Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Php2000

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 19:40, 15 October 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Php2000

Php2000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Php2000/Archive.



14 October 2021

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

I wouldn't have noticed this if it wasn't for this edit. It is an unmarked revert of this edit whose edit summary reads: "This article suffered from several misleading edits from different (now blocked) sockpuppet accounts to the point that it lost its NPOV and became mostly supported by a single source that was quoted repeatedly. Rewritten it trying to preserve additions that were made by other editors and trying to present a more neutral POV." Considering that Cristo removed the same amount of content it means that a) they read the comment and deliberately ignored it merely saying "mass deletion of sources" or b) they removed the same exact amount of content when they edited the page. The coincidences with PHP and Huasteco are non-trivial [1]. For example, all the accounts tend to say that others are "POV-pushing", including this and this. As I'm writing this, Cristo inadvertently left the following message: Do their findings hurt "Aztec" sensibilities? when talking about the Day of the Dead; Huasteca said "presumably due to a sense of hurt pride or unfulfilled desire for revenge" when talking about Astra-Zeneca. No one's pride is hurt. This is pure sockpuppetry. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is actually funny. If my grand total of 5 edits on two articles one article of overlap with these users you accuse me of being a sockpuppet of, how does it compare with the majority (well over 60%) of User:Alan_MBs 239 edits being on 39 articles being also edited by tou, User:Tbhotch?[2] You used a sockpuppet to blank an article and maliciously initiated a sockpuppet investigation against the person who reverted your edit and engaged with you on talk page. If anything merits an immediate ban, its this. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even try to understand that link? "15 years", "14 years", and the content of the edits don't even match.[3] And this doesn't make any sense. According to you, I'm the main account, I who joined in 2009, and Alan in 2004. Can you explain "my" weird edit pattern [4][5]? And if so, why I didn't log in as Alan and re-reverted your edit? (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • After Cristo opened my SPI, they accidentally left another clue. According to Cristo, and I'm not outing them, Cristo is from Spain, a Spanish-language country. Cristo said and quote "massive blanking of sources of the article Dia de Muertos". Absolutely no one in Spain will forget to accent the word "Día", it is one of the most common words in our language, and the lack of accentation is impossible, unless "[I] don't have them in my keyboard", as Huasteca did say. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Poirot! The accents!Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still no denying nor defending yourself, just like Huasteca did. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you know what else Huasteca said: "Attempting to get a user blocked because you disagree with their edits and have decided to aggressively edit war", and you just said: "Upon being reverted, the article was immediately and aggressively reverted by Tbhotch". What's wikt:aggressive in both instances? Where's the aggression? I mean, I can continue looking for phrases and words you both have said, those that start with "everyone is POV-pushing but me". (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Oi! A little far-fetched, don't you think, bruv? --Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my high percentage of caught sockpuppets, no. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it is beyond question that User:Tbhotch is currently maliciously using sockpuppet User:Alan_MB, his former account which he is using as a strategy for canvassing. The behavioral evidence is absolute. The sockpuppet investigation can be found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tbhotch.--Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't even try to defend yourself and try to deflect the attention somewhere else makes things worse. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, an account with a 60% overlap with articles you edited distributed over 39 articles which has been dormant for 5 years. Suddenly, out of the blue, it makes a single mass deletion of sources in an article User:Tbhotch has been edit warring on for the past year, then becomes inactive. When someone reverts Alan's edit, tbhotch instantly reverts it and attempts to initiate a weakly supported pre-emptive sockpuppet investigation to avoid discussion on talk. Statistically, with the 60% overlap being distributed over so many articles, the likelihood of User:Alan_MB not being the resurrected dormant account of User:Tbhotch is close to zero, if not zero, rendering a checkuser irrelevant. Both accounts edit shared 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 with high user traffic, I would give you the benefit of the doubt - I don't initiate sockpuppet investigations on a whim. Its technically its impossible for Alan not be a sockpuppet of tbhotch. Its just plain math. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mucho texto. A simpler "I am Php and I can't defend myself" is enough. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to defend myself from an active sockpuppeteer who is accusing me of ommitting Spanish accentuation when writing in English (?!) and using the word "aggressive". It doesn't deserve a response. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You also forgot to accent reír in es.wiki. The CU results are here, and unlike my SPI that says unrelated, yours says stale. In simple terms, it is too old to determine by CU. However, these "thank you" and goodbye messages [6][7] are suspicious as well. This[8][9] is behavioral evidence, not simply saying "they have all edited the same pages throughout the years", as you keep insisting. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight, Tbhotch. Are you now claiming that User:Liberationthetruth and User:YxngRapunzel are also my sockpuppets? If so this should be a formal part of your accusation and you should add them to your list of suspected sockpuppets so a Check User can be performed. Otherwise it seems like you are trying to fabricate "evidence" out of thin air. A bit rich coming from a person against whom the behavioral evidence of current sockpuppetry is overwhelming. I cannot believe a seasoned wikipedian would simultaneously use sockpuppets and initiate bogus sockpuppetry investigations in the context of a single edit conflict. Has this ever happened before? Its the peak of cynicism. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm giving you the meaning of behavioral evidence. You should comprehend first what you read before jumping to conclusions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why are those two edits suspicious? Its a friendly private message I accidentally sent to the wrong editor following a resolved edit dispute and then had to repost to the correct recipient. They are not "goodbye" messages nor a smoking gun. Hardly comparable to shared edits on 30 Mexican Presidents, January 1 and Nacaulpan, the latter incidentally created by User:Alan_MB. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic I'm Materialscientist or ClueBot. (CC) Tbhotch™ 16:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's suspicious as you are thanking them for something that happened 15 days ago. You are thanking them after this SPI started, in a similar way a farewell is written as if you suspected you would be blocked. Even Callio said, "I fear that they are right about your sockpuppetry" because you are not even trying to argument you are not engaged in sockpuppetry. You accuse others without reasonable evidence (ad hominem), you have tried to ridicule me: "Bravo, Poirot! The accents!", "Oi! A little far-fetched", "I'm afraid it would be emotionally catastrophic for you seeing how invested you are in the project", (appeal to ridicule); you create an SPI with poor evidence (red herring) and even after the CU was conducted, you still using Alan as a straw man. What you don't understand (or you understand it and you know that if you admit it you're done) is the facts we have:
Two Spaniard users who speak Spanish, but somehow they don't use accents, even when writing at es.wiki. Both use similar words, always engage on edit-wars. There, insult the "opponent" and when the "opponent" gives reasonable reasons on the opposite, they feel they're losing their point, go to noticeboards to affirm the other party is doing wrong and that the case should lean in their favor. Out of the 6 million people living in the Madrid metropolitan area, you want me to believe that you, an editor that had solely edited the page Flamenco (also edited by Huasteco), somehow learn about Alan's revert and you unilaterally decided to ignore their edit summary? (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC):[reply]
I remind you I did not engage in an edit war. You reported me preemptively after reverting you once and leaving a single message on talk - the very definition of "aggression". But yes, my logic. Materialscientist has nearly one and a half million edits and you have over a quarter of a million edits. The percentage of your edits on shared articles with this editor are under 1% of your total edits and less than 0.1% if we exclude general admin pages. This compares with over 60% of Alan_MB's edits being on articles which you have also edited. It's probability pure and simple. Mathematically, the likelihood of you being the same editors is Almost surely. Please don't make me count the exact number of edits and provide the mathematical calculation. I can calculate the probability of you being unrelated editors but it will take me a while - its effectively zero. To anyone who understands statistics it is proven that you two are the same person, particularly in the light of this being a defunct account which has not been used in years and has suddenly been resurrected for the sole purpose of implementing mass deletions of sources on an article you have been edit warring on for months. You didn't want it to stain your record with vandalism and ended up doing something far worse. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically if you have two apples and I have zero, statistically we both have one apple each. Statistics mean nothing with poor rationales like saying: "You are Alan because he added information about Naucalpan here and 14 years later you returned to add a hatnote!". BTW, my SPI will be closed soon. It's time to stop talking about me and that you start to talk about your actions that are too similar to those sockpuppets (remember, this is your SPI). Unfortunately, I know what will happen next: You will push now your "If anyone buys your story its because they don't want to see it" and you will continue not denying being a sockpuppet. Because of that, I have to rest my case. If you want to continue playing this game, feel free to do it. I'm moving on and unlike you, I have presented enough circumstantial evidence to determine that both of you have several similarities. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain the logic here, since perhaps you some people don't get it. Imagine I open an account and edit an article on, say, Bill Clinton. I make 5 edits. I then edit another article 15 times on Zimbabwe. Can you confirm that I am a sockpuppet of another account editing Bill Clinton because 25% of my edits are shared? No. This is not enough since I will have edited too few edits to establish a pattern and this would mean that all new users could be potentially a sockpuppet of someone. However, if I open an account and I make 2 edits on Bill Clinton, 2 edits on Burger King, 1 edit on Paris, 5 edits on Madonna, 5 on Tony Blair and 20 edits on Zimbabwe and it turns out there is another user who has edited 5 of those 6 articles (excluding Zimbabwe) - then the likelihood of sockpuppetry increases dramatically even in the cases where the % of shared edits is lower (not your case). If this editor linked to you and behaving extremely abnormally (resurrected account for single edit) shares a 60% overlap over 39 articles (not just one or two), comes from the same country, has the same interests on and off wikipedia, and the sockpuppet's single edit is aligned with an overall long term edit war then the probability is a near certainty. Its a probability curve, the larger spread over the different articles, the higher the probability. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't. In fact, this is a common mistake performed by sockpuppets. They continue editing in the same pages and patterns that their previous blocked accounts. This is why I exemplified it with the Liberationthetruth and YxngRapunzel accounts. If "YxngRapunzel" had started editing, using your example, Bill Clinton and then YxngRapunzel moves to Zimbabwe to restore material marked as changed by a sockpuppet (which is what you did), then it is clear that YxngRapunzel is a sockpuppet attempting to circumvent our policies. All the sockpuppets sooner or later start giving hints that they are a sockpuppet. This has nothing to do with mathematics. You caught my attention as you removed 20K of information with a weird edit summary: "removal of sources". Well yes, you were removing sources, but why? Then I clicked view history and I saw Alan's edit and his edit summary. Then I saw the history below and I found those accounts of Segura and Php, and then I remembered who was Php. Then I followed your edits, and the more comments I read, the more similarities I found with Huasteca. The simplest explanation is usually the best one. And the fact that you have attempted several times to divert the attention to other things worsens everything because it indicates you are hiding something. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other things = A sockpuppeteer launching sockpuppet investigations against editors who revert edits by his sockpuppet. Not at all relevant to this discussion. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See what I mean that you are WP:REHASHing your already disproven point? You don't even try to demonstrate that you are not Huasteca. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about PHP or Huasteco but I will say that Cristo is very interested in participating in ethnic disputes relating to Spain, which seems consistent with that MO. Also Cristo's 20th-22nd edits were reports to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which would be very unusual for a new editor. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm looking at the Huasteco edits to Flamenco I'm 100% convinced they're the same person. (1) Reverting that Alan edit with a deceptive edit summary to restore the Huasteco version and (2) two editors just happening to try to revise the intro (and only the intro! I always thought that was odd... Cristo was so worked up about the intro but never really the rest of the article, and Huasteca was the same) to the flamenco article with respect to the role of gitanos in the development of flamenco.Huasteca edits/Cristo edits, (3) the weird "goodbye"-ish message posted to my page as this SPI began. Even if the CU is stale, I would block based on behavioral evidence. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cristo's 14th edit used the abbreviation "rv", 15th edit used "es:" to refer to Spanish Wikipedia, 20th edit used abbreviation "POV"... obviously Cristo has been around the block. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in "ethnic disputes related to Spain" Calliopejen1. I'm interested in Flamenco and the history of Flamenco and that is where I predominantly aim to edit wikipedia since it is my area of expertise. I'm not a new editor. I used to edit Wikipedia ages ago. I don't know the password to that account though it has been inactive over a decade. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This IP, which you said is you certainly seems to be interested in ethnic disputes relating to Spain and Latin America going beyond flamenco. Plus this edit about churrasco (which I agree with but demonstrates a very unusual focus on these sorts of ethnic disputes). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit too... seems like anytime there is a dispute about whether something is "Spanish" as opposed to "indigenous"/"Roma"/whatever else, you seem to pop up, just like PHP and Huasteca seem to have done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok got it. I'm a hyper-nationalist who hates ethnic minorities because Churrasco. I have been accused of crazier things. Nice one, Calliopejen. Using a friendly message on your talk page as "proof" on a case initiated by a tactical sockpuppeteer. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 19:39, 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/Php2000&oldid=1050100058"