Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GalingPinas/Archive

19 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I saw this article in the AfD log. I don't know who GalingPinas is nor do i know what Circball is, only after reading the user's draft article. Looks like his username has been block and the article's abandoned. Article may merit adoption by other editors on their subpage for incubation if they so chose. PinasIto (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Since a rationale was not given by the nom...User:GalingPinas created quite a few "Circball" articles in various places, and was extremely combative with regards to them, with his refusal to listen, personal attacks, and other issues ending up in an indef. Per Tarc, as of 4:06 on Dec 18, all Circball articles were deleted; User:PinasIto was created on 13:02 Dec 19th and promptly creates WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Circball. The duck is strong in this one, so I've requested CU to clear this up. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Even though the account seems new I'm not a brand new user. That is, this is not my first day in the sense of reading WP articles/drafts,etc. I've known and read WP since ten years ago and I'm very familiar with its processes, even without using an account. And it doesn't require to have an account to know the processes of abandoned articles/drafts, Afds and all the other public jargon that you guys use to talk among yourselves about articles. All these are public and anyone can familiarize themselves with any of these topics. Like I said I don't know who GalingPinas is or his/her article Circball, until after I read his/her public drafts. Also, looks like the Circball draft has been abandoned by this blocked user. Other editors are welcome to adopt/contribute to the article itself for further improvement. I don't think its appropriate to disregard the article itself despite the behavior of the original editor who seem to have a passion on the subject. I'm careful not to adopt this particular article seeing the baggage associated with it with the original editor, that's why I listed it on the adoption page for other editors to consider it. However, listing it in the abandoned pages is neither an endorsement of the original creator's opinions nor an endorsement of the article itself, being a new un-involved editor.. As for the article itself, being from the Philippines and learning that this variant of basketball originated from the Philippines, it only peaked my interest. It looks like an interesting article, though not notable as others suggested.
 * I also object to the requested CU as this would disclose private personal information about myself, something that I have held for the last ten years since WP's creation. Please close this sockpuppet investigation as this is un-warranted. It would not be of benefit to WP if another potential editor is chased away just because of someone else actions. PinasIto 21:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if it shows that you are "V. V." (no need to explain, that name is the primary source connected to the topic of circball) then you have a COI and they will block you for good. Best thing to do is come clean, ask for forgiveness, and become a constructive member of the community.  The Pinas project could really use your help. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand about V.V after reading the source. But I'm not V.V.. Wow! This is unbelieve! Very disturbing. So if anyone who is banished from WP (username and/or article), and another editor comes in (new or old) to just merely, merely list that banished article associated with a banished username, that editor can be banished as well/or censored or labeled as sockpuppet? Can someone clarify this coz it's really really buffling to me as an un-involved new editor. PinasIto 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinasIto (talk • contribs)
 * Look, the chances that you are a different user are very slim. There are patterns on Wikipedia, just as there are patterns in a game like circball, for example. Viriditas (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your username is very similar, Your first edits are in the same field. There is more than enough evidence here to support a check user being carried out. If wrong then no harm is done to you. Edinburgh   Wanderer  22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. So I could setup a username called Edinburgh2 and edit one of your banned articles (let's suppose there is one). Yet we are two distinct editors. You're saying I could be banned as well? This is worse than a trademark case when a simple change in letters of a brand name is considered trademark vio. Worse. I don't see why GalingPinas has a trademark on the word "Pinas" that nobody else could use. When I created this username, WP didn't tell me that someone in violation already owns this username or part of it? We're not talking about trademarks here. I don't own this username, neither does GalingPinas And I explain on the talkpage that I just got this article from Galing's userpage. It peaked my interest as far as the article is concerned and listed it as a draft for anyone to adopt and/or improve and DID not even put it on my own userpage, let alone my main userpage. I don't see the sock puppetry in that, do you?. Plus Check User will reveal my private personal information which i will vigorously oppose period. You can take this article, this username but i will not allow disclosure of my personal information period. PinasIto 22:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just left you a message on your talk page explaining to you exactly what's going to happen if you continue this. This is pretty much the last time you're ever going to be heard on this issue. So your best bet is to stop what you are doing and change your behavior.  Otherwise, you're going to learn very quickly what "tag and bag" means. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are ✅ - no surprise there as it's a username change.
 * My magic checkuser dust says is also  - there are tiny differences, as there are between Circball and GalingPinas, but basically these guys are editing from the same place with the same provider, and on the WP:DUCK evidence I would say that it's the same person.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged as a sock of GalingPinas. –MuZemike 23:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Apparently User:GalingPinas was originally User:Circball, then, literally 92 minutes after being renamed to GP, created a new User:Circball. I've blocked and tagged User:Circball. Up to others if the sockmaster should be upped from 1 year block to indef. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fairly standard to recreate one's original account following a rename, so as to prevent impersonation. However, you're right to have picked it up as a problem and to have blocked, thanks. For now I'm going to archive this with no change to GalingPinas' block; if someone wants to up that probably best to discuss it at a different venue (or just do it). Cheers, SpitfireTally-ho! 01:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)