Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco/Archive

Evidence submitted by SamEV
User UnclePaco was blocked indefinitely in January 2008 as being a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user Armyguy11, who himself had been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned user Mykungfu. They often used the IP address 64.131.205.111, part of the evidence here, too. The CashRules account began editing in April 2009.


 * The CashRules and UnclePaco accounts have very similar interests. These include the rather obscure subjects of Dominican American street gangs and steroid use in Dominican sports. In fact, when it comes to the Dominican Republic and Dominicans, the two accounts are alike in that their interest is in the more negative aspects; besmirching Dominicans is a high priority for them. They edit tendentiously, violating a core principle of this project.
 * The article Dominicans Don't Play, about a New York gang, had been edited by the UnclePaco account right up until the account's blocking, and after that, by IPs in a suspected range of Mykungfu (67.87.93.177, 68.199.126.40, 68.199.235.190, 151.202.75.4, ), until the article was deleted in April 2009. The CashRules account began editing 5 days after deletion and its very first edit was a request for the article's recreation.
 * Just 3 hours later, CashRules went to Dominican American and restored content that had first been added by UnclePaco . That content had not been in the article in over a year (removed January 2008): i.e. since the UnclePaco account had been blocked.
 * Two IP addresses (24.239.190.219 and 150.210.176.64) from ranges tied to UnclePaco/to Mykungfu edited the article titled "Steroid usage amongst Dominican Athletes", which was nominated for deletion twice. It was deleted on the second attempt; only CashRules voted to keep it, and subsequently had it saved on his user space.
 * In the last 2 weeks, CashRules has repeatedly added content about sex tourism in the D.R. The content resembles additions originally added at user UnclePaco's suggestion, :, , ,.
 * Regarding editing style, note how very similar their writing styles are.
 * Zooming in further, they have similar wikilinking styles, as seen in the following examples:, (edit summary); , ,.
 * Besides all this, there's their use of search engine cache pages as references:, , (another sockpuppet), , , ,.
 * More evidence linking user CashRules all the way back to the banned user Mykungfu can be found at User talk:B. For now I only link to it, but hope to incorporate much of B's excellent info here, as I continue to build this case. SamEV (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by B

 * UnclePaco's undisputed accounts and IP's:
 * (last edit 21 March 2008) - proven by checkuser
 * (last edited 15 February 2008) - while logged in as 64.131.205.111, the user admitted he is UnclePaco
 * (last edited 14 December 2007) - proven by checkuser, confessed
 * (last edit 2 November 2007) - proven by checkuser, confessed
 * (last edit 3 April 2008) - proven at Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 to be editing from the IP known to be UnclePaco/Mykungfu. Editing patterns more closely resemble Mykungfu, so if UnclePaco and Mykungfu were merely roommates/brothers/whatever, then SexyNupe2000 is obviously on the Mykungfu side of the sock drawer
 * See Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 for others relating to checkuser actions in April and May 2008.
 * See Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 for others relating to checkuser actions in April and May 2008.

I (and other admins at the time) contend that UnclePaco = Mykungfu. That was part of the basis on which he was blocked - that Mykungfu is a banned user. UnclePaco in his own right was very tendentious and was socking, so he would have still been blocked even if not proven to have already been banned, though in 20/20 hindsight, we would likely have considered a finite block, rather than an instant indefinite one. If you just look at the two accounts in isolation, they had totally different editing interests - UnclePaco was mostly editing Dominican-related articles and Mykungfu was editing articles about African American fraternities. But their shared socks edited both topics, so the diversity of topics between the two main accounts were dismissed as interests changing over time, rather than two different people. For what it's worth, though, Thatcher stated that "SexyNupe2000" was created by Mykungfu, but operated by UnclePaco. So it's at least conceivable that they are two distinct people, but one-time roommates or some such thing. (UnclePaco denied knowing Mykungfu and that any similarities between them was that they used free wifi from a school . This was obviously false.)  The technical connection between Mykungfu and Uncle Paco was:
 * Mykungfu and UnclePaco
 * was caught in an autoblock of, a Mykungfu sock. 64.131.205.111 admits to being UnclePaco.  Freakin Fool had editing interests that overlapped Mykungfu and UnclePaco.
 * Admitted UnclePaco sock wrote a racist article  and promoted it at the talk page for one of Mykungfu's favorite articles.
 * As stated above (though not discovered until after the fact) at Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 Thatcher said that SexyNupe2000 was created by Mykungfu, but used by UnclePaco. (Again, I contend they are the same.)


