Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/J.Alonso

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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:J.Alonso[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

J.Alonso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

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


Report submission by

AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 04:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

1.- The account User:Diegou was created on "18:24, 27 November 2006" and his first edit was not an article, but an already started discussion in the Mexico talk page [1].

2.- User:Diegou always "supported" and "voted" in favour of User:J.Alonso's proposal of deleting a sentence in the article Mexico. Wikipedia policy states that "In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists". Also states, a sockpuppet is an account created to support the puppetmaster POV in a certain matter.

3.- Take a look at User:Diegou pattern of edits. [2] It seems he only edit articles in which J.Alonso is also involved. Specially controversial articles. Also his edit pattern is very narrow and specific.

4.- Recently and very wisely Diegou reverted the article Latin America 3 times only in order to avoid a block. The 4th time the article was conveniently reverted by J.Alonso. [3]

5.- Both "users" left a "vandalism warning" on my user talk page with very similar words, very similar style of writing. [4], [5].

6.- Finally it was me and "user" Diegou who orignally had an edit war over the Latin America article. However, it is interesting how User:J.Alonso was the one that reported me in the Wikiquette page, instead of Diegou [6], who originally "warned me" about the 3RR rule.

It seems that J.Alonso is the puppetmaster of Diegou account. Their IPs should be investigated in order to prove if the evidence presented above is right. That is the only way to check this case.

Comments

Most of the articles (if not the great, great majority) in which I have participated are related to Mexico, my country of birth (I now live in the US). Mr. Covarrubias is accusing me of using the Digeou account to "vote" on controversial issues. He told Hari Seldon that I was an Argentine trying to prove that Argentina is "better". Ridiculous. I have been participating mainly on a discussion about Guadalajara and Monterrey for the last two weeks. After reviewing Diegou's contribution he was participating in Argentina's article, an article I haven't touched.

The "controversial" issue he is talking about was a single sentence that stated that it was Mexico's higher standard of living the reason that was driving Argentine immigration to this country. Diegou first found this argument wrong (it wasn't me who first started the discussion) yet I supported his argument since Mexico's HDI and GDP PPP per capita [quantitative measures of standard of living] are both in fact, lower than Argentina's, and therefore, no plausible causation could be determined between standard of living and immigration [the statement was an obvious contradiction if Argentina's standard of living, measured quantitatively was higher]. I changed the sentence (since it had been proven wrong, by ample evidence) and Mr. Covarrubias reverted it immediately. All the participants in the debate asked Mr. Covarrubias to provide evidence for this claim (standard of living causing immigration, which had been proven false) and to tone down his interventions (bordering on ad hominem attacks). He ignored our petitions and simply reverted our edits without participating in the debate except to accuse us of "vandalism" and "sockpuppeting". His accusations are false, since it wasn't only Diegou and me who voted for eliminating this false assumption from the article. In fact the following users voted for its deletion: User:J.Alonso, User:Diegou, User:Titoxd, User:Wikidrian, User:Hseldon10 and User:SqueakBox.

I kindly asked Mr. Covarrubias on several occasions to provide sources for his claim and to participate in the debate constructively. Not only did he ignore me, he even deleted my petitions from his talk page [7] (so as to erase "evidence" that we had politely asked him to provide sources for a false statement that he kept on reinserting even though it had been proved wrong by all the data that was being presented in the talk page).

In the Latin America article I expanded the Economy section with information from the World Bank and created a table which presented statistical information on all countries (GDP, GNI, Gini index, GDP per capita and GNI per capita). I sorted the countries by GNI (Mexico at the top). A week later Diegou erased one of the paragraphs that I had written and added more text with data from UN's CEPAL. He created a new table with historical GDP growth rates. He also added another column with HDI to the table I had created, and sorted all countries alphabetically, claiming that this "sorting" was "neutral" since sorting countries by GNI was arbitrary (why not HDI?). I agreed with this reasoning. Even though I opposed Diego's deletion of my paragraph (and I wrote it back, and asked him not to delete paragraphs without first discussing it on the talk page), I found his new chart, and the new data he provided, extremely valuable.

