Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RidjalA/Archive

13 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User:WikiNuevo appears to be a single-use account, created during a break in RidjalA's editing, and which has been used almost solely to revert edits that are in keeping with RidjalA's stated positions, or to make comments on the user pages of users who take issue with RidjalA's edits. A comment by RidjalA on WikiNuevo's user page could be taken as suggesting that RidjalA knows enough about WikiNuevo (comment about first language) to raise the possibility of meatpuppetry, if not sockpuppetry. I am a volunteer at WP:DRN dealing with a dispute over edits at La Luz del Mundo -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC) UseTheCommandLine (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Declining the CU request for now, as sharing the opinion of another editor is not indicative of sockpuppetry. Please use diffs to explain how the accounts might belong to one person. WilliamH (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All of WikiNuevo's edits have been on pages that RidjalA is substantially more active on -- the sole exception being the User talk page of the admin that blocked WikiNuevo for violating 3RR. WikiNuevo violated 3RR and then disappeared. The sudden appearance of an editor that violates policy on a contentious topic, edits on all the same pages as RidjalA, and then disappears seems to me to suggest suggest sockpuppetry. (was that supposed to go here, or in the above section?) -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good reasoning. For posterity, the three diffs that approach 3RR are here, here, and here. However, CheckUser data is . WilliamH (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocking master 2 weeks, sock indef. Overall meatpuppetry doesn't add up due to the wide gaps in between the revert wars. The "communication" between the accounts seems fishy. The usernames are somewhat similar, and "WikiNuevo" = WikiNew, also fishy. Rschen7754 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

27 September 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets



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

Anon 156.45.254.11 and RidjalA both worked together on the article La Luz del Mundo, in fact RidjalA's edits were limited to that article. Both editors collaborated on the same sections, and using the same language as seen in the Editor Interaction Analyzer. For example, when RidjalA deleted a sentence from the article, and restored the sentence, 156.45.254.11 responded to Maunus as if he were RidjalA by deleting the sentence again. Moreover, the edits of RidjalA, 156.45.254.11, and WikiNuevo (confirmed sock) in the Spanish wiki are limited to the La Luz del Mundo article.

One thing all these users have in common is their defense of Jorge Erdely Graham and his group Instituto Cristiano de Mexico (sectas.org). For example, RidjalA tried to remove a source from La Luz del Mundo because it contradicted Erdely, but was rebuked for not being transparent and for deleting the thread from the reliable sources noticeboard. Likewise AbuRuud deletes any information linking Erdely to the Casitas del Sur child trafficking ring.

Group II

The other IPs have edited at around the same time as AbuRuud on the same articles, deleting the same information, and making the same arguments. Cgarzanew and ‎BaSoroka were created just to edit the Jorge Erdely article. When AbuRuud reverts my edit and complains that I reverted an IP and that my edits are poorly sourced, I add new sources, and BaSoroka responds by reverting me saying my "sentence is still very poorly sourced". BaSoroka also claims that the books I used as sources "were written by Mexican journalists who could have easily echoed media rumors at the time without corroborating the information." I respond to BaSoroka by saying that the books were written by award-winning journalists and are therefore reliable sources. AbuRuud then responds saying "I never said they weren't reputable as journalists". Admin Bbb23 says he "was a bit troubled by the reverts by the new account".  Ajax F¡ore talk 01:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

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

This is hilarious. The fact that multiple users site the same reasons for deleting poorly sourced information isn't a cause for a sockpuppet investigation; it shows consensus against the editor inserting the information. This really amounts to Ajaxfiore stamping his feet and engaging on a witch-hunt because people are upholding BLP rules relating to poorly sourced contentious material and wp:exceptional. AbuRuud (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * There is a lot of suspicious editing going on here. That being said the check was entirely . NativeForeigner Talk 23:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By every behavioral measure, AbuRuud and BaSoroka seem like the exact same person, and so they are blocked. BaSoroka indefinitely, and Abu for 1 week.It's possible that they are RidjalA, but I am not certain. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The two target articles have been semi protected for three months to deal with the IP socking. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)