Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lguipontes/Archive

05 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Lguipontes is in a dispute with over which variety of Portuguese to use when writing the International Phonetic Alphabet symbols at the top of articles with Portuguese names. There has been edit warring in a large number of articles over this. I suspect Lguipontes of logging out to continue edit warring without being detected, after his recent block for the same issue. Lguipontes has made identical reverts to 177.65.53.191 on articles like these:. Having a look at the interaction profiles for Reiniger321 and Lguipontes, and Reiniger321 and 177.65.53.191 shows the extent of the problem, and also shows that in almost all cases Lguipontes edits the articles before Reiniger321, but 177.65.53.191 edits the articles after Reiniger321. When I looked at the histories of individual articles in the reports, I almost always saw the same picture: Lguipontes makes a change, Reiniger321 reverts, 177.65.53.191 makes the same change as Lguipontes, and Reiniger321 reverts again. I think this evidence is strong enough to pass the WP:DUCK test. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - this dispute has also been reported at AN3. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And again today.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Although Lguipontes admits that the IP is him, I don't think any administrative action is necessary right now. From his subsequent comments, it is clear that he is now aware that the IP edits were a breach of the sockpuppetry policy, and he hasn't repeated them since this report was filed. We are also seeing the start of dialogue about how we should deal with the content, as can be seen on his talk page and at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician. I don't think a sockpuppetry block would be advancing the goals of the project, and so I think the current investigation can be safely closed. We can always open another if more issues arise in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - To be a little bit more elaborate about the block of Lguipontes, he was blocked on September 26 in the afternoon. All of the problematic edits of the ip account occur after that and, although they continue after the block expires, I can't find an instance where the Lguipontes account and the ip tag team back and forth.  While it seems pretty clear that Lguipontes was attempting to get around a block (and doing so to continue an edit war), I'm not sure how deceptive he was intending on being about it, considering this comment by the ip on my talk page that was a response to this comment at Lguipontes's page.  — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  12:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This IP is really mine, and I thought that after those two blocks on Reiniger321's account, the issue he had with me would be settled. I reverted his edits staying logged off as I thought it would be rude to make it with my account – he would interpret it as me claiming victory. It was a surprise when he started to revert me again, and ever since, I stayed with my account off as it was in a computer other than mine and because he would feel kinda disrespected. I know Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry so I naturally know that if I meant it with a disruptive intention, soon or later I would be discloseted, so I would not be dumb to try it after receiving a block, it was more of naïvité, good faith and wishful thinking of a new fast consensus on my part. Here, I previously discloseted myself, as I did on Aeusoes1's talk page, where I showed to have a suspect that I previously know Reiniger321 by Orkut, in debates over "polemic" topics, because most or all of his edits are reverting those of mine and accusing me of edit-warring, vandalism and sockpuppetry. Lguipontes (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Without remarking whether the named account is operating the IP address in question, it's clear to me that to take any action based on the alleged circumvention of the master's block would be purely punitive. Without prejudice to another investigation in the event of further logged-out editing, I am therefore marking this page for closure due to its staleness. AGK  [•] 18:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)