 * Relevant checkuser cases:
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Mykungfu
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/UnclePaco
 * Requests_for_checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111

From their editing patterns, and  appear to obviously be the same person. I contend the following: --B (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence from editing patterns that CashRules = UnclePaco
 * 1) CashRules' first edits were to ask an admin to restore Dominicans Don't Play, a favorite article of UnclePaco, and to  revert back to a [version of the article from August 2007 very similar to this August 2007 one by known UnclePaco IP .  That seems like an odd point for him to pick out of a hat.
 * 2) On his second day as a Wikipedian, CashRules re-inserts into Dominican American a piece about Saniago Luis Polanco Rodriguez .  This same piece was originally added by established UnclePaco IP 64.131.205.111  and later re-added by UnclePaco.
 * 3) Both accounts refer to "3RR" as lower case "3rr".
 * 4) Both accounts use external links in edit summaries.
 * 5) Both accounts use virtually identical edit summaries.  They are almost completely lower case and very rarely are proper nouns capitalized.
 * Respectfully submitted

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't really know what to say. Let me start off by saying I am not a banned user. I started editing on wikipedia in April 2009 and SamEv wrote on my page that I was a banned user during that time. So why would he even make a report over a year later. When it was convenient to him?

I asked to have the article dominican steroids moved because I did want to save it. I don't see Uncle Paco edits on any of it. [ This isn't the first article that I saved if you look at my history.

I don't see uncle paco edits for the sex tourism that u presented. all i see is Rosicrucian putting in things for sex tourism.

I don't see similiar things in edit styles. For the search engine, I got those copy and paste from older versions of the article. Why not simply perform a checkuser? CashRules (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment of ranges " (67.87.93.177, 68.199.126.40, 68.199.235.190, 151.202.75.4) if you look at the history doesnt show anything. You're making a huge jump,  the individual 68.199.235.190 should've been associated with UnclePaco and blocked right?  it should also conflict with 67.87.93.177 if you look at time/location. i don't see any warnings of being nor do i see any association with any of the usernames you've mentioned.


 * 371 edits and 4 articles created. i'm not a professional, but i'm making a small difference.  i don't really understand this, but this seems so much like a virtual community.  a community where those make contributions that aren't liked by others can make their time here stressful.

SamEv seems to want to own a number of articles and I guess is making life difficult for others as you can see here  CashRules (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering why this hasn't been addressed on wiki "I tried to step back from what seems to be a constant edit war with SamEv. I even created an article Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour but everytime I try things seem to escalate.

He has constantly accused me of being a sockpuppet and an investigation is going on. I am fine with it, but he is also personally attacking me. He reverts my edits on sight even when they are properly cited. He only corrected one of them after I made a big deal about how he put the wrong information in. "I made a contribution and you basically did a revert and didn't bother to read what I wrote ! I know you didn't read because you placed Gabriel Mercedes as a Judo player rather than a tae kwon do player . You think I have some kind of weird prejudice about Dominicans and you've stated this.  If that were the case why would I even put in a silver medal olympian?  I complained about it  since you have a history of reverting whatever I place in.  It was after I complained did you bother to fix it! .  If I had made that type of mistake you would've labelled me a vandal! CashRules (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)"

This is the second incident I am reporting. CashRules (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * He is fishing [] and creating a distraction on a few pages.

