Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/EdwinCasadoBaez

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user,

read this

for detailed instructions.

User:EdwinCasadoBaez

EdwinCasadoBaez

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jimmyjones1122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Jonathanmbaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Memeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
130.245.239.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
69.118.48.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

64.131.205.111 20:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Please note two accounts listed were already blocked for disruptive behavior 70.177.181.129, 69.119.127.181 in another sockpuppet case [1] 64.131.205.111 04:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [2] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [3] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [4] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [5] ,[6]. He has been warned numerous times [7], [8], [9] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [10] . Can be seen here. [11] . New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [12] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [13] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [14] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [15] refering to other users as idiots [16] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [17] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [18] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [19].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [20] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [21] [22] Later he was "Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss.

He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [29] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [30] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [31] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [32], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [33] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [34] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [35] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [36] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [37]  ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [38] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [39] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [40]. He also disrupted other AN/N cases [41] 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I couldn't help but noting while browsing the IP's contributions that he/she contributed to a case (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/64.131.205.111) involving his/her account where it was confirmed that it was a sockpuppeter (confirmed socks are User:YoSoyGuapo, User: DMVGuy, User: BoriquaStar and User:Bombaplena, those are the ones on the checkuser at least, that is an awful lot of sockpuppetry in my humble opinion) how is it possible that a user that has been proven as abusing multiple accounts is still active and of all things contributing to the sock puppet board? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had two account for 2 different purposes. One day I had a cookie error on my browser and edits were switching back and forth (I thought i forgot to sign off and switch but i later learned my browser was configured wrong, thanks Mozilla. I ended up getting suspended and blocked. I was suspended for it and served my time. [42] The user EdwinCasadoBaez who as can be seen above than made a checkuser on my accounts. At what point is it not ok to have an IP account and a username account? The username account was to write to administators and for pages that were semi-protected. Admin:Jpgordan said it was ok as well. [43] ""The page was semi-protected, meaning only people with usernames can edit. So it's entirely likely that an IP user registered a name and waited a few days so he could edit the article non-anonymously; that's the whole point. You can do the exact same thing." Anyway wikipolicy on sockpuppets was "Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy in a nutshell is Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. Don't ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone else. I have done none of this." [44] . I am only using an IP at this point I don't want any confusion with sockpuppet cases. I served my ban, but was not a blatent user of sockpuppets as was EdwinCasadoBaez. As is highly evidenced. 64.131.205.111 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, the accounts listed up there (and to be fair they are four not two) all have a main focus on their edits: the Dominican Republic and so do you, I actually examine the allegations at hand before commenting wich means I check the contributions of both parts, this particular case drawed my attention because it involved a member of the

