Trichome

thcscience_admin


Alex79818

Alex79818 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[1] I first had experience of Alex about 3 years ago, since then he drops by periodically making threats such as these. I know Alex's real life identity, which would form part of my evidence so I'm holding off on making a complete SPI in case of an inadvertent contravention of WP:OUTING. At least part of my evidence relates to the fact he went straight to the talk page of my original editing name, which also happens to be my real name. I changed it in part because of stalking off-wiki. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Both IPs were blocked just after this case was opened, so I think we're good here for now. If the IPs continue, though, feel free to relist. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16 December 2010[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

[2], [3], previously threatened to continue socking with multiple IP addresses. Blocked for edit warring and escalating block length for block evasion. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Continuing with threats to edit war [4]. [5] I particularly liked the accusation of being "paid" by HMG. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

I'm sorry, but checkuser will not connect named accounts with IPs. TNXMan 23:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Named account hasn't edited in months (and will not be linked to IPs in any case). Disruptive editing by the IPs should be handled by dispute resolution. TNXMan 17:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
09 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

I'm lodging this as an uninvolved editor following what I thought was sound advice at WP:ANI.

All of the susp. socks listed are single-purpose accounts that edit on articles related to Argentina's sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands. The first IP listed began edit-warring on Falkland Islands (a page rife with sockpuppetry) in December 2010. Wee Curry Monster made a plain accusation of sockpuppetry against Alex on the IP's talk page. In May 2011, an EWN thread was lodged by the IP in which Pfainuk listed all of these IP's and accounts which he believed to be the same individual. Alex then denied any connection. Pfainuk was unconvinced.

They all have the same distinctive style of editing, which is very aggressive, each expounding his intention to edit-war until the end of time [6], [7], [8]. They make frequent references to WP:GAMES in their edit summaries [9], [10], [11]; long rants in CAPS on talk pages [12], [13], [14], [15]; and use perculiar terms like "Argies" [16], [17]. Their familiarity with Wikipedia policies from the get-go is evinced by references to policy pages in their edit summaries.

Smackyrod was accused of being a sockpuppet of Alex by Wee Curry Monster as early as 2008. I'm not sure how far you can go back with this. All of the others are recent contributors.

While he's expressed unwillingness to provide evidence, I've implored Pfainuk, as well as Wee Curry Monster, to add whatever information they can. Nightw 14:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