A few days later Mr. Covarrubias deleted all changes made by Diegou (that is, he deleted his new chart with GDP growth, the new column of HDI and also re-sorted the information by GNI instead of alphabetically). I opposed this, since he was deleting information from the article without explaining why. I reverted his deletion. He erased it again, and Diegou reverted it, and on and on. I asked him in the Talk page of Latin America to please stop deleting and to provide reasons why he believed deleting HDI and GDP growth rates was important. HDI and GDP data is not a controversial issue, it is a fact!. Why delete it without providing a reasonable justification? Why delete it without providing any reason at all?? Finally me, Diegou and SqueakBox warned him to stop deleting the information. He, conveniently deleted our several warnings from his talk page too [8]. He then, accused me of sockpuppeting, even though it wasn't only me and Diego that asked him to stop, but SqueakBox as well.

To summarize: This is not a matter of controversial issues, these are HDI and GDP figures! Some users added this figures. Mr. Covarrubias deleted them. These users re-added the deleted information and kindly asked Mr. Covarrubias to provide a reason for his deletion. Mr. Covarribuias continued to delete text from the article 5 consecutive times without ever providing a single reason whatsoever and ignoring our petitions. This is not even 3RRR. This is vandalism. If this was a controversial issue in which two opposing versions were being discussed, then he would have engaged in 3RRR. But these are simple data. Numbers. Statistics he simply desires to erase from the article for no reason at all. Why does Mr. Covarrubias finds it surprising that three users find his actions inappropriate and accuses them of sockpuppting when he deletes non-controversial information from an article?

Finally, I have nothing to hide at all. In fact, I invite administrators with privileges to verify my IP addresses from the two sites from which I have contributed: my university and my home (and I live in the US, not in Argentina as my IP address will confirm it). I also ask administrators to review Mr. Covarrubias contributions and ad hominem attacks.

--Alonso 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were suppoused to defend yourself from the accusation of sockpuppetry, and to provide evidence of the contrary. You only explained a case of edit war. That proves nothing. Some of the things you said are wrong, but this isn't the place for me to write another huge explanation. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explained the above to show that Alex's reasons for accusing me of sockpuppetry are not his "abundant evidence" or "proves" (sic) but his lack of Wikipedian etiquette, his unwillingness to participate constructively and his low quality as a debater. My "sockpuppetry" for him is not based on evidence, but a last-minute resort to "win" an edit war in which he has been unwilling to participate constructively, or should I say, his unwillingness to even participate at all, except by the deleting the work of others. Hari Seldon has even confirmed this. Like I said, please check the IP address I have nothing to hide. I also invite all administrators to check my history of contributions. And I ask administrators to take notice of Alex vandalic contributions and his lack of Wikipedian etiquette and act accordingly. --Alonso 14:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I contested some of his evidence in my defense, but I guess he didn't read it thoroughly, so I will repeat myself, since I suppose he needs help in figuring out my defense:
  • Evidence 1: An anonymous user started the discussion, not me, and later on Diegou appeared continuing the anonymous thread of thoughts. I suppose it was him. So you can see his IP address from his first participation. He started the discussion not me. In other words, Diegou did not come after the discussion between Alex and me had started. Diegou started the discussion and I backed him up since I found evidence that he was right. If you check my IP address you will see I am not him.
  • Evidence 2: Two users voting in favor of a proposal means nothing. In fact, it was 5 users that voted in favor. And we are not all the same person. Only Alex insisted on deleting our proposal without ever participating constructively.
  • Evidence 3: I debunked Alex's idea that we are participating in controversial issues. Writing a list of GDP growth is not controversial, is valuable. Deleting it is vandalic. By the way, Alex, check my history of contributions, my scope of work has never been "narrow". At least take some time to review your accusations.
  • Evicence 4: That proves nothing, it only proves that Diegou, if he knows 3RR, is not stupid and he stopped. Hours later, I came and reverted his vandalism again. So what? But I insist, this is not 3RR, but an exception (please read WP:3RR). This was never a controversial issue (Latin America), it was vandalism. He was deleting a chart and information just for the sake of it. Alex, in spite of knowing 3RR, reverted the article 5 consecutive times.
  • Evidence 5: The vandalism warning that we both left in his talk page wasn't similar, it was identical because we both used the template suggested by Wikipedia to ask people to stop vandalism. It seems we both considered his deletion of "uncontroversial" information vandalic and not simply a matter of disagreeing. Who can ever disagree with real numbers from the UN or the World Bank? By the way, it wasn't only Diego and I that asked him to stop his deletions. User:SqueakBox also asked him to stop. That makes three users, not two. Alex, never answered back, never provided a reason for his repeated deletion of information. Alex deleted our petitions from his talk page to "hide" or good-will in warning him and asking him to discuss the matter.
  • Evidence 6:I guess it was me who reported Alex because I have been here longer, I am an administrator at the Catalan wikipedia, and I know how things work. But again, his "proof" is weak.
Alex so wants to prove in all articles (developed nations, BRIC, newly industrialized nation, Mexico, etc.) that Mexico is far superior to all Latin American nations that he has to erase compromising "evidence", like HDI. He has been engaged in similar discussions in the articles aforementioned suggesting ridiculous things against Brazil and Argentina. If any user ever suggests saying anything about Mexico's economic situation, he immediately fires back saying that we are Brazilians, Argentines or whatever, and that we have to realize that "Mexico is better than Mexico" (see: Talk:Mexico). His motives are not academical nor encyclopedical. Please review his history of contributions and you will see. In the same way his motive behind his accusation of sockpuppetry is his lack of Etiquette, he only wants to win an edit-war.
I hope I had been clearer this time. --Alonso 15:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