Boricua) we might have a issue involving ethnic tension, and that worries me. Can someone that knows the history of Yo Soy Guapo or Bombaplena or whatever explain this further? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This particular conversation [45] linked in the checkuser may support my racial tension hypotesis, the edit in the diff was a response within an argument where the aforementioned anon was debating if his edits were racist, when the Dominican user Avfnx explained his point of view he replied with that edit, it literally reads: "Avfnx no that was because your uncle told you that when you where younger and after that your grandfather touched your penis" all that in broken spanish but the translation is pretty accurate, there are worse broken spanish comments aganist the Dominican users in that conversation including several of them where 64.131.205.111 threatens to fill EdwinCasadoBaez's face with leche, that literally translates into "milk" so you must have an idea of what he meant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking soundbites and out of context. This issue carried on from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominican_Republic "Weeeeeeepaaaa!!! 64.131.205.111 16:30, 24 May 2007 - Wepa means cool to which he replied "Actually if you going use Dominican slang use it right...mira te di lu, tamo cloro...oh what should I use your slang okay pai. Avfnx 22:40, 24 May 2007" - which means more or less "look here, what you do in the dark, you take it in the dark" referring to "getting F**** by another male in the dark"
i replied "thats dirty but cute. do you want milk" -- meaning what he said was dirty, do you want milk -- because kids with dirty mouths talk like that
his reply " dejame dalte lu de nuevo, pork parace k te k daste en lo oscuro. ------ en tu cara? tamo cloro or is to much for you. Avfnx 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" meaning "listen here you dickhead, you freakin take it in the darkness in your face. take it now..is that too much for you"
my reply "Avfnx no eso fue porque tu tio te lo dijo oh cuando tu eras mas joven i despues que tu abuelo te toco el pene" which was "avfnx that wasn't me that was you and your uncle. you learned that after your grandfather touched you."
I never reported these attacks b/c they went both ways and were in spanish. User:Avfnx has stated things in english such as "full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are", "This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR." This though does not take away from the fact that said user EdwinCasadoBaez was using sockpuppets. 64.131.205.111 01:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it just leaves clear that this is a bad faith nomination and that the problem behind it its not going to be resolved by blocking EdwinCasadoBaez alone, I'm not taking nothing out of context actually it was you the one that began the entire flame war in your first comment you said:"Tu quieres leche en su cara" (translated Do you want milk in your face?) then EwinCasadoBaez made an edit where he called for civility and it is then that the exerpt of text that you posted above comes in. Now considering this uncivil conversation and the acts of sockpuppetry from both sides I would support a month long block on both users with autoblock on the IPs to avoid the creation of further socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look. I've served my ban for sockpuppetry and it lasted over a month. I was even instructed to make a new account "I probably shouldn't be telling you this: just register a new account (if you can't, then wait about a day and try again). If you contribute constructively, you will not be connected to the blocked accounts; should you vandalize pages or harass users, you will be blocked, sockpuppet or not. -" [46]. I'm not creating another account for a while. He never served anything longer than a week and continued to use sockpuppets on multiple occasions even during his ban. Bad faith no (a point to be made, yes), but point blank he used a large amount of sockpuppets. 64.131.205.111 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS also take a look at the commentary made by EdwinCasadoBaez and sockpuppets for their edit summaries! 64.131.205.111 02:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rosoft gave you stupidest choice ever, I am proposing another block because you evaded the block, how do I know? because I actually interacted with User:BoriquaStar in Talk:Puerto Rico, naturally I had no idea that BoriquaStar was a sock or I would have informed tha you were evading your block back then, you were blocked on June 11 and BoeiquaStar was created in June 9 however the account itself was still active. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I served a month long already for the "block evasion" Luna told me to reapply after a month. After that month I did and was told to make a new account by PMC as well [47] I find it highly strange how you are trying to have me blocked again after 2 admins said I should simply make a new account; while an individual who utilized extreme personal attacks in english and spanish [48] and is well documented (as I provided many links) goes unpunished. I understand that you have a relationship with him in the

Caribbean WikiProject but throwing that aside it is easy to see it is easily viewed. You stated that I started that I started the flame wars, but you ignore that he was calling people idiots and stupid way before this. You give a translation (a poor one I may add) and but ignore the whole dialogue. 64.131.205.111 10:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Memeco

Actually I am not defending him, but I'm supporting blocking you both, you for uncivil violations and action on bad faith (you could have ignored him now istead of opening this case that will undoubtly extent the conflicts further) and him for actually having sockpuppets and because he engaged in

WP:CIVIL violations as well. Although since it seems the main problem here is the Dominican Republic article an editing ban to that article can be imposed to both to avoid any edit warring. My translation was actually pretty accurate since I am completely bilingual its not my fault if the Spanish you wrote there wasn't your best(thought I admmit that I have never taken any Dominican slang classes since I'm Puerto Rican, but in common Spanish this was pretty violent), but nevermind that what is being discussed here is how these petty conflict between you two are affecting the Caribbean WikiProject.- Caribbean~H.Q. 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• 64.131.205.111and User:EdwinCasadoBaez, you both are from the Dominican Republic and I believe that you both want to do the best work possible for your countries. I see that both of you have used sockpuppets which is against Wiki Policy and therefore I will keep my eye on both of you in that respect. However, what concerns me the most is the uncivil manner in which your discussions have been handled. Not only are you both violating our policy, you are also creating an erroneous impression of how the Dominican People conduct themselves. This is not fair for either of you nor for your people. I am tempted to block you both because of your conduct, however I would like to see if you can both come to an agreement here. I know that it is difficult to post negative information about ones country in an article. Everything that is added to an article must provide a verifiable reliable source. I will invite User:EdwinCasadoBaez to discuss the issues since I know that User:64.131.205.111 has expressed himslef before, plus I would like my friend Dargon to be here also. Let's see if we fix this the civil way. Tony the Marine 05:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am puerto rican with some dominican members of my family via marriage. EdwinCasadoBaez is dominican. Just to clarify. 64.131.205.111 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll (formerly Dragon ↑) be available on and off, if my opinion is needed and I haven't responded fell free to drop me a line on my talk page. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EdwinCasadoBaez simply negates any type of information that is even perceived to be negative about DR and will not posted in regardless of the sources. Amnesty International, the UN, etc. When references such as ESPN are used as recently as his reply was "What the hell does Steroids has to be in the Dominican Republic article?!!!go put it in some other page!!!do You see steroids being mentioned in the United States Article, where atlethes use it the most?" [49]

