Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanburrena/Archive

09 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))
 * (strong behavioural evidence. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC))


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Pharmacy WP:REFSPAM and other SEO nonsense  (note similar formatting and reference list). Also, Mexicanreporter filed a spurious undeletion request for a page (World Wide Pharmacy Association) created by Vanburrena. Blacklisting requested. MER-C 10:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Identical link fail 1 with identical link fail A
 * Mexicanreporter using the malware ridden site worldpharmacyverification.com as a source and Abigail.gutierrez using the same malware-ridden site as a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

These are sockpuppets from 2007, long since blocked for legal threats and sockpuppetry, listed here for completeness. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Old sockpuppets

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

See also these edits, by User:Abigail.gutierrez. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And here's Abigail.gutierrez contesting the speedy deletion of a page that Mexicanreporter created. Funny, the speedy deletion template says "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself," not 'do not remove this if you have edited the article before." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

--Samuelmeza (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Just saw this message in my sandbox. My name is XXXXXXXXX and I can be contacted at XXXXXXXXX which is the number for XXXXXXXXX. I am the system administrator. We have a 100GB line to level3 in the states and our routing has been screwed for the past two months. I was rehired two weeks ago to straighten out our routing and return the BPG back to normal. You will see many users using the same IP's back to level3 during the period of time it takes me to fix this problem. Anyone have any questions, call me! XXXXXXXXX Samuelmeza 10 July 2:50 (UTC)
 * Why do you bother pointing out that you were supposedly rehired by XXXXXXXXX a couple of weeks ago? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a good question Ian. I wanted to verify that you are in fact from mywot and legitscript because only they knew that I was hired back.

In order to be an admininistrator you have to be fair, you have to be honest and most have morals and do things in the best interest of Wikipedia. Think about what you are doing and that will give you a clue as to your chances of being appointed an administrator. I need to finish my letter to the stewart. Samuelmeza 10 July 3:12 (UTC)
 * ... What? You just said in the previous post "I was rehired two weeks ago."  I moved that post from the talk page to this proper spot (you're welcome), so I obviously read it.  I asked you why you were pointing that out.  I don't work for mywot or legitscript, I'm unemployed (which is why I'm on Wikipedia at 12:16 Eastern Standard Time). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that you are unemployed and I know that being unemployeed is not fun. I have have been there.

I recognize your writing as it stands out and your comments are exactly the same on mywot. The same is true for the others. I am sure the steward will resolve all problems here. You want to know what gave you away, it was your insane comment about World Wide Pharmacy Association. First, they have never had malware as you claim, second they are made up of owners of different pharmacies worldwide and their membership is FREE. Their claim to fame is everyone is licensed and agrees to purchase legit medications. They also donate to the poor by giving them free medication. Real bad people! Everyone loves them except WOT and Legitscript and we both know why.

They are well funded and within a short period of time, I believe they will become one of the leading associations worldwide. I know that their membership is growing by leaps and bounds. It is hard to turn down a free membership when it is for a good cause.

Samuelmeza 10 July 5:43 (UTC)

Can we please block this massive sock/meatpuppet farm already? Last night I discovered that the article in question had been whitewashed for over a year because of the actions of users Gerardosuarez, Vanburrena, and Kasanders (the last of which reverted all of my changes to the article because one reference was not relevant, instead of just removing that one reference).— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the remaining unblocked suspected socks has for the third time now accused me of having a conflict of interest because of my intervention in the remaining problematic article. He seems to now be attempting to get the page (or content) deleted by any means necessary (see here). Also I think it's pretty clear they're the same people as they have the same formatting syntax (Samuelmeza above and Kasanders on the other page put a lot of spaces after full stops).— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but our shyster's tactics (as explained here by Uncle G) are pretty much identical to what we've seen with Vanburrena et al. Considering how Kasanders has been trying to censor the article and glorify the shyster and completely lied about what other users have said (Drmies only discussion on the article was asking if the shyster's self-gratification on the article was relevant, he never did anything like advocate deletion), it has to be the shyster, and ergo Vanburrena et al.  We don't need a CU to block the shyster, we only need it to make sure there aren't more socks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
On further investigation, including of deleted edits at Latin america better business bureau, World Wide Pharmacy Association, Medicina Mexico, Rxmexicoonline.com, and their talk pages, it's clear on behavioural evidence alone that Samuelmeza, Mexicanreporter, Abigail.gutierrez are all one person, whose intent is both subtle and. So I'm blocking them, not just for sockpuppetry but also for impersonation. was the straw that broke the camel's back here. XXXXXXXXX's actual telephone number at XXXXXXXXX was rather different. The fake one, on the other hand, is all over the WWW right alongside more spamming of these companies on other WWW sites, as the company fax number. It's not clear to me whether Kasanders and Gerardosuarez are the same person, so I'd appreciate a checkuser check on that one, as well as to find any sleeper or missed accounts. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you. Unfortunately, that's not everyone, but the other IP addresses (which also geolocate to the same area) are years old at this point. There's a lot more than the above, in seven years of disruption, here. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110 isn't anywhere near all of the on-wiki evidence. Vanburrena isn't really the sock-master, either. Someone named A. van Burren somewhere is being impersonated. If the edits weren't six years stale, you could have used. Uncle G (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gerardosuarez that it is indeed another sockpuppet singing the sockpuppetteer's same old tune about false telephone numbers.  That leaves just Kasanders, the IP addresses, and the possibility of undiscovered additional accounts. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further information: The name Gerardosuarez led to some spam postings and a discussion on Usenet in news.admin.net-abuse.email two years ago, which led to that is the same person .  Based upon that, which was already pretty obvious, the Usenet discussion, and the modus operandi given in our article, I've blanked the mentions of other living people here under the Biographies of living persons policy, for being fraudulent details of living persons.  I've also blanked our various mentions of the real living person. Uncle G (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on behavioral evidence alone, shouldn't Vanburrena be blocked? JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for the checkuser results. Uncle G (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  02:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very much ✅, with sleeping.  Vanburrena has been abusing a co-lo range that has no legitimate traffic, hardblocking it.
 * Also confirmed for being the same editor.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked the remaining accounts, plus 1 year for the static IPs, plus fresh tags for everyone. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  02:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)