Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alan MB

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cristodelosgitanos (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 15 October 2021 (→Comments by other users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tbhotch

Please note that a case was originally opened under Alan MB (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbhotch. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbhotch.


14 October 2021

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Would not have noticed but User:Alan_MB is a dormant account which used to edit only on matters related to Mexico. This account was active between 2006 and 20017 After 5 years of inactivity It has recently engaged in a massive blanking of sources of the article Dia de Muertos [1], in support of the POV aggressively pushed by User:Tbhotch, also based in Mexico city and also editing on the same issues. Upon being reverted, the article was immediately and aggressively reverted by Tbhotch here [2] and here [3], showing a strong emotional attachment to this particular edit which I believe he has resurrected his dormant account to work with in tandem. Both accounts have edited on similar articles including Vicente Guerrero, Felipe Calderon, Ernesto Zedillo, President of Mexico, Lázaro Cárdenas, Emilio Portes Gil, Luis Echeverría among literally doznes of others. This being a sockpuppet is literally beyond question, the evidence is overwhelming. There is a nearly complete overlap and the sockpuppet has been resurrected and used maliciously. Most interestingly, both accounts have heavily edited Naucalpan an obscure locality near Mexico city where it is clear this user is from. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional evidence: Well over 60% of Mexican dormant account User:Alan_MB's 239 edits were on 39 articles also edited by User:Tbhotch?[4] Tbhotch thus used his dormant account as a sockpuppet to blank the article Dia de Muertos and then, incidentally, used his main account User:Tbhotch to maliciously initiate a sockpuppet investigation against the person who reverted and questioned him on talk page, namely me.Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, with the 60% overlap being distributed over so many articles, the probability of User:Alan_MB not being the resurrected dormant account of User:Tbhotch is effectively zero, rendering a checkuser irrelevant. Both accounts share edits of rather obscure articles. Worthy of note is Nacaulpan (3 edits by tbhotch and 10 by Alan_MB). This is one of 2446 municipalities in Mexico, a relatively unknown satellite town of Mexico city with a population which is less than 0.7% of the total of the country. If this 60% of overlap was concentrated in a few articles (3 or 4 rather than 39) with high user traffic, I would offer the benefit of the doubt. But 60% overlap in 239 edits over 39 articles? I don't initiate sockpuppet investigations on a whim and dislike the inquistorial and often cowardly intentions which spark these procedures. But its technically impossible for Alan not be a sockpuppet of tbhotch. Its just plain math.--Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am completely open to admins CUing my account. The only account they will find is Tbsock (talk · contribs). This report is very childish and a poor response to your own SPI. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks for your comment, I have found another pattern. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for CUing your account. The behavioral evidence is absolute. You are both from the same small locality in Mexico, there is complete overlap in the dozens and dozens of articles you edit. You have resurrected this dormant account for canvassing on an article you have been aggressively edit warring on. There is no point even denying it. You are User:Alan_MB. Its literally impossible to deny. Why do you even bother? --Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We live in the same locality solely because we have edited the same page? No, for real, request a CU, or are you afraid of something? (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really need to say anything else. You shouldn't have used an account which is so obviously yours to engage in sockpuppetry. You would have done better opening a new account. --Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can say the same for you. Stop using new accounts, you don't fool anyone. Good night. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the CheckUser will appear as unrelated. This editor is seasoned enough on wikipedia to know how to hide his IP. For this reason I nearly didn't even bother with a CheckUser. The sloppiness was assuming no one would go through the edits of his former account. Long-term editors with roll-back rights etc often think they are untouchable, that can do as they please and that they will never come under any serious scrutiny. But, based on behavioral grounds alone, these two editors are 100% to same person. The evidence is overwhelming:
  • One is a Mexican claims to be interested in technology on his user page, the other a Mexican who studied at University of Technology in Mexico - both clearly in their early 30s.
  • Alan has 60% editing overlap in his edits with Tbhotch spread out across 39 articles.
  • Both avidly editing articles and templates of practically every Mexican president since independence.
  • Both editing a completely unknown Mexican locality, to which the editor is no doubt linked.
  • Account dormant for years resurrected to defend the POV of the other, with a single mass blanking on an article never edited by the sockpuppet, then goes dormant again and the main count instantly and aggressively defends the edit by launching accusations of sockpuppetry against refusing to engage on content of the edit.
  • Oddly, both have edited the article on January 1 - it is rare for wikipedia editors to be active on dates, let alone the same specific date.
If this isn't considered behavioral evidence beyond reasonable doubt I don't know what is.Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's analyze January 1, shall we?
  • Alan adds that "Naucalpan becomes a muncipality of the Mexican state of México" in 2005.
  • 7 years later, I revert a vandalism edit[5]
  • 6 years later, I add the {{pp}} template 4 times, and a hatnote to a film. Exactly how this is "behavioral evidence beyond reasonable doubt". Insisting on this won't make it credible. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, beyond reasonable doubt when all of the evidence is taken together. Where is this Alan, btw? 5 years of inactivity. Logs in makes a single savage edit in support of your POV, deleting entire paragraphs of sourced information and disappears for good. You didn't want to "own" that edit yourself knowing it was wrong, but rather used your dormant account and then defend it as a status quo. If anyone buys your story its because they don't want to see it. Editors have been blocked with far far less evidence. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alan_MB&oldid=1050080290"