Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majogomezsz/Archive

14 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I took notice to these pages due to their coverage in the news and intense debate on talk pages. And I have faced roadblocks at every possible interval. At first I assumed these users to be acting in good faith but they refuse to listen to reason and manipulated information pulled from the Wall Street Journal and other reliable sources, if not completely removing it.

These users have been routinely reverting any edits made to the pages of Derwick Associates and Alejandro Betancourt López that are seen as negative to the company, despite being sourced to the Wall Street Journal and other RSs. They also routinely promote puffery that is non notable and use questionable sources to possibly dilute the page. These pages have a very long history of single purpose editors coming in to revert edits about the lawsuits and allegations against the company. It has become alarming.

As I began looking more into the subject I made more and more revelations, such as a large number of single purpose editors involved on the page; many of which almost certainly to circumvent Wikipedia Policies and act in bad faith. Below are all the single purpose editors involved on the EN pages: Many of these have already been blocked for abuse of Wikipedia policy.
 * User:Crystallizedcarbon
 * User:Tony3485
 * User:ClearPerception
 * User:FinanceReferee (blocked)
 * User:ChanceryLanePartners (blocked)
 * User:Jarrodjones (blocked)
 * User:Arctic M (already found to be a sockpuppet of User:Lawson1129 )
 * User:AlekBoydVenezuela (blocked)
 * User:Settybodzin
 * User:Venezolano2014
 * User:Naruto2839

This company is currently under criminal investigation by the US Justice Department and New York City banking authorities for several possible crimes including: bribery, corruption, and banking violations. Derwick is also involved in several civil suits and has drawn considerable attention for all its legal activity. It has been alleged that several journalists and internet activists have been threatened and sued by Derwick for attempting to report on this issue. Derwick attorneys claim there is a "smear campaign" against the company. But in light of revelations made by the Wall Street Journal is it really so hard to imagine the company isn’t taking steps to salvage its image?

I then took notice of the activity of these pages on Spanish language Wikipedia. ( and  ) Many of these same users are present there, and ONLY there. Majogomezsz is much more involved there than on the English pages, but the accounts all generally overlap on both languages. If not, they certainly have the same focus of edits. Take a look at these editors' history. Most of them are solely involved on these pages:


 * Majogomezsz:
 * (Spanish)
 * Eleonara Venezuela:
 * (Spanish)
 * The power of jimmy:
 * Tony3485:
 * (Spanish)
 * Venezolano2014:
 * Naruto2839:


 * Unregistered IPs:
 * 
 * 

Here's an incomplete list of Diffs for these pages that shows these users constant attempts to remove details about criminal and civil cases while also flooding the page with puffery:


 * Majogomezsz (This user, along with the many suspected socks, is MUCH more active on Spanish language Wikipedia. I have elected to not include diffs from those pages to keep it simple. If they are required, I will provide)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Eleonara Venezuela
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * The power of jimmy
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Tony3485
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Naruto2839
 * 
 * 


 * Venezolano2014
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 46.25.106.207
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 88.128.80.14
 * 

I can provide more Diffs if they are required, but they will show the same thing over and over: these users adding the same details and removing the same details. I believe this is sufficient evidence to indicate that these users are linked.

Here is an incomplete list of Diffs on the article talk pages showing these users continued and concerted efforts:


 * Majogomezsz
 * 


 * Eleonara Venezuela
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * The power of jimmy
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Tony3485
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Naruto2839
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 46.25.106.207
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * 88.128.80.14
 * 


 * 46.27.255.176
 * 

These users have been making the same edits over and over and have supported each other on the talk page consistently. Given the circumstances of the company, being under several lawsuits that would severely affect its image and value if found guilty, is it so hard to imagine it is trying to protect itself? Either themselves making these edits, or hiring out a PR firm? The pages have a long history of users removing anything critical about the company and its executives, and filling it with puffery. More than enough to raise eyebrows.