What should I do? CashRules (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been the main editor of the Dominican Republic article since December 20, 2007. That's why I edited the DR article today. It's the one I edit the most.
 * The accuser would like to get me out of the way because I'm pursuing an SPI against him. He figures that the more he opens this kind of thread, the more he'll somehow distract from his own actions, or drag me to his level and cause me to get blocked.
 * My contributions history speaks for me. Please see his. Please see this: he doesn't want it on his talk page for obvious reasons. It is rank disruption what he's doing by restoring that section there.
 * Now if I may, I'll continue with my editing and try to forget this distraction. SamEV (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have commented on his disrputive behavior as well.

BilCat (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BilCat (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BilCat Revision as of 22:47, 19 June 2010 (edit) (undo)

FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)  CashRules (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the sequence of relevant edits, in chronological order: 17:00, 20 June 2010, 17:32, 20 June 2010, 18:57, 20 June 2010, 20:17, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:32, 20 June 2010, 20:34, 20 June 2010, 20:37, 20 June 2010, 20:38, 20 June 2010, 20:41, 20 June 2010, 20:42, 20 June 2010, 20:52, 20 June 2010, 21:00, 20 June 2010, 21:26, 20 June 2010, 22:12, 20 June 2010, 22:24, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:35, 20 June 2010, 22:38, 20 June 2010, 22:40, 20 June 2010, 22:49, 20 June 2010. SamEV (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, user CashRules: The matter of the tae kwon do guy was a mistake, and I corrected it soon after.

You say I've been reported before: yeah, by you, a few days ago. And your report was declined, with these words for you:.

Fishing? How? What is it? SamEV (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC); 01:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)" There seems to be so much bad faith going on here it is getting ridiculous. CashRules (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have set off your quote from ANI into a box for readability so that it is clear what was written here as opposed to what was written elsewhere. To answer your question, there is no formal division of duties on Wikipedia and a lot of times, particularly complicated requests on ANI just get glossed over and nobody notices them.  It's not anything deliberate on anyone's part.   If there is something that is still unresolved when the bot archives it, probably the best way to raise it is by starting a new thread and making a very simple, "plain English" statement of the problem, refer to the old thread, and clearly state what you are asking for help with. --B (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

you see everything i do gets reverted by SamEV. He says hispanola.com isn't a reliable source. according to whom? he would rather have no source rather than a source i place in. CashRules (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to go off on a tangent here unrelated to sockpuppetry, but if you google a passage from that article, for example, The U.S. occupation of the Dominican Republic lasted 8 years, and from the very beginning the, you can see that someone is getting a lot of mileage out of that text. So the issue isn't whether hispanola.com is or is not a reliable source, it's that they are not actually the originators of that text and so just from that link, there is insufficient information to make a determination as to whether it is reliable.  HOWEVER, I found that same text in use at http://www.domrep.org/kids.html - the official website of the Dominican Republic's embassy in the US.  So if they are vouching for it, then you could add it to the article using this website (not hispanola.com) as the source. --B (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000

SexyNupe2000/Mykungfu 3rd

Hadsomefun (talk · contribs) was created by Mykungfu but is currently being operated by UnclePaco (talk · contribs) in a different city. RobertOgleFan has been operated from 3 different cities over 2000 miles apart, so it is entirely possible that it is being shared.

Technically Unrelated and no geographic relationship to MKF's usual stomping grounds. Thatcher 11:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people that appear to share IPs will turn out not to be sockpuppets, and accounts that are sockpuppets can sometimes avoid detection or at least confuse the issue by careful choice of IP. Having made the technical investigation, I usually try to leave the contribution analysis and judgement calls to others. But you can certainly use these findings at an SSP case or post to the admins noticeboard for help. Thatcher 03:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely Marvelmanne. Unrelated GomabWork. The rest are inconclusive/maybe. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Very Likely SexyNupe2000 is Mykungfu. Possible QueDog is him. Dmcdevit·t 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at everything here on that page. Not one confirmation. Now I am supposed to be 4 different people! From UnclePaco to SexyNupe2000 to Mykungfu. CashRules (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) CashRules (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you are obviously one person. My contention is that you, the one single person, previously edited as UnclePaco.  My further contention is that you either edited as Mykungfu or were his roommate. --B (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * checkuser say's differently.CashRules (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at SexyNupe contributions and it was said the account was used by UnclePaco. So why was all the edits on things that Unclepaco doesn't write on? .