It seems that J.Alonso is the puppetmaster of Diegou account. Their IPs should be investigated in order to prove if the evidence presented above is right. That is the only way to check this case. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 07:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what kind of conclusion is this? It is only the opinion of the accuser. But I agree on performing an IP investigation so Alex can sleep well and free of a world plagued by sockpuppets. For additional comments and my defense against the undefeasible, imaginative and terrible "evidence" of Alex, please go below.--Diegou 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments...

Well, my name came up, and J Alonso asked me to participate. I only "know" him recently, after an intense debate in the article Second City. Indeed, I agreed with him on this controversial comment that has provoked this case of sockpuppetry. However, I have never had any experience with user Diegou. I don't know if there was or wasn't sockpuppetry involved, but I do know that J Alonso's arguments where widely backed by independent users, and that AlexCovarrubias did not participate constructively in the article discussion, did not assume good faith, and did not source its claims.

In any case, it is true that, despite Covarrubias's behavior is not the best for wikipedia, I have no evidence in favor or against J Alonso's sockpuppetry, and I think that an investigation will clear the matter and reveal the truth. Hari Seldon 07:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, Alex finally fulfilled his threat and filed a sockpuppetry case.

I agree with many things that have been said here.

First, I agree with Alex in the sense that an IP investigation will clear this matter. So please, anybody who can do it, please do so we can concentrate in more important things.

Second, I agree with Hari Seldon in the sense that Covarrubia's behavior is not the best for Wikipedia. A good example is the discussion "Mexico's standard of living as compared with Argentina's" in the talk page of Mexico, where in spite of the efforts of other participants to show their arguments, Alex (first) made attacks with words like "bias", "nationalistic", "sockpuppetry" and the like, and (second) he began to modify the article in spite that no consensus had been reached about it, and exactly as he has done yesterday in the Latin America article. Finally, on December 5, Alex gave up when he realized that so many people was against of his behavior.

Third, I agree with Alonso regarding how we ended up here. In effect, first Alex engaged in an edit war in the Mexico article showing no reasons at all (only personal attacks) and where he was against everybody's opinion, and then engaged in an edit war in the Latin America repeating exactly the same pattern.

And contrary to Alex's opinion, I think it is relevant to know the story of how we ended up here to know the character of the accuser. I think Alex is resorting to this method only as another tool to challenge the work of so many people here in Wikipedia, without demonostrating any effort to at least show a single argument.

So, if the only manner of finishing this thing is an IP investigation, please do it. I am in Argentina, and certainly my IP will show that. In case any administrator needs of my help to do the investigation, please let me know and I will be glad to do whatever is necessary.--Diegou 12:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, I just reread the "evidence" shown by Alex, and what I have to say is the following:

"Evidence" 1: That is not evidence at all. Why having the first intervention on a ongoing discussion is strange? I just think the opposite: I read the discussion and seemed me interesting enough to participate.

"Evidence" 2: Being in favor of anyone does not imply that you are the same person. In fact, many people were in favor my position and against yours in the discussion in the Mexico page, and that does not imply that all of them are the same person. Secondly, Alonso has been in some ocasions against some things I have written, as you can see in the Mexico talk page and my talk page. Unless you think that we are faking discussions to conceal that we are the same person, in which case: wouldn't be little paranoid that?

