Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pablo.alonso/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Checkuser requested to deal with chronological coincidences, especially at the moment of Pablo.alonso's activity when being Asilah1981 was being blocked. I hope this time I have technical problems coming up. Chronological order is just about extremely difficult and not relevant since diffs are separated in time, Pablo.alonso's intervention is new, Asilah1981's late 2014. Created in 27 July 2013, Pablo.alonso has been activated now (1 July 2016). Shows identical features in behaviour as Asilah1981, a user with an inauspicious start. Pablo.alonso does not act as a new user and shows a lot of knowledge. Pablo.alonso was activated at full steam (27-28-29 July) when Asilah1981 was litigating and was blocked for 24 hours.

Check also the sockmaster’s signature challenging attitude here or in the above talk page section ending comment (Asilah1981). Signature features for comparative purposes (showed in detail on the diffs below): self-entitlement, judgemental, accusatory style, the editor apes phrases, reactive (haste, sometimes not even signing), rarely explanation lines (or long, noisy explanation lines), imprecise, regularly lacking in verification (but opportunistic), confrontational, prone to use of lower case for nationalities and languages instead of regular capital letter (improving though), Spanish history and language topics, hostility to Spain’s national minorities/specificities, alienating, [WP:OR], name calling, ad hominem comments, emphasizing Muslim/Christian divide. The other IPs follow the same pattern. They show all a WP:DUCK case.
 * 37.76.86.152 in Reconquista Christian/Muslim dualism/divide, continuation in time with Pablo.alonso
 * 49.199.43.2 in Reconquista Christian/Muslim
 * 80.31.96.56 Incident notice on Asilah1981’s page the day 7 April, see below 8 April
 * 83.35.249.67 WP:DUCK, continuation in time: Asilah1981
 * 88.23.190.114 Accusatory, no signing, breach of WP:AGF, 8 April


 * Asilah1981
 * Hostility to national minorities in Spain
 * Accusatory, inflammatory, unconstructive, ad hominem, etc.
 * Intimidation, breach AGF, self-entitlement
 * Erratic rhetoric, haste
 * Ad hominem, breach of AGB
 * Self-entitlement
 * Aggresive interventions from Asilah1981’s page
 * Confrontational in his talk page
 * Defiant
 * Warned, breach of AGF
 * Removal of perceived inconvenient notice from talk page


 * Pablo.alonso
 * Removal of perceived inconvenient notice from talk page, plus misrepresenting editor (me)
 * Removal of informative notices in talk page
 * Breach of WP:AGF, general aggravation
 * Alteration of other editors’ signed comments
 * Alteration of conversation, breach of AGF, misrepresenting editor
 * Not signing
 * Defiant, unsubstantiated statements
 * Name calling, lower case ("basque nationalist")
 * Defiant, breach of AGF, erratic rhetoric, aping “do not delete signed comments” posted by me in his talk page
 * Breach of WP:AGF, accusatory


