Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caracas 2000/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Caracas 2000

Caracas 2000 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
07 February 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


GJRFMorelligu was (essentially) indef-blocked for image copyvios on August 5, 2007. Caracas 2000 started editing on August 9, 2007. I have just discovered (in helping go through Caracas 2000's CCI) both users have introduced direct translation copyvios into Venezuelan presidential biographies from http://www.venezuelatuya.com. (See e.g. here - copyvio by GJRFMorelligu, article later edited by Caracas 2000 and here - copyvio by Caracas 2000.) Seems very odd for two independent users to have done this. It would be nice to know if Caracas 2000 has been through this whole song and dance before so we could just do an outright indef-block again if needed--and also to know if we should open a CCI automatically for GJRFMorelligu. I don't really have any evidence about Caracas1830, but he edits a lot of the same articles and it would be nice just to exclude him for sure based on the similarity of the name. Thanks. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also just found this edit done by Caracas 2000, which references a personal interview by Guillermo Ramos Flamerich, which basically seals the deal. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Please explain why you've included Caracas1830 in this SPI? I used to work closely with him, and I've seen no reason whatsoever to link these two editors. Caracas1830 in my recollection was a serious and knowledgeable editor. Since most Venezuelans are (or were, before recent political deterioration) very proud of their capital city, using the name "caracas" and editing Venezulan articles is not a reason to suspect sockpuppetry. And Caracas1830 has a good command of English. Have you notified Caracas1830 of this SPI and do you have any evidence linking 2000 and 1830; if not, please remove him per FISHING. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they're probably unrelated and don't really have a sense for the SPI standards since I never come here, so deny this if it's best. I just see them editing a lot of the same articles, sometimes in close succession (but to the extent Caracas1830 is just patrolling Venezuela-related edits this is definitely possible). I am just a little bit on the alert after we had a near-identical situation with copyvio articles translated from French by User:S710, who was reincarnated shortly thereafter as User:S711 without anyone noticing until years later. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they edit the same articles-- they are generally important Venezuelan articles, and they both (obviously) edit Venezuelan articles as you can tell by their editor name. I edit those articles, too-- does that make me a sockpuppet of one of them? Checkuser is not for fishing: unless you have some evidence that Caracas 1830 is Caracas2000, it would be most kind of you to strike or remove the allegation. Since you didn't notify either of them, I've alerted Caracas 1830, and now it will fall to me to write up a long explanation to him of what this is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No notifications, no evidence, no retraction: I pinged Caracas1830. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

God, Sandy, can you not be so hysterical? I explicitly stated that I don't know all the relevant rules, and put my request up for what it's worth. If it's deficient, it will be denied. And as far as I could tell from the instructions, notification isn't mandatory. I figured, honestly, that the request would probably denied and it wasn't worth bothering Caracas1830--or, alternately, that it would come back negative and it wouldn't be worth bothering him. If notification is in fact mandatory, the instructions should be revised for clarity. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
God, Callipejen1, can you not [label others as] hysterical? Regardless of what you "figured" or knew at the time, it has since been pointed out to you that there is no evidence for your accusation, there is evidence against them being the same, and if you "figure" it "wouldn't be worth bothering him", perhaps you've never been accused of socking before? Would you like to strike the allegation or would you like to put up evidence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, whatever. Stricken, though I don't think it makes any difference whatsoever in what the people who deal with this page with do, considering that they could have read what I wrote. No, I have never been accused of sockpuppetry, and I don't believe that I have ever reported anyone here or otherwise been involved on this page so it would be nice if you could assume a bit of good faith - I just figured that the powers that be would appropriately sort things out. I didn't believe that "I don't really have any evidence about Caracas1830, but he edits a lot of the same articles and it would be nice just to exclude him for sure based on the similarity of the name" was a horrific accusation. To the extent that this request has caused any trouble, I'm sorry. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've got one user (GJRFMorelligu) who was supposedly blocked six years ago (although he doesn't look blocked to me-- so you might want to check that), but since he hasn't edited for six years, CU data is likely to be stale. But you want to know if he is the same as Caracas2000, so you can block Caracas2000 (who is no longer editing anyway). Since CU data is likely stale, the determination will have to be made based on behavioral evidence, so you need to provide enough behavioral evidence to make a case. Since many of the articles you identify are articles that any Venezuelan editor would edit, what convincing evidence do you have that GJRFMorelligu and Caracas2000 are the same? If I could see the content you've deleted and linked above, I could draw conclusions about the similarity in their edits and their Spanish or English proficiency, but since those edits are revdel'd, I can't see them. For two different Venezuelan editors to cite these common sources (Venezuelatuya) on common articles (Venezuelan Presidents) isn't evidence enough (for me at least) to conclude they're the same; I'd want to see the exact content added and make comparisons of the editors' writing styles, and see some more examples of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm pretty convinced at this point that User:Caracas 2000 was created to evade the block of User:GJRFMorelligu. :( User:GJRFMorelligu was declined in his last unblock request on 8 August 2006 (not 2007 :)). User:Caracas 2000 created his account on 9 August 2006. Caracas 2000 immediately started uploading images, following the same pattern of the previous editor and some of the uploads are the same. For starers, see File:Juan Bautista Plaza.jpg. I've restored the deleted history for comparison so that you can see it, too, Sandy: [1]. Exactly the same dimensions and resolution; I don't know how to see the metadata of the original. This is also true of File:Alberto Arvelo Torrealba.jpg. Uploaded by GJRF and deleted; later uploaded by Caracas 2000 in precisely the same dimensions. See also File:Mariano Picón Salas.jpg, File:The young Fredy Reyna.jpg. Notable here, both of them uploaded and subsequently had deleted the same image: File:People dancing merengue rucaneao.jpg. This was later uploaded on Commons as public domain (and perhaps it is) by commons:User:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich. The metadata and the dimensions seem the same. I'm going to add any of this you don't already have to your SPI.