I could provide diffs from Spanish language Wikipedia to provide further evidence if needed, although I believe it would show virtually the same thing.

I would not have filed this request if I had not become so concerned at the concerted efforts of these users and their VERY similar opinions. They do not seek any compromise ever; it is their way and their way only. They are accusatory of anyone who attempts to undo their work. The details they remove are any that portray the company in a negative light. The only details they want added are blatant puffery. They have been extremely aggressive making accusations on various administrator boards. Considering this company is under investigation in so many instances, I believe it is a completely rational suspicion to think that these users are intentionally watering down details about the companies lawsuits and criminal charges.

I understand that I may be incorrect in part, or even entirely, with these suspected Sock Puppets. Nonetheless I believe that for the sake of making sure there is not a conflict of interest here and abuse of Wikipedia policies, this investigation should be carried out in full. I am more than willing to provide more evidence and reasoning for my suspicions for this. Hope this can be resolved in a timely fashion. Righteousskills (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Since my user has been included in this list, let me start by saying that my involvement in this pages has been mostly to defend the article from constant abuses of Wikipedia policy by user Righteousskills. I did so first anonymously and just recently created the user Crystalizedcarbon.

In the edits by Righteousskills and other anonymous users there seem to be other interests at play that have nothing to do with improving the articles. It was constantly receiving negative contributions in violation of WP from IP's suspicious of been from anonymous proxies. After their edits stopped, probably after been blocked, Righteouskills asked for an IP block to be lifted. It was denied and then started editing using the account, and did a series of very questionable edits (please read section on Derwick were this edits are detailed and the section on edit warring in which he was asked to stop by an administrator on the user's talk), all of this edits were seemingly aimed at preparing the groundwork to be able to insert the information from a WSJ article in the most damaging way possible. Which was done just as soon as it was published in all the articles he created on the previous days (as if he had a connection to the anonymous sources of the article). After Righteousskills was warned not to continue editing the page, the IP edits started again. This caused the block of both pages, and one of the IP users managed to insert one of his edits as the page was been blocked That edit was latter undone by another admin Click to see. Even though I have no proof, looking at the Spanish and English history for both articles, the following IP users and Righteousskills look like one and the same.
 * Righteousskills warned by admin in talk Edit warring section
 * 70.210.228.157
 * 116.193.159.36
 * 27.122.12.77 warned by admin in Talk
 * 27.122.12.78 warned by user in Talk

Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well actually you weren't included in the investigation, I just mentioned that you are a number of other single purpose editors. I have violated no policies. The point of Wikipedia is not to improve the image of everything; no one is going to remove what you would call "negative details" on the page for Hitler because they thought it was too defamatory! You have all been removing RSs for details about lawsuits and investigations. You have all been adding non-RSs or questionable sources for puffery. In your allegations above, you are bending the truth and coming up with what I call Bologna. I was warned by you or users in question to stop editing at first.

Stop using the IP block as an excuse. You keep taking it out of context. It was a mistake i made. I NEVER had an IP block on my account. The specific IP I was using, on a VPN, was blocked...NOT MY ACCOUNT! Get over yourself!

And I dont know what to tell you about the IPs. They are not me. Yea, they support my view, and follow Wikipedia policies...but they are not me. Good luck trying to prove that..

Im not sure what your complaint about the most recent WSJ article is. Yea I added it to the page because its RS and relevant and VERY notable. You are hinting that I have a connection to the anonymous sources of the article?? Ha! I wish! All of your accusations are unfounded. Righteousskills (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I moved the below comment from the section where it does not belong. Huon (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting take. I did not expect this to be the case. Especially when considering the behavioral evidence. Specifically how these two accounts have no overlap in their edit history.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Eleonora_Venezuela&offset=&limit=500&target=Eleonora+Venezuela
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Crystallizedcarbon&offset=&limit=500&target=Crystallizedcarbon