"Evidence" 3: The evidence is wrong, since I participate in articles where Alonso does not participate, and viceversa. Unless you think that we are partcipating in different articles to conceal that we are the same person, in which case, and again: wouldn't be a little paranoid that?

"Evidence" 4: Well, it is true that two persons have reverted your changes in the Latin America article, but that does not imply that we are the same person. In fact, in the Mexico article, where you did exactly the same things and had the same behavior as in the Latin America article, not two but FOUR people reverted your (unjustified) edits, and that does not imply that all those four people are one.

"Evidence" 5: This one is the funniest. It is the same language because it is the template suggested by Wikipedia.

"Evidence" 6: I am not surprised if many different persons have similar reactions against Alex. In fact, you can read what Hari Seldon has just written here, and trace how people react to Alex in the many talk pages where he has intervention.

I think this debunks the purported "evidence" filed by Alex, but in any case, please do the IP investigation so that everybody will convince themselves that there is no sockpuppetry here. Who knows, maybe Alex really thinks what he meant here, so please do it.--Diegou 13:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SqueakBox

I think the fact that Alex ignored the 3RR rule in spite of being told at Latin America in a conflict with these 2 editors explains these entirely spurious allegations. The editor who needs investigating is AlexCovarrubias and admins would be better off blocking Alex for his premeditated repeated 3RR violations rather than investigating these trollish claims. Alex's statement above that "Recently and very wisely Diegou reverted the article Latin America 3 times only in order to avoid a block. The 4th time the article was conveniently reverted by J.Alonso." indicates Alex knew very well about 3RR and was deliberately breaking it, ie playing the system, SqueakBox 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by AlexCovarrubias

To you too my friend. You assume I care a lot about this particular case. I'm sorry to tell you're wrong. I simply reported, that's it. And "trollish claims"? You better take a look to see who the real "troll" is. I have a life you know. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No soy un amigo suyo, oye! I have studied this case enought to draw the simple and correct conclusion which is that you created this page after losing a revert war. If every editor made spurious claims every time more than one editor opposed them in an edit war there would be hundredsd of cases weekly, SqueakBox 16:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex made it again

Well, yet another embarrassment for Alex Covarrubias. Alex, you made waste the time to three ... oops, no, four people here (d'oh!). I sincerely hope that this new failure makes you rethink your behavior here at Wikipedia, and encourage you to participate constructively and without personal attacks, vandalism and the like, in the many different talk pages. Thanks to Hari Seldon and SqueakBox.--Diegou 20:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you surely have no life my friend. You assume I care a lot about this issue, wrong. I simply reported what to me is a possible case of sockpuppetry, period. Embarrassment? What are you talking about? Again, you think Wikipedia is my life or something. And yeah, like this case I filed is a super spotlight that will bring "embarrassment" to my real life. You and J.Alonso are the ones that are truly very affected with this issue. It seems that it is to both of you like a matter of life or dead. The story is I reported, somebody else has to check this, and whatever the conclusion (and I'm sorry to tell you this), my real life won't be affected as it is not affected now. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You and J.Alonso are the ones that are truly very affected with this issue. It seems that it is to both of you like a matter of life or dead."
Well, I am glad that you finally acknowledged that there was no sockpuppetry here.
I hope to meet you again in the future at Wikipedia, within any fruiful and constructive debate. Best regards. --Diegou 14:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, yes, of course, it was just a technical need. Interesting that you believe in things that you admit yourself that are not verified. Not very rigorous, really? Well, I wish you good luck and happy holidays.--Diegou 15:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we expect an admin to be involved in this issue any time soon?

Unfortunately, Mr. Covarrubias, like he had done in our discussions, prefers to ignore the evidence provided which proves him wrong. He has not countered our arguments at all, but simply insists that he is right against all evidence. I have to admit that now, finally, he "toned down" his language. Now he says it "is a possible case of sockpuppetry" and even though on Talk:Mexico he "refused to talk to us as different persons" now he acknowledges the fact that he needs to "refer to both" and not to one. I guess that is a small, but significant improvement in his Wikipedian etiquette.