He stated that I was using a sockpuppet when I wasn't [50] . And was answered by Jpgordan that creating an account was perfectly alright [51] . When I did create another account it wasn't in any manner to be disruptive as EdwinCasadoBaez did. He was reported on numerous occasions to AN/I [52] , but all they did was lengthen his ban. He was given a pass the first time around b/c he seemed apologetic [53], but came back full force and was put on a week long block. His disruption of checkuser cases was unprecedented [54] . He would carry on, invite meatpuppets (i.e johnathenbaez) [55] to further disrupt articles, and more. His personal attacks were hard and hurtful. [56] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). I left numerous warnings on his page as did many other wikipedians as to his unruly behavior [57] and he would simply ignore them or attack others verbally. He would also mock his blockings [58]  ; encouring the use of MEATPUPPETS [59] ; stating that people (banned users) were his family when it seems very likely that it was him as shown by checkuser [60] He has warred with many different wikipedians in articles . [61] . 64.131.205.111 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your version. So far you seem to be the only one interested in looking for a solution. Now, I am waiting to hear what EdwinCasadoBaez has to say (I left a message on his talk page). Tony the Marine 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my fellow wikipedians, I know that am not suppose to be here writing this and all, i recently got informed about this accusation of me being a sockpuppet of several other!this has been going on for weeks and i just want to tell once and for all that i am not a sockpuppet of no one here!!!i have six months being part of wikipedia and i have done wonderfull contributions,in the articles of Santo Domingo,Zona colonial,Santo Domingo Metro and many others i cannot recall in the moment. None of them Biased and only give a plain view of the situation. I would like to add that i do agree in that i have act wrongfull in arguing in talkpages, reverting edits, and doing several non civil acts. In the past month for that reason, i have stop using wikipedia as often and i stoped editing the Dominican Republic's talk page. I do understand that i did wrong but i do not want to be block. This account is the account that i have used for a long time and i do not want it to be block. if anybody has anymore questions please ask me in the talk pageEdwinCasadoBaez 23:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• As I have stated before, I believe that you both have good intentions, but that the discussions have been over-heated and out of place. I'm not going to accuse any of you of using sockpuppets, but I must warn both of you that the use of sockpuppets can be proved and colaborated. If sockpuppet accounts are used in the future, I will not hesitate to block any of you.

Your contributions are valued in Wikipedia and who else then Dominicans to make their related articles better. I must tell both of you that if you are going to add any information to any article, you must provide a verifiable reliable source to proof the allegations as required by Wiki policy. If not added material my be subject to deletion, however if the material added contains the proper source and is reverted by anyone, that action maybe deemed as vandalism.

Do not ask nor instigate others to join in a discussion which may turn hostile. When entering a discussion, remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. If any of you enter a dispute ask for the help of an outsider, a mediator or arbitrator. There are times when people differ in opinions and which amy require a consensus.

Therefore, I am asking both of you to accept the following agreement for the good of the image of the Dominican Republic and its people.

• 1. No sockpuppet accounts.
• 2. Add only information to articles which are cited and verifiable by a reliable source.
• 3. Do not revert verified information.
• 4. Conduct yourselves in a civil manner when discussing an issue. Refrain from making personal attacks.

If you both agree, sign your user names here:

1.I Completely Accept!and thanks for giving me another ChanceEdwinCasadoBaez 06:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.