 * 2a02:c7f:5c16:f200:573:e3c8:8446:9457
 * Goading for a reaction of mine
 * Defiant, self-entitlement, removed citation tags Iñaki LL (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Where is Asilah1981? Well he is not here, because he is just the same person, with exactly the same features. The editor in question is clearly not a new user: I think Pablo.alonso should be questioned directly with a straight answer, yes or no. The edit load and the rapidity of his reply with all the evidence prepared is telling enough, seems to be in full time. No doubt whatsoever it is just one and the same. I won't dwell on disruptive editing and continuous breach of WP:AGF, since this does not seem to be the place. By his own confession, he travels (Asilah1981: Berlin, etc.) so that may change underlying IPs, plus there are applications to circumvent them, although I do not know how relevant that can affect the CheckUser evaluation, now that s/he denies a link. The editor in question has bombarded my user talk (what is the purpose having this resource???) and others (|Reconquista talk page) with accusatory proclaims. Per WP:DUCK, a latest edit in Reconquista (seems to have problems to to refrain), pretty close in IP range (check 2.137.191.198 revealed as Asilah1981 on page semi-protection) as this one used on the same topic years ago in my first encounter with Asilah1981, check also the type of rhetoric. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Per request of Iñaki LL (talk), original text from Pablo Alonso (talk) inserted here on 4 August 2016 at 13:50 (UTC) is moved to section below. Pablo Alonso (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, I need to corroborate. Is this the CheckUser's verdict or the final verdict? I expressed by doubts over the IP check, and the applications there are today to circumvent it, perhaps I have been naive. Have behaviour patterns been thoroughly checked? I have been almost 9 years on the WP and I have no doubt whatsoever, the case is clear-cut, let me put it this way, it is a no-brainer, (photographic patterns) and that is a lot for me to say, so I take that to be more telling on the standards of the SPI than anything else, it is very sad. If the verdict is confirmed, I am very, very concerned for the fate of the EN WP, like many good editors are now, and sadly new conflicts for WP:DIS.
 * Secondly, the individual above has invaded a space that is not his, since he has his own at the bottom of this page, very telling of the level of respect he has for procedures or form altogether. The level of invasion and aggression knows no limits, as seen also in all his interventions, check both editors' history.
 * Thirdly, Asilah1981 has said nothing, no surprise.
 * Fourthly, Pablo.alonso is not a new user, but extremely experienced, there is not a speck of doubt of that, and the clerks (anyone really) can easily conclude that.
 * Five, previous problems of mine in SPIs have been related to my not knowing well the operation, this time I had also a problem with the syntax. On case Carlstak, I took it to be place to determine who is who, when as the process went on, I realized as I pointed that it was not him the sockmaster, but Asilah1981. However, that was not judged. The latter editor's statements were then, may I say, pathetic ("poor Carlstak", etc.).
 * Five, during my time on the WP I have not seen (besides Asilah1981) an editor so full of rage ("Editor is removing content guided by personal motivations", sic!); by the way, since he cites Laszlo Panaflex, he reprimanded him for that ("Please drop the stick and focus on completing the necessary detail in the cite"), commenting also this and this]).
 * Sixth, I want to make it clear that in the Talk page of Reconquista or other talk pages he has posted (mine) I have not read all the comments he posted, for good reason: after I tried at the beginning to go straight to the the point (subject-matter, WP policies), I immediately detected what the whole fuss was about (breach of WP:AGF), sorry I have not time to waste with an editor's noise. I added a comment on "ideology" but it was not on that diff, it was about the next (I reverted the three unexplained edits, WP:OR, check Reconquista history), enough for the editor in question to elaborate extensively on profiling me and my political ideas, whatever, indeed disquieting.
 * Seventh, I refuse to comment on gross, bulky comments like the ones below, I have no time for more fuss. Anyone knows what I do on the WP, nobody knows what this Pablo.alonso does or what he has been doing dormant during three years until he has unleashed all the rage. Iñaki LL (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

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

There must be a rule against editors stalking and harassing other editors, as Iñaki LL (talk) has been doing almost since the beginning. As I have said before, the editor Iñaki LL is acting on "bad faith" and making a fake case for an "attack" on my person; this is the second attempt after an unsuccessful one.

About his accusations, I only have to say:


 * With regard to keeping saying that I am Asilah1981: the editor Iñaki LL claimed in his case against this user that Asilah1981 "speaks Moroccan Arabic" and his username and other supposed alias (i.e. Sidihmed) are related to Morocco. On the contrary, and as I already pointed out to Iñaki LL, I am of Asturian nationality and I comment mostly on Asturian themes on English, Spanish and Asturian Wikipedia, as it can be easily checked. I also want to highlight the fact that as an Asturian, I belong myself to one of Spain’s national minorities/specificities, so I can hardly be hostile towards them, as Iñaki LL claims that Asilah1981 is.


 * With regard to the removal of informative notices in talk page: editor Iñaki LL just copy-pasted, without any comment or additional information made by himself, the wikipedia policy on Edit Warring, a policy that he started breaching himself in first place (as it can be checked in the history of the Reconquista page) by systematically undoing my entries without providing any explanation. The undoings from Iñaki LL were not explained and the only reason behind them was that they were my edits, without regard for accuracy or adequacy. When other editors (i.e. Laszlo Panaflex (talk)) reverted my modifications (see here ) but explained properly the reasons behind it, I had no problem at all in accepting the undoing and correcting my modifications.


 * Following with this issue, I removed the so called informative notice because it was a mere copy-paste, without any valuable information or original text from the editor Iñaki LL, about a policy that the editor Iñaki LL started to break himself in first place; and equally relevant it was posted in my talk page: it must be noted that I have only deleted entries in my talk page, because I assume it is mine and I have more freedom to do and undo, but I have not removed any comment from Iñaki LL in any other page.


 * It is also important to note that Iñaki LL has deleted my entries , here , here  and here  so I don't know why he is complaining about something that he is also doing.


 * With regard to Breach of WP:AGF, general aggravation: editor Iñaki LL has not yet specified where (concretely and specifically) have I done it, and this is purely a subjective appreciation.


