Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GiovBag/Archive

22 April 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''


 * 1) User User:GiovBag is a self-identified Chilean Italian who has been editing articles related to Chile, Italy, various ethnicities and race-related topics. So is Jcestepario.
 * 2) Based in both GiovBag's and Jcestepario's edit patterns you can tell they are the same.
 * 3) Jcestepario showed up at the article Mexicans of European descent (ending a long period of inactivity ) by the time GiovBag was blocked and discredited as a good-faith editor by fellow Wikipedians. Jcestepario tried to give the false impression of being a different person to me  and to the community.
 * 4) GiovBag used to edit war from anonymous IPs to avoid scrutinity at Mexican of European descent and Lega Nord (and others). Anonymous IPs from Italy and whithin the same range, always reverted to GiovBag's version.
 * 5) And finally and most importantly, what confirms it all, is that IP 95.247.81.39 (same IP range of that of GiovBag) claims now to be/identifies himself as Jcestepario reverting to Jcestepario's proposed changes . In my opinion he accidentally logged out and edited anonymously, exposing his IP and leading us to catch him.  Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  23:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

What are you talking about?
 * 1) False. GiovBag don't self-identified as Chilean Italian.  and he don't make editions of chilean related topics. Look at GiovBag's contributions
 * Now, look at my contributions.
 * 1) The only common article between us, is "Mexicans of European descent", that he wanted to delete and I want to keep and improve. In this article I just proposed some changes to neutralize it, someones that had been well received, even by the ( Talk? )|complainant . After one week, I did these changes. Please, see the talk page.
 * 2) Is false that it has returned to the GiovBag's version.
 * 3) I arrived on this article because I follow the edits of the user Pablozeta in Spanish wikipedia . In fact I saw the conflict with GiovBag. Mistakenly, I thought to propose some changes to improve the article and avoid the intention of deleting it, as wanted by GivBag.
 * 4) The same range?, I live at Rome, and I have Telecom internet provider - as most people in Italy -, they use dynamic IPs. I don't know what are my ranges, but they changes every day. In the best cases this range could prove that GiovBag lives in Rome or Lazio, a region or nearby. Umbria? (judging by his photo)
 * 5) It's really annoying to be a victim of unfair accusations, but I guess that will make for a good reason. Unfortunately did not appeal to good faith. Best. --Jcestepario (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * AlexCovarrubias, I'm having a hard time with the logic here. You more or less proved that Jcestpario is that 95.x IP - not that Giovbag is the same thing. I'm honestly not seeing any similarity in terms of edits - but maybe I'm missing something. Can you give some actual diffs supporting your claims? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The logic is: Jcestepario showed up at Mexicans of European descent just by the time GiovBag was blocked, claiming to be a different person, which I and others believed. He acted as somebody else because GiovBag was discredited and his edits were always reverted as they were considered vandalism/disruption by other editors. Jcestepario proposed changes are basically the same GiovBag wanted to intoduce and continously reverted to, only with a twist.


 * It is highly suspicious that after GiovBag was blocked, Jcestepario account shows up ending a long-term retirement and since then, has been mainly focused on the article Mexicans of European descent, which GiovBag so vehemently reverted. Then Jcestepario accidentally revealed his anonimous IP 95.247.81.39 which I immediatly recognized as the same range from which GiovBag used to revert us and other articles, here only two examples (IPs are already reported in this SPI case) out of all the IPs I reported:


 * Anonymous IPs
 * GiovBag


 * So after seeing Jcestepario and GiovBag IP had the same IP range, I investigated a little more and discovered they both also edit Chilean-Italian articles and race-related articles (even more suspicious):


 * GiovBag
 * Jcestepario


 * So Jcestepario basically shows by the time GiovBag was blocked and discredited, and continued to propose a very similar version of that of GiovBag, they both edit race-related articles, chilean-italian related articles and most importantly, they have the same IP range. So this clearly complains with WP:DUCK  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Jcestepario and GiovBag show the same POV against articles related to white people in Latin America. But Jcestepario claims in this SPI he "wants to keep Mexicans of European descent article" (to distance himself from GiovBag's account) but voted to delete "White Latin American" stating the same arguments of GiovBag.  Alex  Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jcestepario is kinda mocking the fact that we discovered his IP . He's making fun out of it. It is also notable that GiovBag only resume editing with that account, after this SPI was filled, as in wanting to give the impression they were different persons, which are not.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  04:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First fallacy: I didn't show me up when GiovBag was blocked long period of inactivity. I did it on 29 March 2011, as you can see.
 * Second fallacy: highly suspicious?. This means that following the blocking of GiovBag any user who edit the article against your point of view (for example, in March 2011) would be suspected of being GiovBag. It's ridiculous.
 * Third fallacy: I made the proposals on 17 at 00:23 and GiovBag was blocked on 17 at 21:18 . That is, 21 hours after my edits. In fact, when I did this edit, the GiovBag's block had expired.
 * Fourth fallacy: accidentally revealed my anonimous IP?, I don't accidentally exposed anything. I was editing with the wiki profile in Spanish 22 April, 22:14.  22 April, 22:21.
 * Fifth fallacy: We have the same IP range? There is a lot of Telecom IPs begining in 95.xxx.xxx at Rome (and other cities in Italy), they are dynamics for whom we have wi-fi, and are allocated from a central server... you could ask.
 * Sixth fallacy: We edit the same topics? GiovBag had edited just ONE article of "italian-chilean" topics. And I never edited an article about italian politics or geography . In fact the only article in common is Mexican of European descent.
 * One last thing. Am agree with an article about the importance of European heritage in Mexico, but am not agree with to do original research, inventing ethnic groups as White Latin American. In fact, in this case if you see that, the GiovBag's IP is 80.116.199.91 not 95.xxx.xxx.
 * It seems to me a simple manipulation of information. It's absurd, am sorry.
 * --95.250.213.167 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC) This is my IP in this moment, you can investigate it. Bye.--Jcestepario (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I recognize that some of these IPs anonymous (not all) maybe could be mine, because sometimes I forget to register. Not all of these. But, I didn't it in bad faith and I didn't violate the blockin. I reject categorically to be User:Jcestepario, whose defense makes that very clear and he informed me of this consultation . I am stubborn and impulsive, when the people don't discuss and imposes their position uncritically. Which brought me and a block on Lega Nord, maybe the way I am is nasty, but I always try to reasoning about arguments and references. In this case, Alex can not say the same, since the only thing he has done is to reverse the changes and accused his opponents.--GiovBag (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * False. When you make 2 reverts and you "forget to log in with your registered account" to make the 3rd one it is very easy to tell you are well aware of 3RR and just want to avoid scrutinity. All those IPs are yours.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  00:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's easy to make accusations without proof when you see others as opponents or enemies to defeat, without assuming good faith. Involving people who have nothing to do, just because they go against your point of view. But everything has a limit. You must be more responsible. --GiovBag (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm still not convinced of the connection between the two named accounts. The IPs seem to have tapered off when the article was protected, so I think we're good for now. Relist if there are further developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

20 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lega_Nord&action=history - same rv as suspected sockmaster Juanm   (talk)  18:34, 20 June 2011 (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

 * Lega Nord has already been protected, so I think we can close this for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 11:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)