A large part of my evidence is simply not suitable for posting publicly on Wikipedia for reasons of policy. There are other parts that I would prefer to do privately per WP:BEANS. This is in some ways unfortunate since those are the parts that I consider to be the most convincing. That said, I'm quite happy to communicate through e-mail with uninvolved admins as appropriate regarding this matter.
But I would note at this stage that:
  • Background: Alex first became known to me in 2007 when he posted demanding that a point be made by Falkland Islands based on his own heavy interpretation of a primary source. You can read this in full here and continued here and here. After posting a message to the mediator in October 2007 and to try and draft another mediator in January 2008, the Alex79818 account stopped posting on Falklands topics completely. I personally was not active on Wikipedia between September 2007 and April 2008 for reasons unrelated to this.
  • The Alex79818 account just happened to return to posting on this topic - after an absence of three and a half years - just as one of the IPs was having difficulty with a 3RR report in May 2011. His first edit on the subject was to post a frivolous Arbcom action.
  • Smackyrod was associated in 2008 with IP 201.250.35.85. The account has only been used once since 2008 (to edit Curry Monster's comment), but did have a familiar style that quickly led Curry Monster to make the connection.
  • All of those accounts (IIRC - you'll see in the contributions) with the exception of Alex79818 and Smackyrod were associated with the posting the same (or at least very similar) long and disruptive rants to Talk:Falkland Islands over and over again on several occasions. Some parts of this rant are interestingly similar to Alex's opening statement at Arbcom and his very long comment at the current ANI.
The issue here is twofold. Firstly, the aggressive refusal of all these IPs and accounts to assume good faith, coupled recently with threats and incivility. Second, the IPs and the Alex79818 account are being used in apparent attempt to deceive other editors as to the support for a position at Talk:Falkland Islands. Pfainuk talk 22:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC) NB. link updated to reflect WP:ANI archiving by Pfainuk talk 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there's the issue that none of the accounts are being used constructively. You have me curious about with your first paragraph but I won't push any further. Nightw 22:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True.
I would suggest that a brief inspection of the remaining IP's contributions with regard to the Falklands is sufficient to demonstrate that it is a static IP, likely used consistently by the same individual. Posting the same thing consistently for two months from November 2010 to January 2011 would be unusual for a dynamic IP, and repeating such things both in May 2011 and August 2011 would be even more unusual. The IP tacitly accepts here that he is the same editor who edit warred to post that long and aggressive post in November-January (he describes it as a "discussion attempt").
Bearing that in mind, it is also probably worth adding is that almost all of the IPs were blocked in January for block evasion (for all posting the same long and aggressive post to Talk:Falkland Islands). It was considered tolerably obvious from behavioural evidence, without need for SPI, that at that time they were all the same person. The one IP that has been active recently was blocked at that time for three months. Maybe they're not getting checkusered, but certainly the behavioural evidence was plenty strong enough at the time for them to be blocked as all being the same individual. So we do know that the individual behind this IP has a record of sockpuppetry. Pfainuk talk 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that another piece of evidence that I can put out there without too many WP:BEANS or policy issues is the shared habit of the making their posts not just aggressive but very long. See, for example: [18] [19] (posted already) [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Pfainuk talk 18:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth bearing in mind that the behavioural evidence noted in previous cases still applies. In particular that the IP posted a message on the old talk page of a renamed user. While the rename was very recent at that time, note that the user concerned had not reverted the IP at any stage before being renamed and had never been involved in any conversation with the IP. It would seem very odd in the normal scheme of things for the new name not to be used by such a new editor to the article when there is no previous evidence of discussion. Alex has also since made the same mistake. Note also this edit summary, which strongly suggests that the two of them have a past that is not evident from the IP's edit history.
Also worth adding is that the IP is now clearer that he is now the same person as used the IP back in December.
(The previous cases were closed because, in the first case, the IPs were blocked and, in the second, because the account was inactive. Neither is the case now.) Pfainuk talk 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Annyong: yeah, I wasn't sure how far back you could go with checkuser. It was worth a shot, but sorry for the mistake. Waiting for a response on behavioural analysis. Nightw 13:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, another weak attempt at intimidation which won't deter me one single bit from demanding WP guidelines be followed in the Falkland Islands and all other related articles. Nevertheless as far as investigations go, I mind this not one single bit - I have nothing to hide.Alex79818 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I have been away. User:HelloAnnyong you and I were in conversation by email a while back where I gave you evidence linking the IP addresses to Alex79818, if one of the IP addresses is being disruptive perhaps now is the time to re-address that. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this - see [25], [26], and the extensive history of accusations at [27] (WCM stating " I know Alex's real life identity, which would form part of my evidence so I'm holding off on making a complete SPI in case of an inadvertent contravention of WP:OUTING") where WCM seems to persist in charging Alex as a sock. Continuing this "case" where the named account has never been connected with any improper "sock" is now leading to disruptive attacks on other pages accusing it of being a sock on the basis that this case is not yet "closed". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex is very clearly linked to the IP socks and the evidence I have is more than compelling. Closing it would be premature, particularly in light of more disruption. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Collect means "close it" as in make a decision... Nightw 04:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see it closed, but I would suggest that this would reasonably require an investigation of the evidence. No admin has yet done this here. The previous investigations were closed because the points were considered moot (given that the Alex79818 account was inactive at that time), not because they lacked merit.
Based on the behavioural evidence that I have seen - not all of which is highlighted here, but all of which is based on information that is publicly available on Wikipedia and all of which I will provide on request by e-mail to the closing admin - I would suggest that the fact that Alex has been socking is beyond reasonable question. You may then add to that the evidence based on other factors, though IMO this would be better left until after all the behavioural evidence has been examined. Pfainuk talk 17:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17 August 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

From the contribution history of the IP [28] compare this diff [29] or this [30] (of many), with the frivolous arbcom case filed by Alex79818 [31]. The similarities with the frequent reference to WP:GAMES are so compelling that they are reasonably conclusive it is the same person. I have more conclusive evidence available but that would fall foul of WP:OUT.