 * With regard to Alteration of other editors’ signed comments: this is an exaggeration with bad faith. This happened in my talk page (exactly as Iñaki LL has been altering my comments in his talk page), not in a common page, and the only thing I did was to change the bold format in a sentence for a normal format. I did not alter one single letter, comma or anything in his comment other than changing the font from bold to normal. This is the only example that Iñaki LL can find of Alteration of other editors’ signed comments, and it is pretty weak.


 * With regard to Alteration of conversation, breach of AGF, misrepresenting editor: editor Iñaki LL has done exactly the same thing here , here , here  and here . How can editor Iñaki LL accuse me of Alteration of conversation, breach of AGF, misrepresenting editor by pointing out something that he did  on his own talk page by deleting my comments? A minimum of honesty is expected in this sort of accusations.


 * With regard to Not signing: yes, sometimes I forget to sign, so? Is it a crime? And what is the point on this, when there is a bot that automatically signs all comments when the author forgets to sign? All my comments are either sign by me or by the bot, and in any case those ones I forgot to sign were undoubtedly mine.


 * With regard to Defiant, unsubstantiated statements: again this is a subjective statement based on the editor´s own perspective. There is no explanation about what is defiant or unsubstantiated and therefore to base an accusation on such generic facts is not be admissible.


 * With regard to Name calling, lower case ("basque nationalist"): I am not sure what point is Iñaki LL trying to raise here. Is it name calling to call someone Basque nationalist? So now Iñaki LL is considering this to be an insult? Since when? are now then so many Basques that call themselves Basque nationalists insulting themselves? Calling names on themselves? When I said that Iñaki LL is a Basque nationalist (a trait supported by many of his comments) the only purpose was to highlight why for him the word "Kingdom" is "ideological" (this was the unsustained explanation he gave to undo my correction). The whole explanation to this issue can be found here and anyone reading it can see that there is no calling names behind the use of the term Basque nationalist.


 * In any case I repeat again, I don't understand the purpose of this accusation. And the lower case was a simple ortographical typo, why the need to highlight it? I assume that Iñaki LL needs to emphasize this issue because Asilah1981 does not use capitals for nationalities and languages and Iñaki LL needs to link both of us in any way he can. However, I am pretty confident that this typo pointed out by  Iñaki LL is the only one of this sort that I have incurred into; a mere coincidence that the  Iñaki LL has used opportunistically to build his case.


 * With regard to Goading for a reaction of mine: well this one is pretty interesting. This seems to be a clear fabrication in order to add more grievances to sustain an unsustainable case. First of all, the modification showed here has been done curiously on a page where I added some entries days before (unrelated to my dispute with the editor Iñaki LL), curiously done just 1 day before Iñaki LL has orchestrated this second attempt to block my account, curiously by an anonymous editor, curiously an edition on an issue (deleting the Basque entry for languages) that Iñaki LL can claim it was meant to provoke him. The most plausible explanation is that Iñaki LL altered himself the page using an anonymous account, and this should be further investigated. I don´t goad for reactions of anyone, much less in such rudimentary an infantile way, and when I have to say something I do it openly, with my name, as I did when I commented in Iñaki LL´s talk page (comments that he deleted).


 * With regard to removing citation tags, the only one I removed was one that Iñaki LL added to my correction. As usual, the editor Iñaki LL did not explain why a citation was needed and the only purpose of introducing that citation was to provoke. The citation was requested for the use of the term "Kingdom of Asturias" on a term that was already hyperlinked, before my edition, to its own Wikipedia entry Kingdom of Asturias, hence it was redundant. On top of this, and as editor Laszlo Panaflex pointed out here  there was already a tag at the top of the article stating that better citation and in-line notes were needed throughout and therefore adding further cn tags was redundant. In conclusion, not only me but other editors agreed that the citation was not needed and therefore the removal was both legitimate and appropiate.

To sum up, from the list of 12 accusations that Iñaki LL uses to justify this sockpupetting fabrication:
 * The first 5 are behaviors that the editor Iñaki LL is committing himself as demonstrated (just go and check all my comments that he deleted in his own talk page)
 * The 6th (not signing) is a triviality (and inaccurate, as the bot signs automatically with my name the comments I unintentionally forget to sign)
 * The 7th is subjective and does not provide specific examples but rather broad abstract statements by the editor.
 * The 8th (calling names) is barely understandable what is doing there
 * The 9th is the same story as the first five
 * The 10th is another example of subjective judgement, and also unsustained
 * The 11th is an infantile fabrication, most likely carried out by Iñaki LL himself or someone related to him
 * The 12th is irrelevant, as other editors explained to Iñaki LL

