconqueso was created and began making edits to the same articles in the same manner. ip user was originally questioned about their links to User:Filologo2, themself a sock puppet of user:Azerti83, known for making combative and contentious edits on articles relating to Spanish Colonization. This entire tangled web is suspect to me, and, more than anything else, frustrating as I try to edit pages r/t colonization, genocide, and the environment.--Hobomok (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Hobomok (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Hobomok: 1) Engaging in online harassment by reverting my edits on my own talk page, 2) intentionally avoiding discussion on how to improve articles and build consensus by rambling about your interactions with other editors on article talk pages and, most important, 3)desperately trying to get editors who interact with you in a respectful and polite manner banned from wikipedia because you have no other way to impose (or even rationally argue in favor of) your fringe POV are no way to behave on Wikipedia. It is contrary to policy and in itself disruptive. I hope this type of behavior is not further encouraged by admins.Frijolesconqueso (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
We still have User:Php2000 to compare against, a registered account which is not stale. There has been some turmoil over at the Spanish Wikipedia involving User:Frijolesconqueso: At es:Discusión:Colonización española de América he wrote some words, complaining about the English version of the same article, Spanish colonization of America (machine translation): 'Has anybody seen the English version of this page? Look at it is a p ... xenophobic shame full of slander and falsehoods without any source... Please, somebody do something'. It seems Frijolesconqueso got blocked for a week for a dispute involving this comment by an administrator, es:User:MadriCR. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added four more suspected socks to the above list based on technical evidence:, , and . EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * On review, I think some of these accounts should be assigned to different masters. I am unsure if this IP has any connection to, based on their editing interests. It looks as though is the oldest account that cares about possible genocide in the Spanish colonization of North America. So I'd make an SPI report for Filologo2 as the master and put down Php2000 and all the registered accounts above as his socks. I would include  as well. Can a clerk tell me if this is practical? EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, I've created Sockpuppet investigations/Filologo2. That really only leaves this case with the single account, Moledecaderas.  For the moment, the case is still named 95.122.136.229 even though I've already put that IP with Filologo2.  I'm not sure what you intended after that.  Was the idea that Moledecaderas should get moved to Azerti83? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * - while I figure out what to do with the rest of this case. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Moledecaderas per the Filologo2 sock case, so I believe this case can be closed once the clerks are satisfied. I don't think moving to another case is necessary. Perhaps it is confusing when a case names an IP as the sockmaster? Azerti83 has only five edits and has not been around since 2017, so making connections with them may not be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing. To whoever archives this, the case got kind of confusing, so please give this an extra review to make sure we've cleaned up all the loose ends. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)