Off topic, I I clicked on Angry Black Man's afd and saw the discussion a few days ago. How is this a racist article. Even in the discussionit says

Angry black man syndrome Angry black man syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Unnotable duplicate of Black rage (law), we do not need 2 articles on this one marginally notable topic. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Angry Black Man is a legal defense and a psychological condition if your read up on it. You can read multiple articles if you simply do a google search such as on CNN (a very non racist website) "Why Obama doesn't dare become the 'angry black man'"  or CNN Rage: Why Obama won't and can't give you what you want CashRules (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct. SexyNupe2000 was proven to be editing from the IP we know to be shared by Mykungfu and UnclePaco.  So if Mykungfu = UnclePaco, then SexyNupe2000 = UnclePaco (transitive property and all of that).  If Mykungfu and UnclePaco are roommates/brothers/lovers/whatever, then SexyNupe2000 obviously only edits Mykungfu's articles. --B (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I could simply take a WP:SO as was offered and not edit for a while. I edit periodically and in bursts so going away for 4 months is nothing. Standard Offer requires 6 months. These edits by all of these users are over 2 years old. I started editing about a year ago. So even the users you accuse me of being and myself were a year apart in terms of any edit. CashRules (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you want from me? Should I just leave? You are stating that I am these two users.  That I am a roommate of another.  What is this some kind of witchhunt or crystal ball in thinking that I am sharing a room with these accounting holders. People were 2000 miles apart and most likely impossible to be the same person.   These users could be my wife or my kids or your wife or your kids!  In a nation of 300 million people there will always be people who do things almost the same and there are people who will do things differently.
 * If you are not UnclePaco, then how did you just so happen, as the very first thing you did after joining Wikipedia, to ask that his favorite article be restored and then revert to a 2-year-old revision of that article (a revision, incidentally, written by UnclePaco)? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. Out of a hat, you choose something from 2 years and 200 revisions ago? --B (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Easily, the article was deleted ""16:23, 19 April 2009 Closedmouth (talk | contribs) deleted "Dominicans Don't Play" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: No reliable sources - most previous sources included only trivial mentions of the subject) " I picked the biggest thing I could find.  [04:44, 24 April 2009 (diff | hist) Dominicans Don't Play ‎ (good summary will insert references) (Tag: references removed)   CashRules (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a larger revision on November 27, 2008. Here is the difference between your version and the November 27, 2008 version: .  Here is the difference between your version and the August 15, 2007 version: .  (The only difference is that you eliminated one deleted image.)  It's really hard to believe that if you were just looking for the largest version, you skipped a larger version from November 2008 and went all the way back to August 2007.  If you aren't UnclePaco, I'm afraid you have a very bad case of rotten luck.  On your second day as a Wikipedian, you readded this word-for-word passage that had been written by UnclePaco.  That section had been removed by Jersey Devil in January 2008.  Though I don't know for sure that it was never re-added since then, nobody did an edit of a section named "crime" so it most likely had not existed since January 2008.  How did you happen to come across this section if you are not UnclePaco and had never edited before?  Again, it's an extreme case of bad luck if you just so happened to restore two long-deleted UnclePaco edits. --B (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please look here Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000 " Likely Marvelmanne. Unrelated GomabWork. The rest are inconclusive/maybe. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC) "

Secondly BigDaddy718 was edit warring with TiconderogaCCB if you look at their contributions. So how can they both be the same user? Are you just adding names at this point? CashRules (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I misread the report on TiconderogaCCB and was in error listing that account. I have removed it.  As for the comments by Blnguyen, if you look down further at the previous report, that's where SexyNupe2000's connection was proven.  Previous puppets are listed as a convenience to the checkuser so that they don't have to go hunt them down. --B (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
CashRules is accused of being a sock of UnclePaco. The reasoning for wanting to block CashRules may or may not be an edit dispute. The best way to resolve this would be for mediation and discussion of the edits in question.