If he attempts to pass this example off as an innocent failure to sign in, please note he has previously denied the comments from the IP at ANI is him. Its clear he has been socking disruptively knowing that IP addresses aren't linked to named accounts. Please can we see some action to stop further disruption. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk declined - First, checkuser doesn't connect accounts to IPs. Second, Smackyrod hasn't edited in twenty months, and is quite stale. Third, only one of those IPs - 209.36.57.10 - has edited in the last three months. There's no point in blocking any of the others, as they're also stale. A connection between the master and the one IP will have to be made on behavioral grounds. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis of the behavioural evidence demonstrated by the user compare report and the above diffs, I have no doubt that these IP addresses are Alex79818 (talk · contribs) editing while logged out. They have the same very aggressive approach to articles on the Falkland Islands, and share the same POV and general editing style. Accordingly, I've blocked Alex79818 for an indefinite period and further IP socks should be blocked on sight. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a bit more, as I noted on my talk page, I haven't taken Wee Curry Monster's allusions to additional but personal evidence into account when evaluating the above report. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Nick-D blocked the master, and the sock and the rest of the IPs (save one) are really stale. 209.36.57.10 last edited on the 19th, so I think they've gone quiet. Relist as necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Alex79818 banned for disruptive editing and abusive use of IP sockets. A new IP editor, claiming to have experience on other wikipedias to explain his rapidly acquired knowledge of wikipedia procedures, posted a frivolous complaint to WP:WQA after I reverted one his edits [32], Alex79818 has posted similar complaint to WP:WQA see [33]. Seems a clear case of WP:DUCK. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Wee Curry Monster talk 12:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, YGM. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can i just note for anyone closing at some later point that while many of Alex's IP addresses were in Florida, a number were also in Argentina. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Hello. Wes Curry Monster has left a message in my talk page, asking me to respond to his accusation here, so that's what I'm doing.
I have nothing to do with that puppet, I don't have a registered account here, and, as far as I remember, I didn't contribute with other IP's.
Firsly, Wes says I explained my "rapidly acquired knowledge of Wikipedia procedures" saying I contributed to another Wiki before. I want to clarify that I never said I have acquired that knowledge rapidly, that's a product of Wes imagination. I did contributed to another Wiki, yes, I said that, but it took me some time to get to know its policies and procedures, like everyone else, I guess, and, of course, I'm willing to adjust to this Wiki procedures and policies, as my efforts have so far, I believe, shown.
Secondly, Wes says he reverted one of my edits, well, he actually reverted three. Two in different articles (the only two articles I edited) and the third one in his talk page, when I politely tried to talk to him.
Finally, around two hours after he deleted my message in his talk page, I respectfully asked for help in the Wikiquette forum, explaining I would apologise in advance in case that wasn't the adequate place, or procedure. The help was given by two users in a respectful discussion. I didn't post a "frivolous complaint" (...), I tried to open the communication channel between this user and me, something this user seems reluctant to do.
Regarding that communication problem, I will now post, as suggested in the Wikiquette forum, a message in the article talk page. 190.195.39.223 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atama. Thanks for your time. I just wanted to say I checked the two messages that IP you mentioned is mine did, and it wasn't me. For instance, if you analyse their writing style, you'll see they're quite different from mine, and, more importantly, they seem strongly concerned about the sovereignty issue, furthermore openly supporting one of the two countries, whilst I don't really want to discuss the sovereignty, nor how should the article name the Islands. Regards 190.195.39.223 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no problem, that was the only other IP accused of being Alex79818 that looked to possibly be you, and purely for geographic purposes, and even if it was I wouldn't be concerned. -- Atama頭 19:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