In conclusion, this whole sockpupetting thing is nothing more than a fabrication. It is defamation. And it is harassment. The editor Iñaki LL has been stalking and harassing me ever since I corrected a mistake in the Reconquista page which he kept undoing due to ideological reasons, not to historical accuracy. Pablo Alonso (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to Iñaki LL to "Where is Asilah1981?" on section above inserted on 4 August 2016 at 13:50 (UTC):


 * I tell you now for the hundredth time the very same I told you from the beginning: I ONLY use this account and I ALWAYS LOG IN to edit/comment so none of any IPs you can come up with are mine. So please stop linking me with Asilah1981 or any other editor that comes out of your imagination. The reasoning behind your argumentation is at best merely speculative: "the rapidity of his reply", "all the evidence prepared", "seems to be in full time", "Asilah1981 travels".... Honestly, would you call this serious allegations?


 * The Checkuser has established already that the two accounts are unrelated, but this seems to be not enough for you and now you are questioning the validity of such tool because it does not fit your reality. There is nothing else to say about who is having a problem here.


 * It seems to me that you are having trouble with a lot of other editors, not only with Asilah1981. This fact should already bring questioning about your attitude and behaviour.


 * And I repeat you for the hundredth time again: WP:Let it go. Pablo Alonso (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Final note:
 * Talking about attitude and behaviour, and bringing light on the modus operandi of Iñaki LL (talk), these comments from the Clerk in a previous investigation orchestrated by Iñaki LL (talk) are key to this investigation. Apparently, Iñaki LL (talk) has a tendency to launch sockpuppeting investigations based on fake facts and unsupported speculations on anyone who dares to disagree with him. This reiterative abusive acting deserves at least some sort of reprimand or warning.Pablo Alonso (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking about attitude and behaviour, and bringing light on the modus operandi of Iñaki LL (talk), these comments from the Clerk in a previous investigation orchestrated by Iñaki LL (talk) are key to this investigation. Apparently, Iñaki LL (talk) has a tendency to launch sockpuppeting investigations based on fake facts and unsupported speculations on anyone who dares to disagree with him. This reiterative abusive acting deserves at least some sort of reprimand or warning.Pablo Alonso (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

--- Response to Iñaki LL on his comment on section above inserted on 4 August 2016 at 19:37 (UTC):


 * First, I don´t know how much more and for how long do I have to stress that I have no link whatsoever with Asilah1981 (talk) and the fact that for you the "case is clear-cut" and "it is a no-brainer" when all evidences (including CheckUser) is telling you the contrary does not speak for your judgement. You are not only hell bent on demonstrating against all odds that we are the same person, but you keep linking with me any editing that you judge contrary to your opinion (as you have done recently with a latest edit in Reconquista). I would appreciate that you stop assigning me edits from people I have no relation with and have no clue what are they about. This has to stop.
 * Second, I could not find anywhere where is stated that I cannot write in the section above. If I wrote above it was to follow on with the conversation you initiated, it is cumbersome to be replaying to you not right after but several paragraphs below just because you don't allow me to write there. It does not help to the conversational flow. IMHO, if you don´t want me to write above you should have answered me here in this section so we could have kept the right flow.
 * Third, I have no clue at all about the whereabouts of Asilah1981 (talk) but I do understand him for not getting trapped by your plot, even if you involved him in this fabricated sockpuppeting investigation.
 * Fourth, what has to do my experience with all this?
 * Fifth, now you are saying that the Clerk that evaluated, rejected and closed your previous faked accusation is "pathetic". Enough said, thank you.
 * Sixth, I think that the fact that you consider yourself to be a superior editor to the rest of us (with statements such as "I have not read all the comments he posted", "I have not time to waste with an editor's noise", "Anyone knows what I do on the WP, nobody knows what this Pablo.alonso does") is an appropriate explanation for the abusive behaviour that you show to other editors that disagree with you. Also, I did not "elaborated extensively on profiling you and your political ideas" based on "three unedits" you did, but on the conversations and quarrels you had with other editors that I had to read when you fabricated this sockpuppeting investigation.
 * Seventh, you claim that I have "unleashed all the rage" when this assertion is far away from reality. None of my comments show rage and I dare you to demonstrate the contrary. The only thing I have done is to disagree with you and challenge your attitude, always in a civilized manner (and again I dare you to demonstrate the contrary with specific examples, not broad generalizations)Pablo Alonso (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Pablo Alonso, Iñaki LL: Asilah1981 is at the beach at the moment so not editing wikipedia. :-) Asilah1981 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The two accounts are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * and, any further comments from either of you will be reverted. This forum is not intended for you to scream at each other with walls of text.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the technical findings and that the IPs are stale now, I'm closing this with no action taken. Mike V • Talk 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)