Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vitorvicentevalente/Archive

Report date January 17 2009, 20:33 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Started editing six minutes after Vitorvicentevalente's last edit (blanking his talk page, following his second block for edit warring). Both started with similarily and quite distinctly initialized talk pages (Vitorvicentevalente, Rbwm). Rbwm came then to defend Vitor's edits at Talk:Rihanna, User talk:Ericorbit and User talk:Amalthea. Has now started to reintroduce Vitor's changes despite pretty clear consensus:. Has also supported Vitor's apparently premature move to get the Portuguese Rihanna article featured, his only edits at pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Escolha do artigo em destaque/Rihanna. Both claim that other editors do not like Rihanna and remove their changes because of that, and have a very similar style of writing -- Amalthea  20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted Amalthea


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * This user (User:Amalthea) obscured and only does harm to Wikipedia User:Vitorvicentevalente âPreceding undated comment was added at 20:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Good enough evidence for me to issue a one-week block of Rbwm, since he has been properly notified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

-- lucasbfr  talk 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Vitorvicentevalente
The user Ericorbit made accusations without evidence, that I'm involved with this IP. That IP address comes along and makes an identical edit as me, and has a history of editing Rihanna and R&B articles , like me, right after the admin left a message on my talk page, the IP revert the "admin" again. Vítor&amp;R (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
- Besides, you only want to use CU to clear yourself of any blame, as the IP geolocates to the US. In this case, it is much more likely the IP is a meatpuppet, a friend of the user solicited by the master for help. CU would be declined anyway, as this kind of request violates the policy regarding it's use. Blocking on behavioral evidence is more likely.

I would also like to note that the IP not editing related articles is also evidence, in that there is no way they could have found this page otherwise, at this specific time, to help V with an edit war.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that this editor has been caught socking before, to further an edit war(as they appear to be doing so above).—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is reason to block, this type of accusations without proof. Conspiracy theories. Never mind him. Vítor&amp;R (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no admin is going to block me for something like the above. You however have a pattern of uncivility, and if you keep it up, it will probably not end well for you.  If you truly have nothing to hide, then quit trying to discount everyone who says the opposite.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Any administrator blocks this user, please? Vítor&amp;R (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. There is nothing wrong with my edits.  Again, if you are truly innocent, then just leave this case be and let it take it's course.  Trying to get those who accuse you(with strong evidence) blocked is disruptive.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't talk to me. I don't care what you have to say to me, talk to others when requested. Vítor&amp;R (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want me to talk to you, then stop disruptively asking for my block for posting my educated opinion here.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 22:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - CU is not for proving your innocence. CU declined. ( X!  ·  talk )  · @964  · 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * as an aside, can users please keep comments in their own sections. The arguing isn't helping the case, either. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 70.181.189.126 is an ❌ newbie who is probably having the occasional problem logging in, or forgetting to, or doesnt want to be associated with those unsavoury pieces of music. Who knows.  I do know it isn't Vitorvicentevalente, and the editor involved was probably reacting to the edit rather than WP:MEAT. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP isn't Vitor, so there's not much left to do here. Other disputes should be handled using DR. TN X Man  15:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

02 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In addition to similar names, both accounts have been working to add multiple photos to Loud Tour (see entirety of Vitorfatale's Contributions). The five photos currently on that article were uploaded by Vitorvicentevalente, but added to the article by Vitorfatale. A sixth image, File:Rihanna live in Rio de Janeiro, performing in ROCK IN RIO. 23 september 2011.jpg, was uploaded by Vitorfatale. One account's enough for this guy; neither of the two accounts point to each other's user pages, so the use of an alternate account hasn't been acknowledged, AFAIK, but the connection seems obvious to this editor. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for having a look, Kevin. So, does he just need to mention his respective alternate account? Or is not even that a real requirement? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your efforts and the info. Feel free to close this. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested checkuser, as things have changed. Vitorvincentevalente has now denied the account (which removes any good faith assumptions I can make about the purpose of an alternate account), and Vitorfatale has begun adding charts to articles that Vitorvincentevalente knows quite well are not acceptable. If it's just a naming coincidence, that's one thing. If it actually is Vitorvincentevalente, he's crossed into improper usage of an alternate account. I think that John's analysis of why he believes them to be the same is fairly persuasive, but, let's face it: "Vitor" is a pretty common name in Portuguese, and not something to use to block an editor without confirmation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Everything will be clarified then. VítoR™  get LOUD! 19:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Different countries? Well, that's clear, then! Sorry for the trouble and misplaced suspicions, everybody. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Only one word comes to mind for this case: stupid. Where is the evidence to associate my name to this? All the images in the category were uploaded and checked with the correct licenses. Moreover, by the name of the images the other user must be Brazilian! You're always trying to invent situations against me. VítoR™  get LOUD! 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
John, even if I assume that it's the same editor, I'm having a hard time seeing an offense here. More like an account change. He hasn't been interspersing edits, edit warring using the multiple accounts, supporting himself in discussions, double voting, or any of the sundry other things that you can't do with multiple accounts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, he isn't mandated to link the accounts. It's just good practice. I'll pressure for a linkage if the account change seems to be being done to confuse admins, but Vitorvicentevalente seems to have been well behaved all year. If you see something that would make me rethink that, let me know.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ... I was about to close this, and noticed Sockpuppet investigations/Vitorvicentevalente/Archive. Rethinking.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Going to assume good faith for now. I will keep an eye on this.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - It seems possible based on behavioral evidence, but I'll endorse to put this issue to rest one way or another. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. The two are in different countries. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I guess we can close this, then. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)