Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LuisGomez111 (2nd nomination)

User:LuisGomez111

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) on behalf of User:Mountolive


 * Evidence
 * Please see the complaint at . Thank you.


 * Comments
 * All users notified. The report was initially filed improperly.  I'm not sure what happened with Twinkle.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to make clear that I have not personally evaluated the complaints here, I am merely acting in response to a request for help from User:Mountolive.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The sandbox report provides plenty for a checkuser. The two "socks" listed above are unrelated but I've found other interesting results I'm working on. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Final results:
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ =  = a third user that edits unrelated articles.  I blocked Warrington 24h with warning and Bluee Mtn indef. Am leaving 3rd editor alone for now.
 * ✅  =  =  and LuisGomez111 admits that and currently has retired and alternate user tags on them. Note there is fairly recent activity vis a vis these tags coming on and off. Plus there is a 4th account that edits unrelated articles. There is significant overlap and meatpuppeting concerns with the 5 accounts I’ve named. I am leaving the fate of Luis/Pasta/Thin accounts with the community since they have retired and alternate tags and if they stay that way and Luis realizes editing the same articles with multiple accounts is not allowed. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that the Pasta and Thin Man should be indef soft blocked to prevent the temptation of abuse. I'll do so tomorrow pending objections.  MBisanz  talk 02:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've performed an analysis of all three accounts,, , and and placed the results here: Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/LuisGomez111 (2nd nomination).  The evidence shows extensive crossover time for all three accounts editing the same multiple articles and talk pages.  Upon a quick review of the talk page edits, I found this good hand, bad hand socking evidence of one sock account talking directly to the other: .  I agree with MBisanz that both sock accounts should be blocked indefinitely, and I also believe the main account of  should be blocked - not only for the abuse of socks, but also for the outrageous attack upon User:Rlevse, accusing him of being on a witch hunt, when Rlevse was merely doing his job as a CheckUser.  Dreadstar  †  18:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, as for and  I think a unblock would be in order in accordance with WP:AGF seeing as it appears the two are related, but under the agreement that neither will edit the same articles. Now, as for  and his group of socks, after looking over some diff's and Dreadstar's summary I am seeing clear justification for a block, and as such I have blocked all three of his confirmed sockpuppets.  Tiptoety  talk 18:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)