I will be watching, if either of you break the agreements or rules, you will be blocked and possibly banned. Tony the Marine 01:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree that EdwinCasadoBaez goes unpunished for his actions. He was already given a pass for his unruly behavior [62] and proceeded to simply do worse. My account was suspended and I was blocked as a sockpuppet while he continued to go along his merry way as if what he did was perfectly alright. I served my suspension and as a result of his actions am without a user account. If my account YoSoyGuapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was reinstated then I would have a change of heart (as well as him serving at the very least a token suspension). At this point I think the only thing that is fair would be the loss of his account due to the overwhelming evidence that shows his poor behavior and violations of wikibehavior. 64.131.205.111 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,i would like to add, that i have ceased from being uncivil!i have changed my ways of arguing in talk pages, check the Dominican Republic talk page, you'll find it clean and clear, i have ceased of using wikipedia as much as before(check my amount of edits for this month and the past month of July, i have tried to be more civil and forget about the past arguements and i have shown a more civil way of being. I have never used sockpuppets in wikipedia and probably i did use my annonymous account once or twice(at most) but not to use it in ballots or consensus acts.EdwinCasadoBaez 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision

My final decision is that I will not block nether of you as of now. Both of you should have asked for a mediator before your arguments got out of hand and nether of you did. I have set up rules and asked for an agreement between both parties and EdwinCasadoBaez has agreed to follow the rules plus Wikipedia policy. Regardless of wheather the parties involved agree or do not, Wikipedia policy will be enforced and whoever breaks the rules will be blocked. If any of the parties involved does not agree with my decision, then said party has the option of seeking an arbitrator. Tony the Marine 02:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for another admin to look over this

I find it a bit disturbing that with such heavy evidence against EdwinCasadoBaez concerning his use of sockpuppets, meatpuppets and multiple accounts that no one even bothered to confirm whether or not he actually used them. Even you can see this. [63] I was actually in the gathering evidence on EdwinCasadoBaez and made numerous reports on him to AN/I to no avail. I would like this to be looked over by another administrator. 64.131.205.111 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pick one:Wikipedia:List of administrators. Tony the Marine 04:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also why is EdiwinCasadoBaez allowed to keep his name account and mine was taken away? 64.131.205.111 05:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming old, yes there is evidence aganist him that's pretty obvious but...then again there is also evidence aganist you, actually I'm sure another checkuser is bound to expose even more sock accounts that you may have hidden, so if he gets blocked so should you but what we are pursuing here is a happy medium. The reason your account was blocked and your IP wasn't seems like an error, someone suggested that your checkuser was moved to YoSoyGuapo so I assume that was your original name right? Hey Tony how about we revert the block here, what I mean is indef block the IP and allow him to keep his first account, that way we can avoid the posibility of him changing IP to edit war without going unnoticed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If my account YoSoyGuapo is unblocked you won't see the ip used anymore. The checkuser was a violation of my privacy with the use of an IP. Even if it is moved to YoSoyGuapo the original page wasn't deleted. Which is what I was asking for but no one is helping me at all. I understand that you have a special relationship with him (because of his membership in the WikiCarib project). This isn't becoming old it's simply the fact that the language used was agressive and people have been blocked on wikipedia for far less. Anyway, lets see what another admin says. 64.131.205.111 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (on library IP)[reply]

Checkusers aren't a violation of your privacy a checkuser will only stablish two things: your general location (state or region) and the accounts on your IP adress, not your house's location or the name registered as owner of the PC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for writing in this board since am actually the accused one)Special Relations???because i am in the wikicarib project!!!!i think that does not make a difference here,what makes a difference here is the amount of constructive edits and the edit totals that we each have done to see who can be trusted or not!so i dont think he is defending anyone here by actually being in a project together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinCasadoBaez (talk • contribs)

region? http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation ? come on now. this again doesn't take away from the almost definitive use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets by edwincasadobaez. offering protection to a friend is sometimes fine. objection is typically best. 64.131.205.111 06:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the wrong program there, there is actually a checuser privacy policy they can't release any info and again they can't trace your house. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see what other admin's have to say. I guess you're ok with the strong use of sockpuppets and meat puppets so long as they are contributing to the wiki carib project. anyway, i said i'd drop this if 1) edwincadadobaez was blocked for his use of sockpuppets or 2) we both served a punishment and my account was restored. 64.131.205.111 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The view of another admin

• I endorse Tony the Marine's decision. EdwinCasadoBaez will not be blocked or otherwise sanctioned at this time, but any further violation of Wikipedia policies should result in a lengthy block.
• 64.131.205.111's objections are immaterial, as this case is about EdwinCasadoBaez, not YoSoyGuapo/64.131.205.111. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONFIRMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE SOCKPUPPETS USED BY HIM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.205.111 (talk) 02:27, August 23, 2007 (UTC)