Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aergas/Archive

08 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

There seems to be a link between this user SFV210 and Aergas. They are making similar edits on a similar subject, with similar content details, maintain a similar use of language mannerisms, and they use a similar form of broken english. SFV210 is a new user who signed up coincidentally in the midst of an administrator-moderated dispute between Aergas and I last month, in which an administrator was threatening that both of us should be banned. The objective here is to modify articles to suggest Mexico being a more 'genetically european' nation. Both are also having issues with the same user Inhakito. In the recent series of edits to the article including this diff, he attempted to add content regarding chileans and costa ricans after this content had been previously removed by consensus in this diff , see article talk page for more info, which is in a similar vein to aergas' 'threat' against chileans on inhakito's talk page. , in addition to aergas' mention of chileans and costa ricans on the talk page. Both also make use of the same sources on the genetic data. Even more curiously, edits to this specific page under this account, began right after another user who had been acting as a moderating party reverted Aergas' edits, and aergas said that he would add 'additional sources later'. Alon12 (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe there are already some diffs in the paragraph I placed here, or what else is needed? I tried to ask Risker on his talk page. Alon12 (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I provided a motive, context of the new account, similarity in edits to the diffs, similar use of broken english and a main focus on a primary topic. The evidence is largely behavioral, I did not initially request a CU over a standard investigation.
 * Diff of the master
 * Diff of the sock


 * Diffs indicating common behavior over a common subject
 * Diff of the sock
 * Diff of the master
 * Alon12 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I don't have any problem with being investigated or getting any kind of scrutiny that proves my innocence in this affair, Alon12 shows a mentality of "all against me" and other editors have pointed the fact that Alon12 is indeed, a single purpose account, he also has opened around a dozen of cases on different noticeboards related to this issue (something surprising for an account that has been around for only one month and have done only 16 edits on Wikiepedia articles) and has been accused of forum shopping (see the discusion in the same link). All this is part of a fight that has been going on for more than one month on the same article and this wouldn't be the first time that a sockpuppet investigation is opened on this (I opened one some time ago ). Additionaly I find the evidence presented poor and vague, specially compared to the evidence I gathered before opening my own case weeks ago. Aergas (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checkuser comment: I need some diffs before I can consider running a check here.  Risker (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional info. I'm not able to work on this tonight but will reopen this case. Seems only SPI clerks get to relist them. ;)  Risker (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Checkuser basically agreed to check this case, as I understand.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  22:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is what Risker was indicating, I think she didn't have time to review the case. Regardless though, each CU has to review the evidence before running a check. At this point I do not see enough evidence to proceed with the case. What i'm looking for is: diff showing the previous sock or master and diff showing the current sock, then a very brief explanation as to why it shows they are related. Also, in the original application, there is a diff that is a duplicate of one before. Please try to avoid duplicates, as it has been used before by people to just make it appear more conclusive. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * - Evidence is no way conclusive. Two users having similar point of view and making similar edits, but it does not mean they are the same person. I'm denying CheckUser.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After reviewing both accounts' contributions, I'm agreeing with Vanjagenije -- similar interests, yes, but the evidence is far too weak to demonstrate any socking, and I'm closing this case with no action. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)