Even on Spanish Wikipedia the users have little to no overlap:
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Contribuciones/Eleonora_Venezuela
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Contribuciones/Majogomezsz&offset=&limit=500&target=Majogomezsz
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Contribuciones/Crystallizedcarbon&offset=&limit=500&target=Crystallizedcarbon

I just want to make sure there isnt any mistake here. These users have no overlap in their edits, some even used the same IP address briefly, and these accounts almost exclusively edited on the pages in question. Yes I can see they've edited on other pages, but it is not nearly the same edit size or level of significance. And the fact that this is a large Venezuelan company awarded contracts by its government, and is under criminal investigation where millions if not billions of dollars are in question means nothing?

I apologize if my tone is abrasive but I just want to make sure we are not leaving anything out here. Righteousskills (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In that spirit, I still find very surprising what you mention above.

If I got this correctly, you admit that you were editing anonymously using a VPN and that when that IP got blocked you asked for the IP Block to be lifted. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a big coincidence that the IPs like 27.122.12.* (identified as possible VPN and flagged for spamming) were very engaged in the page and suddenly stopped right before you asked for the block to be lifted.
 * Perhaps it is also a coincidence that after you were warned by an editor to stop doing this edits (sample: 1,  2, 3, 4)  IP users returned to continue the task (1, 2)
 * Also surprising that an experienced editor after been inactive for a year and a half returns to create 3 pages (one deleted one with no RS) and edited on two others related to an article that was yet to be published, and inserted it as a reference soon as it was published.
 * Interesting also that an experience editor would create This section using the company web as the only source for the many "refs" inserted, and just a few days latter engaged in edit warring to try to delete this very similar section repeatedly on a different page that did have two RS.
 * Not to mention blanking most of the article including RS of a BLP to leave almost only the Legal section.

IP Address
I have to clarify. The IP address they shared is from Spain. These are two users in Spain then, both active on Venezuelan pages, substantially active on the Derwick page. And several other of the users in question have IP addresses in Spain and are active on these Venezuelan pages. All with the same view point. And you found that two of them actually have shared an IP before... and there is no suspicion here? Righteousskills (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
✅ that the following two accounts are socks:

Most of the rest of the accounts are. For future reference, checkusers only have access to data for the previous 90 days - in this case, nothing more recent than 24 May 2014. Risker (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: see below. Risker (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is truly sad to see. It still escapes me why someone would navigate around Wikipedia policy to push through their agenda. I am not sure what happens from here, but I hope the guilty party(ies) understand the gravity of their actions. Although I had been suspicious of this, it is a little alarming that I had been correct in this. Perhaps the user had the best of intentions in their violation of WP Policy. But I hope they understand there are rules in place for a reason. Righteousskills (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this one further, put on hold for now. Risker (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * have you had a chance to review this one further? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Checkuser note: I have consulted with other checkusers and have kept an eye on these accounts, exchanged in correspondence, and completed follow-up checks. The information provided to me and other checkusers privately corresponds with more recent technical data. That is, the users of the two accounts listed above are separate individuals who shared an interest in a particular article (and a legitimate concern about the same BLP issues (shared by other editors as well), thus pretty much rendering the "meatpuppetry" argument moot), and for a period of time shared an IP address. The editors have not edited any other articles in common (on any project), either logged in or as an IP address. There is no indication at all that any of these accounts are related to User:Majogomezsz.  Thus my revised finding is that the two accounts are ❌. All of the editors involved in this SPI are reminded of the importance of following the biographies of living persons policy, and also giving particularly close attention to the weight given to media reports that an individual or organization might be "under investigation". In the post-9/11 world, millions of people are "under investigation" by some branch or other of some government or other every year; the majority of those "investigations" result in no action whatsoever, no criminal or other charges, and in many cases no indication to the subject at all that the investigation ever took place. The days when being investigated by some government agency would be particularly notable have been over for a very long time.  Risker (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Close per Risker. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)