Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcmenal/Archive

Report date April 20 2009, 16:51 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

The sockpuppet (IP based out of Tijuana, Mexico) reverted edits to 'Outline of Mexico' that are similar to those supported by the alleged puppetmaster (out of nearby Mexicali) who has a loooong history of edit warring (e.g., Geography of Mexico, Template:Central America topic, Outline of Mexico - having violated 3rr at that article recently) and blockage. The sockpuppet then proceeded to file a misleading 3RR report, posing as the reporting IP. If confirmed, an extensive block of the alleged puppetmaster may be warranted. User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by # User-216-234-60-106


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Is ironically that you accuse me of sockpuppetry, Corticopia (aka 69.158.150.169, 216.234.60.106, 69.158.148.214 and many others), when you are the master of sockpuppetry and 3RR violations.All what me and others asked for, is not to allow anonymous edits in Mexico and Central America related articles. Jcmenal (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I smell bullshit here; why would a user (with an IP as their user) who has never made an edit do this? $50 says the reporter is a puppet.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Because I was unable to report on this page with this IP; I edit anonymously. Are you an administrator who should be looking after this?  If not ...User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, IP's cannot make CheckUser requests, and its his or her choice whether to register an account. Can we please assume good faith? - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Behavioural evidence is sufficient. Quacking like a duck. Mayalld (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * The IP can be assumed to be  due to the identical edits made at Outline of Mexico. I would recommend a two week block for Jcmenal for abusing multiple accounts. This will be his 4th block. A one month block for the IP is appropriate. The problem that I hope this will solve is the edit-warring at Outline of Mexico. I am willing to make these blocks if noone objects, and if no other admin gets around to it first. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Concur with EdJohnston, blocks made.  MBisanz  talk 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 29 2009, 02:26 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Today, two edits were made (a POV reversion to 'Geography of Mexico' without comment and an innocuous edit to a CONCACAF soccer article) by IP 201.143.67.248 -- which is very similar to one of the sockpuppet IPs (201.143.220.153) in the prior report and also with the same ISP based out of Tijuana; these are consistent with similar edits made by the alleged puppetmaster Jcmenal (who has edited both articles); compare with this, and also note the puppetmaster's editing of similar CONCACAF articles. The puppetmaster appears to be evading a 2-week block, and a 4-week block was also placed on the anon IP; additional blocks may be warranted.


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

There is no evidence of any potential 3RR violation, and no other reason has been put forward. This looks like pretty bog-standard block evasion, that can be handled without CU intervention. Mayalld (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is possibel that the editor making this complaint, User-216-234-60-106, is a Corticopia sock. (See the archived cases for Jcmenal for some data). Nonetheless I think that having a checkuser look into this is still worthwhile. Corticopia was blocked for a month on 15 July 2008 for edit warring at Geography of Mexico and has not used that account since. To reduce the unneeded domination of the editing at Geography of Mexico by rival armies of IP socks (presumably, Jcmenal against Corticopia), I have semiprotected it for 3 months. Looking into the present case is worthwhile since a longer block of Jcmenal may be justified if CU confirms it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - We need a cu done to figure things out here. There is ongoing disruption by not one, but two people using socks, enough to cause an article to be semi-protected. It would be useful to determine who owns the account User-216-234-60-106, (it is likely Corticopia as ed said) but to be sure. ——  nix eagle email me 02:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have been following Corticopia's behaviour for several years now, including two positive sockpuppet reports for his previous accounts. I have gathered all the evidence necessary to do a deep investigation into this matter, please check my user talk for more details, all the evidence is listed there. There is another possible Corticopia sock by the name Ixtapl, who hasn't been on for a while and after the page Geography of Mexico was blocked for anonymous edits, he reappeared. Edit pattern consistent with the other accounts.  Alex Covarrubias  ( Talk? )  06:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ IP == . I see no other attempt to circumvent the block. The IP looks dynamic, I don't think a block would be useful. -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User-216-234-60-106: please stick to one account. -- Luk  talk (lucasbfr) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date May 20 2009, 18:47 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by User-216-234-60-106

The puppetmaster was recently blocked for edit warring and socpuppetry. Amid a renewed edit war at 'Central America' regarding the locator map, IP 201.143.216.240 (which is from Tijuana, near to Mexicali where Jcmenal is and the address for which is similar to IPs used by Jcmenal previously) reverted the long-standing map in favour of a newer one which is apparently challenged. This may have been an attempt to avoid scrutiny given the puppetmaster's recent block, but this IP apparently also edited during the puppetmaster's block period (and was demonstrated to be circumventing the block beforehand, too). The edits made by the IP resemble those made by the puppetmaster (e.g., to CONCACAF articles). Additional sanctions may be warranted. User-216-234-60-106 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

I have reason to believe that the filing IP is a sock of User:Corticopia. I have misgivings about the propriety of socks filing reports at noticeboards, especially when the parent account, Corticopia, is not blocked. Avoidance of scrutiny while attempting to identify somebody else seems ironic. I withdraw my objection if Corticopia will file this case under his registered account. There is a longer discussion of Corticopia in the archived cases of Jcmenal. I recommend that usage of checkuser on Jcmenal not be approved here unless the submitter is willing to be investigated himself in all the Jcmenal cases. There is a longer discussion of the use of socks in edit wars about Central America over at User talk:EdJohnston, though I have not been able to figure out what admin action would be the best response. The latest standard-bearer of Corticopia's position in these wars appears to be User:Ixtapl, who returned from a long holiday when I semiprotected Geography of Mexico on 29 April.
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

If the IP above is determined to be Jcmenal, then there would be a case that Jcmenal evaded his block, which lasted for two weeks from 23 April. However there are many IPs editing at Central America on one side or the other, so the evidence is hardly conclusive.

As more and more of these articles are semiprotected, it forces the socks to become more creative, so I suppose that's a benefit. I suggest that Central America be the next to be semiprotected for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC) as this is a dynamic IP, the case is moot. Mayalld (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Mayalld (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * per the note from CU Luk in the prior case regarding the status of the reporter, there status of the submitter is very relevant here. Mayalld (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions