Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Langus-TxT/Archive

24 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edit by IP editor citing WP:NPOVT, Langus-TxT has frequently used this in allegations on bias on Falklands related articles. Example. Seems clear that this IP is him and I assumed he had simply forgotten to log in. Another IP editor removed what he claimed was POV text from another related article, and Langus-Txt also reverted  claiming to be the 3rd editor to make the same claim. Whois records, indicate that both are from the same ISP and same geographic location ,. There appears strong circumstantial evidence Langus is behind the IP edits.

I would have simply written this of as an honest mistake but having warned Langus about WP:SOCK he responded by accusing me of bad faith. The circumstantial evidence seems strong that he was responsible for the IP edits, the purpose of which could be to a) Creating an illusion of support and b) avoiding scrutiny over WP:3RR for which I have also had to warn Langus.

Contribution history is slightly odd, account was registed on 18 June 2007, and made no contributions of signficance till April 2011. My wiki contributions have been plagued by sock puppets of late, both IP and named accounts, so I may be getting paranoid. Bringing it here for oversight. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To add, I gave a warning first presuming a genuine mistake ie WP:AGF and whilst Cablevision might be a large provider, the IP addresses can narrow down the geographic location quite substantially. This wasn't based solely on ISP.
 * I have only brought it here as it appears the IP was used to give the impression that the removal of cited content had greater support than it did and to avoid 3RR. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Defense against claims
I saw this coming. Lets see:
 * 190.246.169.89 is not me. That's why I supported his/her opinion.
 * 190.247.201.117 was me. Wee Curry Monster already knows that as I publicly admitted it in the discussion at the talk page.
 * Cablevision/Fibertel is on of the biggest (and few) ISP providers in Argentina. I tried to hint that to WCM when he warned me. Note also that "same geographic location" is incorrect, as Cablevision is in 65 different cities across the country. Note: see further insight below.

Please note that after WCM's warning, no suspected socket puppetry has occurred. Relation between us have been difficult since I start actively contributing, because we're interested in the Falklands subject but with opposite views. I reckon him as a prolific and established contributor, but with a questionable behavior. The only "strong circumstantial evidence" is my public admittance of forgetting to log in. The second one, based only on ISP and opinion over the article (which is expected to be similar, as we're both Argentinians) is very weak.

Regards. -- Langus (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add the following: that report about location (city) is erroneous. You can see the block addresses assigned to Cablevision SA in LACNIC: query for AR-CASA10-LACNIC. If you take any of those IPs and use look it up in ip2location.com, they all point to Buenos Aires. But, as you know, Cablevision serves in 65 cities and more than a million homes.
 * Regards. -- Langus (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I don't think there is enough here to show any connection between the IPs and Langus (note: that is based on behavioral evidence; no CU was run). No action taken. –MuZemike 21:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

22 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Discussed this with first. was blocked by for a second attempt at outing. He is currently indefinitely blocked. Just over 3 months later, a new editor has appeared, recreating an article that was deleted last year due to lack of notability. Langus-TxT was a particularly vocal opponent of deletion e.g.. Per WP:DUCK it would appear that Langus has returned with a sock puppet, this is remarkably sophisticated editing for someone whose only contribution on all wikipedias is this article. WCM email 15:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * and . As this is to be settled on behavioural analysis, note the common themes in both comments. WCM email 22:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a number of co-incidences here.
 * Langus posted a taunting message about this SPI as soon as Checkuser was declined as stale.
 * Javier stopped editing when I registered the SPI.
 * Javier claims to not speak very good English, then his use of English dramatically improves ; it has the appearance of someone trying to disguise their editing.
 * Note in the second post he claims there are many sources on this topic, something that Langus was also claiming .  If you look at what both claim are reliable sources, they're blogs ie WP:SPS.
 * Common themes and  accusing editors of suppressing information on Argentines related to the early Falklands history. I've written 5 biographies myself out of a population of only about 20, I can think of several more
 * Its also highly unlikely that a new editor could edit to produce an article like this from scratch as their very first contribution to wikipedia.
 * The area has been plagued with sock puppets for some time. A modus operandi has been to create accounts, along with a number of sleeper accounts that could be activated once the main account was blocked.  The fact that there appears to have been a second account created would fit the same pattern.  At one time this became quite easy to spot but the tactics have become more subtle.  There has been sufficient gaps allowed for Checkuser to become stale.   dealt with a number of socks and can confirm.
 * As far as co-incidences go, Matilde Vernet y Sáez is an obscure figure, it seems an unlikely choice for a new editor to start editing by creating an article about her.
 * Langus' editing was almost exclusively focused on promoting Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands. If you look at the article before it was edited to remove fluff  it was basically a WP:COATRACK about Argentine claims.
 * If you combine the similarities in the editing, combined with the Checkuser result that there is possibly a link between the two, then there is a compelling case that sockpuppetry took place here.


 * Pinging for comments on the sourcing in the article concerned and the sources in the new article.  Kahastok analysed the sources claimed to support notability.  WCM email 23:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Been thinking about whether to comment on this.

The user in question has not edited since 23 May, two weeks ago. Juansayagocheein hasn't edited in a month. Both have been based entirely in single articles in entirely separate areas and so if they are the same person they have not broken WP:SOCK. I do not believe this to be stale, though, as it affects the active block of Langus.

I do not think it suspicious that the user used all of the correct syntax and so on because he used Special:ContentTranslation. I only found this tool quite recently, but we know he used it because there's a not in the contributions. Clearly, an article generated using a tool like this will use all the right markup, and if used by a new user (which is the whole point) may appear suspicious from a WP:SOCK perspective. That doesn't mean that he isn't a sock - there's no reason why a sockmaster or existing user couldn't use the content translation tool - only that his apparent knowledge of markup is not as clear evidence for socking as it would once have been.

I do find that others of WCM's points are persuasive. It seems surprising at least that Javier's English would suddenly improve as described, and the accusation of suppressing information - that goes beyond a simple argument that the individual sources exist - is surprisingly similar. As WCM notes, if anything the opposite is true: with the possible exception of the early population of Pitcairn I can't think of a population more comprehensively covered by Wikipedia. He is also correct when he notes that Matilde Vernet is a pretty obscure figure - a somewhat surprising topic to choose - and that this very controversial topic area has historically had a problem with socks.

I did go through the sources presented at the first AFD. What there was was clearly unsuitable - basically, editors saying we should keeping the article searched for the name on Google Books and listed every source they found. In most cases significant coverage couldn't be confirmed because the sources weren't available. They were claiming that these were useful sources but the only evidence that there was any relevance at all was that Google could find a search term. In those where it was, there were only passing mentions. In this case, we're also dealing with genealogy websites and a book on the history of words. Kahastok talk 21:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'm allowed to write here, if not please revert. I just want to mention a few points:
 * Obviously, Javier Ignacio Caballero is an argentine editor. Matilde Vernet y Sáez is not a "obscure figure" in Argentina. I'm not talking about wikipedia notability. My point is: you can expect that an argentine editor wants to translate the article because he may think it will be interesting. Every new editor will be linked with Langus?
 * Langus edit his talkpage explicitly in order to allow SPI investigation here. It doesn't look like puppet behavior.
 * By the way, "Langus' editing was almost exclusively focused on promoting Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands." is against this fundamental principle.
 * Regards --· Favalli  ⟡ 01:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfesorFavalli (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've declined the CU request. Langus-TxT is .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The master is no longer stale. They have made one edit to their Talk page.
 * is.
 * is ✅ from Javier Ignacio Caballero but .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing enough to call Javier a sock of Langus. Langus worked on more than just Matilde Vernet y Sáez, and the likelihood of coincidence is big enough that I'm inclined to give Javier the benefit of the doubt. Moving on to the tallyho CU result, assuming the two accounts are connected, I'm not seeing any violation of policy right now; the two accounts are not faking a consensus or anything. I'm thus inclined to again give the benefit of the doubt. Because of the foregoing, I plan on closing without action within three days; please post any followup evidence before then if you wish to. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 22:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for leaving this open for longer than the three days I originally planned; I needed some time to think about this. Here is my analysis:
 * I think is right on, and 's behavioral evidence is quite compelling. The English change is certainly suspicious, and the tones at AfD (your "suppression of info" in particular, "skip information" vs "vanished in an instant, victim of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS") contribute. Nonetheless, I don't think there's enough behaviorally, and the CheckUser result does not push it over the edge.
 * This was quite close. There is no prejudice to a future SPI filing; if Javier edits again, and there is more evidence, do file a new SPI. Thank you for your filing and patience,.
 * The analysis with respect to Juansayagocheein is unchanged.
 * Closed without action. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 03:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)