Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cazique/Archive

Report date June 13 2009, 21:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Ed Fitzgerald

User:TeePee-20.7 was determined to be a sockpuppet of User:Cazique and was blocked on 22 June 2008.

TeePee-20.7:
 * 1) When the User:TeePee-20.7 account was first opened, among its initial article edits were those to Spic and the "Spic" entry of List of ethnic slurs, in particular concentrating on the supposed origins of the word, and on the use of it towards people of color regardless of whether they were of Hispanic heritage or not.
 * 2) TeePee's general area of interest was in Australians of Latin American heritage.
 * 3) TeePee posted often on talk pages (38% of edits, vs. 54% to article)
 * 4) In May 2008, TeePee strongly spoke out against a move of the article Latino Australian to Latin Australian. This move was made anyway.

LatinoAussie:
 * 1) Among User:LatinoAussie's first article edits were ones to the "Spic" entry of the List of ethnic slurs (, and to Nigger {) where his focus has been the origin of the word "spic" and its relation to the word "nigger".
 * 2) LatinoAussie's area of interest is in Australians of Latin American heritage.
 * 3) LatinoAussie posts often on talk pages (over 47%, vs. 36% to articles)
 * 4) Beginning early this month, the newly created LatinoAussie account has tried to move the article Latin Australian to Latino Australian, first attempting to make the move himself (which he couldn't do because of the existing redirect) and then putting in a request at WP:RM. When the opinions of editors (including myself) were expressed against this move, and instead in favor of moving the article to Latin American Australian, LatinoAussie responded with personal attacks, accusations of ethnic bias, and repetitive (and disruptive) responses to every comment posted.  LatinoAussie then went to admin User:Henrik and gave a distorted recital of the events in an attempt to have me blocked.

I believe that the available evidence is very good to indicate that LatinoAussie is a sock of User:TeePee-20.7 (and therefore a sock of User:Cazique, attempting to finish TeePee's unfinished work of moving Latin Australian to Latino Australian. Their areas of interest, even specific articles edited, are the same, and their attitudes - pugnacious, immature, attacking, disruptive, dissembling - are the same.  I would like a CheckUser to verify LatinAussie's status. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * 1) Take not that as soon as I left a comment on administrator Henrik's talkpage asking him to look at Ed Fitzgerald's general conduct towards me as I think it is warranting of a block, he decides to make these accusations against me. This article was originally Latino Australian, and I'm not entirely sure if it was made by the user TeePee but TeePee did not want it being moved to Kransky's made up label for my people. I am now wanting it to be moved back to it's original title "Latino Australian" as this is the most common term and the most preferred. I am a proud Latino Australian as I assume TeePee might have been in light of particular pages that he/she edited. Now if two Latino Australians choose this term, along with the other 40 I found on bebo, then what does this say to you about Kransky's deceit to the general wikipedia community who do not have a clue on the subject such as Ed Fitzgerald. You are welcome to do a checkuser on TeePee and Cazique but as I feel this request is nothing but fishing and the accusation is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) you must respect my privacy. Otherwise what reason would I have not to fish whenever someone tried to have me blocked? LatinoAussie (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Icestorm815 •  Talk  18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All accounts blocked and tagged. Icestorm815 •  Talk  19:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * the following are Cazique:

Evidence submitted by Kransky
Behavour of Plzppl and LatinoAussie appear identical, and while circumstantial is compelling:


 * Plzppl first appeared on 20 June 2009, the day that LatinoAussie made his last contribution
 * LatinoAussie was identified as one of seven sockpuppets of User:Cazique
 * Plzppl's and LatinoAussie's edits are mostly to do with rap music and the article Latin American Australian where he aggressively fought a long and vexatious debate with established users (he wanted the article renamed Latino Australian). Plzppl recently renamed Latin American Australian ignoring the outcome of that debate (see talk page of the article).

For further details contact admin User:Icestorm815

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Kransky (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

because, will need to be decided on behavioural evidence, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Kransky (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

except all the accounts listed are, and they're all blocked. I don't think there's an real need for a checkuser here as if Gtfalcon is a sock of Cazique then it would appear that s/he has a very static IP (judging by the time between the old account being blocked and this new one appearing) and therefore that IP will be caught by the autoblock. However I'm leaving this open as I'd like a second opinion from another clerk or checkuser, SpitfireTally-ho! 13:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Autoblocks only last 24h, so I doubt we can draw any conclusion from the timing. I don't see any non-stale accounts either so the only possible thing to do here would be a sleeper check. Tim Song (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * to check for sleepers. Will move this case in a sec, but given a recent report at Sockpuppet investigations/Cazique I think there's a reasonable probability that there are some. Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No sleepers. Brandon (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)