The reason I am puzzled is because it is not clear that UnclePaco is a sock. So if UnclePaco was wrongly blocked, then CashRules may be a valid use of a new account. Even if CashRules is UnclePaco, the UnclePaco block may be in error (or may be correct).

I have evaluated the most recent UnclePaco edits that are not on user talk pages (evaluated only article and article talk page edits). I evaluated the following http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maxwell_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=183565172 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183564288 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183558600 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183552883 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183550797 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominican_Day_Parade&diff=prev&oldid=183550511 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominicans_Don%27t_Play&diff=prev&oldid=183504691 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dominicans_Don%27t_Play&diff=prev&oldid=183503229

None of them seem obviously POV. Further research may reveal bad or POV editing but I only looked at the above edits. WARNING: Sometimes, a vandalism edit escapes me because my English is not so good.

Summary: The user should explain why the edits are objectionable. The user should describe failed dispute resolution steps. Then the user should explain why the UnclePaco block is valid and how UnclePaco is linked with CashRules. After these steps are done, then a CU may be appropriate. This is the best way to get along with each other in Wikipedia. Jumping straight to CU is potential incivil, particularly if the underlying question is an edit dispute. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this edit is because FT2 has said that CU are in short supply and because CU is not magic pixie dust. There is a level of uncertainty with any CU. Most Dominicans in the USA live in New York. There are few in Chicago or Tokyo. On the other hand, edits are out in the open to see. Editing "Hitler is the greatest man to have ever lived" is vandalism plain and simple. "Israel is the criminal party in the Gaza flotilla" is a controversial statement, even if there is a reference. Let's try to work things out. If some acts crazy or POV, then by all means CU. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Even FisherQueen agrees with my idea. Fisher describes his secret plan to block CashRules, which is by showing bad edits, not screaming "sock".  See SamEV's talk page where administrator FisherQueen writes "...Instead of just saying 'we aren't going to do it because he's a sockpuppet,' explain why it's wrong for the article, in a way that others can understand and agree with. ... Please, keep your discussion of User:CashRules in more useful places- no one who is involved in investigating or blocking him will even see it at Talk:Dominican Republic, so it doesn't serve any purpose there other than to sidetrack the conversation there. I started that discussion so you could reach consensus together, because once you reach consensus, if he continues to push the edits against consensus, he'll be blocked for edit-warring no matter who he is, and the problem is solved. By preventing the discussion from happening, you're making my secret plan to block him not work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my tardy reply. I had not noticed this page on my watchlist until now.
 * I'm confused. Are you saying that if I come across an account that I suspect of being a sockpuppet, I should only pursue an SPI or CU if the edit is disruptive, and only if? IOW, if it's not disruptive, I should just let it slide? Are you saying that being a sockpuppet is not enough for an account to be blocked? SamEV (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC); 02:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw a discussion on RFA where one person suggested that all administrators should be subjected to a checkuser investigation. The consensus disagreed and was that this would lead to false positives (evidence showing sockpuppetry when no administrative sockpuppetry was actually done).  If this consensus is still valid, then there should be evidence of disruption as well as suspicion.  I am merely reporting what I read in Wikipedia!  I, personally, have zero interest in the Dominican Republic.  I have never met a Dominican, at least not from that country but I have met a Spanish priest in the Dominican order, which is an entirely different use of the same word.  Good luck!  I wish everyone in Wikipedia could work cooperatively and as friendly colleagues. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish that the people who've been involved in this hadn't been so quick to assume stuff, such as that the only reason I'm doing this is because it's personal or somehow a mere, sudden content dispute. I always suspected the user of being a sockpuppet. I actually did let it go for over a year, and have actually been faulted for that! But a few weeks ago he took it to a new level, so I decided that it was time to do this. It's also clear that it was worth waiting for him to edit more so there would be more of an edit history to compare with the blocked accounts.