I have some real concerns about that user. Check his description for File:Fotos Baruta.jpg: "I´m the author of this photo, i take it in August 2006." Why does it say in the metadata "Copyright 9,2002"? And why does it indicate the file had last been altered on 2003:01:26 20:20?

And look at Caracas 2000's rationale for his File:Vidal Colmenares.jpg: "I'm the author of this photo, i take it in August 6, 2006, in a public presentation of Vidal Colmenares, Caracas, Venezuela. Guillermo Ramos Flamerich". He had originally signed this here with his username but changed it many months later.

I think all three of these users are the same person. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With you on the images (thanks for that piece) that indicate Caracas2000 is GJRF, but if you mentioned Caracas 1830 in the analysis above, I have missed it. I see GJRF and Caracas2000, but where is the conclusion about "all three" coming from (if it's above, I'm missing it). To my knowledge, knowing him years back, Caracas1830 has a good command of English, while Caracas2000/GJRF don't. I'm still not seeing any evidence linking all three of these users as you say. If you have some, I'll be surprised, because I believe they are in different countries, and if they're the same, it would mean that Caracas 2000 is feigning poor English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any confusion I caused. :) I assumed Caracas1830 was already eliminated as his username has been wiped out. The three users I'm talking about are User:Caracas 2000, User:GJRFMorelligu and commons:User:Guillermo Ramos Flamerich, the one I brought into things. These are the three users I think are the same person. I don't even know if the last guy has edited here; I didn't have time to look. I agree that Caracas1830 is almost certainly not involved. --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, all clear, and in agreement now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

To complement the rationales from Caracas 2000's file uploads that were quoted above by Moonriddengirl, here are two from GJRFMorelligu's file uploads:

  • [2]: "I´m the author of this paint Guillermo Ramos Flamerich"
  • [3]: "I´m the creator of this image, i took it on June 22, 2006, in the Francisco Fajardo Highway, Caracas, Venezuela Guillermo Ramos Flamerich"

No question GJRFMorelligu and Caracas 2000 are the same.
Since he has made no attempts to reply on his talk page (he has made one edit since you brought it up there) I see no choice but to block his account.
CCI has already been created to coordinate cleanup here, but I know very little about other projects: Who should be notified about the problem at commons, or at esWp where he also edits?
Amalthea 23:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've left messages at the WP:AN equivalents of esWP and commons, and I hope someone there will actually look into it. Marking this case page as closed as I see nothing left to do here. Amalthea 13:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Caracas_2000/Archive&oldid=1078789503"