information Administrator note I'm not seeing the connection. For the most part, Alex79818 seems to be editing from Florida, while this IP is from Argentina. I do believe this person has edited Falkland Islands in the past, as 186.124.60.14 for example. But I don't see the two WQA requests to be compelling duck behavior; I looked at the content of the two WQA requests and see nothing particularly similar in communication styles. -- Atama頭 17:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Behavioural evidence suggests that a link is unlikely. Closing investigation. AGK [•] 15:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13 February 2012[edit]

I have been been accused first of vandalism, when i defend myself abot this my comments are first erased and then i am accused of suckpuppet of some Alex, This is all surprising as i have made only a couple of edits on one of my first edits in wikipedia which have all been reverted, i have stated my argument both my edits are for the sake of neutrality, Seeing the history on this Alex case, It rather seems that user Wee Curry Monster seems to consider himself owner of al articles Falklands / Malvinas related and only allows edits he agrees with otherwise reverts without even discussing, See please the Falklands soverignty article I made edits regarding my opinion of a non neutral wording that made British occupations sound somewhat nicer than argentine occupation, first i put the 1982 Argentine Ocupation as Re-establishment of rule just as the article called the 19833 British invasion. This was reverted saying that the 1982 case could not be called re-establishment of rule as Argentina was there only a couple of months, the user who said so might have a case there, but the original wording still was not neutral, i edited both to be called invasion, maybe my mistake in editing directly instead of answering first on talk page, however this was quicly reverted , but with adding a warning about me doing vandalism, In what way editing something into what i think is more neutral is vandalism, what is worst when i Replied to Wee Curry Monster (who accused me of vandalism) he erases my reply on his talk page with no argument, so then i add my counter argument on the original page talk page based on the webster definition of invasion, and instead of a counter argument i receive an accusation of sockpupetry.

In one of my edits i had also made some changes on the timeline of the page that made it in my opinion more correct with the text of the article and consistent with the spanish version of the page, this was reverted with no counter argument to what i had already pointed out on the talk page. this was reverted with no argument at all.

Seeing the history of the Alex Case and the behaviour of Wee Curry Monster it rather seems that this editor (Wee Curry Monster) is dedicating his time to discredit any editor o ip address that edits something which he does not agree with specially in the falklands / malvinas case.

It seems it is much easier to make an accusation and revert than to actually make an argument (the argument i was made to my first edit incidentally was not by Wee Curry but by another user, Wee Curry has only been reverting and inmediatly posting accusations of vandalism and sockpuppet without even making discussing in the talk page.

Unfortunately i and i assume most people wont have time for having to start a personal defense against accusations whenever they post something (While This Wee Curry does seem to have a lot of time to make reverts and accusations but not any to actually express an argument.

by the way my name is Jose not Alex regards 190.139.249.234 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Clearly this is Alex79818, long verbose post tl;dr, classic Alex, example from 2007, the frivolous medcab he started here. Or the talk page when he was blocked [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex79818 here]. Per WP:BOOMERANG would someone kindly block the IP sockpuppet and close this. Tah. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account. This really is painfully obvious sock puppetry. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
05 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Alex79818 has been a long term disruptive editor on Falklands topics for some time. On 26 August 2011 he was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. At that time his IP was blocked for six months. Abenyosef showed up on Falkland Islands on 26 February 2012, exactly six months later. Abenyosef had not edited for nearly 2 years.