 * I'll ask the admins involved in blocking the accounts to comment, since you've raised questions about such blocking. Thank you for your comments. SamEV (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment here as one of the ones who previously dealt with UnclePaco. First off, on the WP:DUCK test, it's obvious that CashRules = UnclePaco.  Just from looking at edit summaries and writing styles, it's painfully obvious.  So the real question is do we consider UnclePaco to be banned.  As I recall, it was a bit of a daisy chain to get from UnclePaco to, who was the actual banned user.  If you just look at those two accounts in isolation, their writing styles are similar, though they edit completely different topics.  IIRC (and this has been a long time), Mykungfu's main editing interest was adding his POV to articles about historically African American fraternities.  UnclePaco was more interested in articles about Dominicans and Puerto Ricans.  So from that standpoint, they would seem to be different, but admitted UnclePaco sock  wrote a rather racist article  and visited old Mykungfu stomping grounds to ask for help with it.  It seems like a rather strange place for someone to pull out of a hat to go to ask for help if you've never edited before.  Also, they clearly both used the same IP  and UnclePaco's explanation - that he sometimes used wifi from the school across the street - made no sense as an explanation.  If that were the case, there would have been other people on it, which there clearly were not.  If UnclePaco wasn't Mykungfu, he was a pretty unlucky guy.  Now all that said, if he is editing constructively, I wouldn't be opposed to lifting the ban after some finite period of time.  By socking, he demonstrates that he does not respect our rules, but if he would be willing to abide by the ban for some finite time, I have no problem with allowing him back if that's something that you want to pursue.  (See WP:Standard offer.)  I do have an objection, though, to rewarding socking in defiance of a ban. --B (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
just to shine even a trifle more light on this. –MuZemike 00:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * CashRules shares a common ISP/geographic area with 64.131.205.111. Brandon (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The ISP is the second largest provider of internet services in the United States . The Dominican population in the United States is slightly over 1M (year 2000) with 554,638 Dominicans living in the Manhattan borough of New York.  I do not make any conclusions because I am unfamiliar with the CashRules case but I do write articles in Wikipedia, citing sources whenever possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs)
 * While Earthlink is a common ISP, the IP address was static. UnclePaco/Mykungfu/et al also edited from AOL IP addresses.  I guess/assume that he had the Earthlink IP address at work and AOL at home (purely my guess, could be school vs home, could be friend's house vs home, could be shared wifi vs home, etc).  Since the checkuser did not say confirmed, either the work IP has changed, he no longer edits from work, or has a different job.  While there are a large number of Dominicans living in New York, just how many of them would be very likely to pick out of a hat two long-gone UnclePaco edits to revert to?  I'm sorry, but the defense of this guy makes no sense. --B (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was about Brandon's comment, not CashRules. Brandon did not say "UnclePaco is CashRules".  Brandon said that there is a common geographical area and ISP.  My interest in this matter is very tangential.  I once knew a Spanish priest in the Dominican order and Uncle Paco is probably Dominican.  I also like to cite references and refer to the exact diff. The Dominican order has nothing to do with the Dominican Republic except for similar spelling much as West Berlin has nothing to do with the West Bank except for a similar spelling. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it's OK for me to comment here. Suomi Finland, user UnclePaco is not Dominican. In one post made via sockpuppet he claimed to be "Latino", which is only somewhat likely, IMO. Separately, he's pretended to be Puerto Rican, per the name of his sockpuppet User:BoriquaStar, "Boriqua" being an incorrect spelling of "Boricua", a word that means "Puerto Rican". SamEV (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that he doesn't like Dominicans based on his POV. All of this is irrelevant, the only question is whether or not CashRules = UnclePaco.  Does anyone have any reason unrelated to a spelling lesson to believe that he is not? --B (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the behavioral evidence, and CU evidence I feel there is more than enough evidence to justify a block. As such I have indef blocked . Tiptoety  talk 05:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * References