Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andres A Cisneros/Archive

28 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similarity in editor name and all edits are to the same COI article: AUC ( Andres Unidos Cisneros ), including removal of a speedy delete tag  with the second account, apparently contravening the no removal of speedy tags by the original article author. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looks like they disappeared. I'll mark for close, please re-file if more problems occur. TN X Man  14:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

06 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:Andres Unidos Cisneros initially created the Andres Unidos Cisneros article (hoax) as recorded on his userpage. User:Alexandra aguilera then recreated the article, removing CSD tags numerous times, receiving four warnings by various editors. Then a new account for User:William Lo Giudice was created, followed by further removal of CSD tags. The User:AUC ( Andres A Cisneros ) account was discovered when searching google for more information about the subject. Also discovered a previous SPI archive here: Sockpuppet investigations/Andres A Cisneros/Archive. Cindy ( talk to me ) 07:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Without knowing that Cindamuse had started this investigation, I started one myself. I am now consolidating them into one. Like Cindamuse, I listed Alexandra aguilera and William Lo Giudice. I missed AUC ( Andres A Cisneros ), which Cindamuse listed, but I also caught Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ), which Cindamuse missed. I am adding the additional account that I found to the list above. I shall also move this case from Sockpuppet investigations/Andres Unidos Cisneros to Sockpuppet investigations/Andres A Cisneros, where Cindamuse has found a prior case. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The following was written before seeing Cindamuse's contribution and the old SPI.
 * All of these have edited almost exclusively in the twice-created article Andres Unidos Cisneros, its talk page, and a userspace copy of the article at User:Andres Unidos Cisneros. In fact, apart from a very small number of talk page posts and two user page edits, the only other edits from any of these accounts have been three edits to David Guetta, all made within a period of 49 minutes. Andres Unidos Cisneros was either complete fiction or else a vanity page about a non-notable person, including a large amount of fiction to make him seem more important than he is: either way the article was a hoax. Claims were made about Andres Unidos Cisneros which actually apply to David Guetta, and Alexandra aguilera made a speedy deletion request on David Guetta, giving totally spurious reasons for doing so. The account Andres Unidos Cisneros was created on 29 May 2012, but made no edits until 29 November 2012, and on that same day the accounts Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ) and Alexandra aguilera were created, and Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ) started editing. Alexandra aguilera started editing on 6 december, by which time Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ) was blocked. William Lo Giudice was created on 6 December 2012. Five of William Lo Giudice's seven mainspace edits have removed a speedy deletion tag from Andres Unidos Cisneros, after Alexandra aguilera had been warned about removing a speedy deletion tag from the article, which she had created.
 * I regard these as total ducks, and have blocked them, apart from Andres Unidos Cisneros ( ID&T ), which was already blocked by Jimfbleak. However, in view of the fact that accounts have been created before the blocks on other accounts, and brought in to edit later, I think a checkuser in case of sleepers would be desirable. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I have seen the additional accounts in Cindamuse's contribution and the old SPI, the ducks are quacking even louder, but there is even more reason for a checkuser, as the evidence for accounts that have lain asleep while others have existed is greater. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - Endorsing for a sleeper check. Several of these accounts are stale, however. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The following are ✅:
 * Plus, I found:
 * The remaining accounts are . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, tagged, and now closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, I found:
 * The remaining accounts are . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, tagged, and now closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The remaining accounts are . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, tagged, and now closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The remaining accounts are . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Socks blocked, tagged, and now closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)