There are a number of behavioural similarities between the two. Alex79818 demanded the use of the description "Argentine settlement", [34], Abenyosef has been doing the same, [35]. Alex79818 filled the page with tendentious argument, Abenyosef has been doing the same See Talk:Falkland Islands. Alex79818 frequently singled me out for personal abuse, [36], Abenyosef has been doing the same [37]. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any delay in posting this but I wanted to run it by an admin first in case of an inadvertent case of WP:OUT. I noticed this [38], Abenyosef forgot to login. Whois from this IP [39] matches one from an IP used by Alex recently [40]. The geo data from the IP appears to contradict the info on his user page User:Abenyosef. Could well be a compromised account. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's clear that my IP is different from Alex's. As for the Geo data, my provider is a Buenos Aires-based company which provides the service for a vast area.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I've looked into several reports of Alex's previous socks, so I won't serve as a patrolling admin here as extra pairs of eyes on the situation would be helpful, but I think that the behavioral evidence strongly indicates that this editor is also Alex79818 (which suggests that he's had 'sleeper' accounts for quite a while). If possible, a technical check against other Alex socks would be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After going through Abenyosef's contribution history, I think what we are looking at here is a very clear cut case of WP:DUCK. As mentioned by WCM, the convenient expiration of the IP's block is way too much of a coincidence and should be taken into due consideration to applying an indef block on the accused. That is all. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Alex, and the behavioral evidence shown thus far does not prove or suggest anything, except perhaps to those unfamiliar with the Falkland Islands discussions. Wee Curry Monster suggests there's a relationship between the date I began contributing to that page and the unblocking date for Alex's IP; it's purely coincidental. He cites my ellegedly disruptive behavior, but my behavior is just bold, not reckless. I haven't engaged in edit wars; rather, I've argued my positions on the talk page and always based on sources. There's nothing surprising in my wanting to clarify that Luis Vernet's 1826 settlement was an Argentinian settlement, since that is the established scholarship as I've shown with multiple examples.
After going through Alex's contributions, it's clear there are multiple behavioral differences between Alex and me. He was a heavy user of User Talk Pages; I have hardly ever left a message to any user. He argued his case trying to prove what really happened through deductive analysis; my whole argumentation boils down to showing sources that say that the settlement was Argentinian, and asking if there's any alternative source claiming it was not. I've never engaged in deductive analysis as Alex did.
In my User Page, unaltered since 2007, I state that I'm an Argentinian of Middle Eastern descent and an expert in Spanish and Portuguese. Coherently with that, I've edited articles on Middle Eastern, linguistic and now Argentinian topics. I'm a legitimate user.--Abenyosef (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but an editor who hasn't edited in over a year suddenly reappearing and diving in with both feet on a controversial topic, using very similar arguments to a past editor's arguments, and who reappeared on the exact day the IP block of that past editor expired, is an enormous red flag; the WP:DUCK has a megaphone here. To be blunt: what caused you, at that exact point in time, to return to editing and choose the Falklands War article to edit, making it the only article you edit, in a complete and total change from past editing habits? (The change is enough to make me wonder if this account has been potentially compromised, even...) - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, I'll answer that one. As you may know, this year tension over the Falklands has escalated, with Argentina implementing trade restrictions on the islanders, the UK using unprecedented language against Argentina, each other's flag being burnt by extremists in both countries, etc. I noticed that a discussion had arisen in the British section of a global forum in which I participate, and I entered the debate to defend Argentina. In the course of the conversation, I noticed that the British forumers were deploying a number of ideas which ran contrary to all scholarship (Argentinian, British or neutral) on the topic. After some investigation, I found that they were taking those ideas from Wikipedia, and returned here to try and correct that.
So that it's not particularly surprising that I began editing the Falklands article in the month of February 2012, when tensions between both countries have escalated to unprecedented levels. The exact date is purely coincidental.
Also, WP:DUCK has a constraint: Occam's razor. Do you really think that someone would keep separate accounts, one to discuss antisemitism and Israel and the Spanish and Portuguese languages, and another to edit the Falklands article? And that he would Machiavellianly deploy two different participation styles, one with lots of personal messages to other editors, the other almost entirely restricted to editing the articles and their talk pages? It wouldn't make sense.--Abenyosef (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex was not a heavy user talk page user, most of his edits involved tying up talk pages with reams of tendentious argument. The two styles are very similar and I'm not the only editor to notice it. The only time he did much on talk pages, was the time he tried to bring a frivolous arbcom case and spammed everyone who'd ever edited on Falklands topics. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (typo corrected) Wee Curry Monster talk 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's user talk pages, I think. Alex used article talk pages extensively, but he did not use user talk pages at all, other than to notify everyone who had ever edited Falklands articles of Arbcom/ANI/whathaveyou.
The whole coming back on the same day as another's IP block ended would not be cause for concern, if the editor concerned did not have similar habits. But when you add the identically overaggressive attitude on top of that, plus the other evidence, then it begins to look like sockpuppetry. On Abenyosef's very first edit on the subject, on which he accused everyone of bad faith editing, Alex's name immediately came to mind. Noticing the dates helped cement that view. And we might note that Abenyosef's first edit on Falklands topics was trying to scupper a drive toward GA. That the article might someday get GA status was also something that seemed to outrage Alex in his failed Arbcom.
All in all, I think there's certainly a case to be looked at here. Compromised account seems logical given past history (it had certainly crossed my mind). Pfainuk talk 23:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten to mention Alex's disruption of the last GA drive see [41], quote "But if the article is to go for GA status in the future, it would be beneficial to play it my way." Abenyosef [42] "Please CORRECT this or I'll fight "good articleness" with all legal means." Note the threat to disrupt the GA drive unless we conform to his edit in both cases. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, hang on. "...all legal means.". Is that a legal threat? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn after a warning. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. Well, more and more  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a very specialized edit to the Differences between Spanish and Portuguese article to prove I'm the same Abenyosef who helped build that article.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if I have a different IP than Alex's, why would I wait until his IP block ended? Get your act together, gentlemen.--Abenyosef (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You completely got that backwards: you do not have a different IP. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm confused. Isn't the IP those numbers that appear when you forget to sign? Like 200.230.53.279, or something like that? Have my numbers coincided with the numbers that were blocked?--Abenyosef (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The exact numbers do not coincide - however the range, which is (I believe) what was blocked, does, and the geolocation is the same. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I would point out that the account appears to be (in effect) an SPA, who only decided to started editing a new page after this SPI. An account that had not been active since 2010. I also nore that Alex alsio appears to have ling breaks between edit blocks.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you got it wrong. Abenyosef, i.e. me, is a user whose area of expertise is the Spanish and Portuguese languages. Certain people here were concerned that I might be using a compromised account, i.e. that I might not be the original Abenyosef. By making an edit that made sense in the Differences between Spanish and Portuguese article, I hope to have proved that I in fact am the user I sign up as.
That leaves you with the theory that already in 2007 Alex created the Abenyosef account to edit articles about the Middle East and Spanish and Portuguese. That would be very complicated and also illogical; if any editor of a contentious article is also interested in other topics, it is convenient for him to let the others know it, because he will be less exposed to SPA accusations. Why would Alex create separate accounts for his different interests? Occam's razor, Slatersteven.--Abenyosef (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ther is a recognozed tactic that a user who knows they are going to create controversy sets up a number of accounts, uses them breifly and then lets them sleep untill he is blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've said it: briefly. But the Abenyosef account was not used briefly; it was used for over 3 years, and it was used passionately. Hardly the pattern of a dormant account.--Abenyosef (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[43] Your edit counter doesn't have the profile of a passionate editor, and it wasn't used from 14 Dec 2010 till 26 Feb 2012. Actually it does have the pattern of a dormant account. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be very blunt: the account (a) returns on the very day the IP block expired, after being inactive for over a year; (b) geolocates to the exact same area of the putative sockmaster; and (c) edits in the exact same area in (d) a very similar fashion. What other conclusion can be drawn then it's the same person? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[44] An independent comment from a previously uninvolved editor who has picked up the grudge this user has against me. Alex has been plaguing me since 2007! Wee Curry Monster talk 09:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, just because you don't have enough imagination to fathom other possibilities doesn't mean they don't exist. Actually, the only startling coincidence is the date of my return to Wikipedia edition (by the way, you said you "believed" it was the range, not the exact IP, which was blocked -- have you checked that?). As for the rest of your points:

(b) I'm at a loss defending myself against the geolocation argument because I don't exactly know what it means; however, I believe in Argentina it has to do with where your IP provider is located, not with where you are located. The addresses shown are Buenos Aires addresses, and the name Telecom shows up -- is it surprising that someone in Argentina would have the Buenos Aires-based IP provider Telecom? Some 3 million Argentinians do. Are you suggesting I am not in Rosario, as I state in my profile? Is that the accusation? Or what exactly is the accusation? If you doubt that I live in Rosario, I can prove it.

(c) This is not an additional coincidence; it all boils down to the date. It's normal that an Argentinian would show up to debate the Britons when tensions over the Falklands have flared up. It's also normal for him to be outraged that Luis Vernet's settlement is not called an Argentinian settlement, much like a Hawaiian would be outraged if the Barack Obama article did not specify that he was born in Hawaii. It's also normal for that Argentinian to be outragred that an article with such a glaring omission would be nominated for Good Article. Look: we Argentinians know that Vernet established an Argentinian settlement on the islands since age 10. Our teachers are so good at brainwashing that they have even managed to convince British scholars and media outlets, like historian Martin Middlebrook[45] and the BBC[46]. So I'd say it's hardly surprising that the first thing an Argentinian notices upon stumbling with the Falkland Islands article is the absence of any mention that Vernet's settlement was Argentinian.

(d) Have you analyzed Alex's contributions and mine to decide we contribute in a very similar fashion? What are your credentials? Are you a semiologist? Actually, our styles are quite different:

(i) As I have pointed out, Alex used the User Talk Pages to proselytize for his ideas and proposals; I have never done anything of the like.

(ii) I have a certain gift for humor, which I use now and then. Enjoy:

(After someone presented newspapers no one had ever heard of as reliable sources)

Granted, you have presented you sources -- the Teheran Times, the Thailand Daily and the Bollocksville Express (for those of you about to report me, that last one is a joke, for God's sake).


(After WCM denied for the umpteenth time the scholarly accepted Argentinian nationality of Vernet's enterprise because it would violate NPOV)


Thank you for stating that Vernet had permission from both British and Argentinian authorities. That's WP:NPOV; we need not clarify that the settlement was Argentinian, as the scholars consistently claim. I'm rushing to the Earth article to change "the Earth revolves around the sun" to "the Earth and the sun have a movement relative to each other." That will be WP:NPOV, since we're not taking sides in the debate of whether the Earth or the sun is at the center of the solar system.

(After MarshalN20 googled for the frequency of two strings to prove a point)

Hey, look what I've found:
  • Argentine player Lionel Messi: 47,400 hits[47]
  • Barcelona player Lionel Messi: 418,000 hits[48]

Therefore, we shouldn't be saying here in Wikipedia that Lionel Messi is an Argentine football player. We should say that he's a Barcelona football player, which is the most common descriptor used to refer to him. That way, we would be satisfying WP:COMMONNAME; also, we wouldn't be pushing the POV that Messi is Argentine, as some editors with a nationalist agenda are trying to do.--Abenyosef (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Alex ever use humor at all?

Also, the way we argue our points is radically different. Alex strove to prove that things happened the way he thought they happened through deductive analysis (i.e. he fell into his opponent's game); I have constrained myself to quote reliable sources saying what I want to be said in the article.

In short, my friend, you're indicting me on the sole basis of a date coincidence. The other things you find amazing are not amazing at all once you know the context (for instance, what we Argentinians are brainwashed with from the crib). My writing style and my debating style are demonstrably different from Alex's. And as I pointed out, the idea that Alex created the Abenyosef account would require some very complicated assumptions which do not stand the Occam razor's test.

The simple explanation is that I showed up at a hardly surprising time (when tension over the Falklands is up) to say hardly surprising things (what any Argentinian would say), with the only startling coincidence of the date. That alone does not indict me.--Abenyosef (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Alex used what presumably he thought was humour frequesntly but to be honest exactly the same mocking style. You've attempted to deflect attention by claiming Alex's style is different. Well, no, it isn't, the parallels are very compelling evidence. For example, twice now you've claimed Alex restricted himself to user talk pages - no he didn't. His style was to tie the article talk page up with tendentious argument. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I beg to differ, as do other users. For instance, when I proposed to change the wording of a tendentiously-written sentence[49], WCM's comment was: It is perfectly neutral in tone and it is becoming increasingly clear you are simply disrupting this article to make a point. Please stop now, you may consider this a warning. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC). However, the sentence was taken by MarshalN20 to the language board, and the guys over there overwhelmingly supported my view[50]. MarshalN20's comment was then: My understanding of the sentence is exactly the same as that of WCM. However, the different understandings coming from different users indicate to me that perhaps the current wording (i.e. the wording I was trying to change) is not necessarily the easiest to understand.--MarshalN20 | Talk 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC).
As can be seen, what was perceived as disruptive behavior by WCM was deemed perfectly justified by the neutral guys over at the language board. Conclusion, WCM's views about me are not a reliable source of information to decide if Alex's style and mine are similar.
@Bushranger: care to clarify exactly who you think I am personally attacking?--Abenyosef (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone agree with your chice of words does not mean they agree that you are not editing in the same style as someone else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the guys at the language board made clear, those are individual opinions and shouldn't be used to argue from authority as that isn't what the board was for. Also as both Marshall and I agreed, we have always interpreted the text very differently and the response reflected the way the question was posed. Tell me why you're deflecting attention from the basic comment that you're editing in exactly the same tendentious style that Alex79818 did, which combined with the behavioural evidence from diffs and the IP evidence does make for a compelling case. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not deflecting attention from anything. You called an edit of mine "disruptive," but neutral people didn't find it disruptive at all. If your judgment can't be trusted on that, why would it be trusted when you state that I'm tendentious, or when you claim that my style is the same as Alex's? Only a semiologist (even understand what that means?) has the training to decide, from discourse marks (sentence construction, organization of ideas, frequency of use of certain words, etc.), if two writers are one and the same. Are you a semiologist?
As for the IP evidence, we know that my IP is not the same as Alex's, and we don't know yet if it was his IP or his range that was blocked. Also, your conclusions about geolocation are worthless since you don't have the faintest idea of how Argentina's optical fiber network functions.
In short, stop crying WP:DUCK when you can't distinguish a duck from a goose.
One more thing. In a comment above you claimed: "For example, twice now you've claimed Alex restricted himself to user talk pages." I said he was a heavy user of User Talk Pages, but I never said that he restricted himself to writing on those pages. This is the kind of small distortions that you love to introduce. And it's not the first time I catch you lying. I suggest that you modify that behavior before your pants get on fire (for those of you about to report me, that last one was a joke, for God's sake).--Abenyosef (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[51] Alex liked to accuse me of distorting things and lying. Which is apart from anything else a pretty clear cut personal attack. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abenyosef, you've been skirting the line of WP:NPA this whole time, but you've gone too far - you have just made several personal attacks in that last post. I've given you every possible chance to convince me you're not Alex, but instead you've just dug the hole deeper. The behavioral evidence is clear and conclusive, regardless of your attempts to muddy the waters; furthermore, your tendentious arguing and personal attacks have also made it clear that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia. Therefore, you have been blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, sorry for interrupting but I've just noted this while looking for an old comment. I'm getting really, really tired of these constants accusations, in particular as you can see I've been accused of SP by WCM since day 0: [52][53] Quote: "I think this is a sleeper account for the blocked disruptive editor User:Alex79818". I want to formally request a check user on myself so he stops defaming me with this SP/MP nonsense. How can I do that? Where do I sign? I just hope these scripts are accurate... --Langus (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank heavens for that. Best block I've seen in ages. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

All of the accounts in the archive appear  Stale -this would need to be decided on behavioral evidence. TNXMan 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alex79818/Archive

Leave a Reply