Now I ask two things of admins, if they ever get to be involved in this:

  • Check our IP addresses, so that we can end this matter as soon as possible. Alex is not willing to accept any other evidence except that our IP addresses be confirmed. So be it. At the same time, and for the sake of judging all with the same measure, check User:AlexCovarrubias and User:Dr.Kerr IP addresses.
  • Please take note of Alex's history of ad hominem attacks, lack of willingness to contribute constructively, his unjustified deletion of articles (vandalism), and his violation of 3RR policy. Please act accordingly. I also acknowledge that his contributions as a designer have been valuable for our Wikipedian community, (especially his maps), but he needs to learn how to debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks, how to participate constructively, and how to obey the rules and not to play with them, like he did with the 3RR policy.

--Alonso 15:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "me" the one that need to accept or to dismiss the evidence that I provided. That's the evidence I can provide, period. It is an admin duty to check them. Not me, not you, not SqueakBox not anyother editor. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Covarrubias has just put his fake sockpuppet accusation back on User:Diegou 's page, I strongly recommend other editors also revert this nasty piece of vandalism. Admins are busy people and I can see nothing on this page that warrants investigation other than perhaps Mr. Covarrubias premeditated 3RR violation. Certainly I would say an IP check is absolutely not necessary on the basis that we shouldnt feed the trolls. If Alonso or others feel frustrated I suggest an attempt at mediation, and if that fails take this user to the arbcom and see what they make of his behaviour, SqueakBox 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not your duty to judge over the acussation. It has to be checked or dismissed by an admin. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, all the editors who have looked at this case have reached the same conclusion, that it is entirely spurious. You are only doing this because you knowingly violated 3RR. We should not feed the trolls is policy, SqueakBox 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Alex, you filed some "evidence" here, and Alonso and I replied extensively and thoroughly to your "evidence". If we assume that you are acting in good faith, the least you can do is facing our answers.

Your attitude in your latest posts is: "I do not have the least idea if I am right, but I am going ahead anyway". After all the things that have been said here by FOUR people, please try to make the effort to show us at least any single idea from you part.

Alex, you have already made waste valuable time of four people here. If you insist, you will be wasting also the time of an administrator. Come on, accept that you were wrong, apologize with Alonso and me, and go on with more important things. Only brave people have the guts to acknowledge that they were wrong and apologize. Please, show us your bravery.--Diegou 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are very uppish. I have nothing to apologize about nor I will. I do believe this is a case of sockpuppetry and I still can't see any evidence proving me wrong. I'm not a close minded person, if I already had seen any indicator that I was wrong, I personally would have delete this page. And I don't know what you mean by "waste the time of people", since I am not the one that drag them to this case. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to confirm that I could not expect any other answer from you. Oh, BTW, I thought you had dragged Alonso, me and at least one administrator here. Maybe it was another person.--Diegou 18:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, we are not in a court house, and admins are not appointed judges. Admins, like me on ca:wiki, are users who have the ability to block users, and just a few have the system privileges to perform an IP address verification. That is why evidence has to be provided first by all parties. If evidence is weak, the case is dismissed without further verification. We have presented a rebuttal, and provided strong arguments against all your "evidence". You have not replied; you simply say "no, because I say so", just like you have done on all the discussions in which you have participated: you present your subjective opinion as the absolute truth, you do not participate in the debate that ensues except by criticizing your opponents with ad hominem attacks and sarcasm; when consensus is reached by those who did participate and might have proved you wrong, you delete their editions claiming that "consensus was not reached" and accuse all users who change the text according to the consensus of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Who knows, maybe even if our IP address are verified and proved to be from different countries and continents, you might still be unwilling to accept the truth, like you did when HDI and GDP were brought forth as measurements of standard of living.
Like I said before, some of your contributions, like the images you have provided, have been extremely valuable to Wikipedia. Do not risk yourself to the point of being blocked by your stubbornness and unwillingness to abide by wikipedia's rules (i.e. your clear violation of 3RR) and by attacking users and vandalizing the editions of users who not only happen to have different opinions, but who provide the evidence to sustain them. I am willing to continue with this process to the point of IP address verification. In fact, I have asked admins to do so; I have nothing to hide. But this whole incident will have been just a headache for all of us if you don't use it to think things over and to change your attitude towards other users. If, after this incident is over, you have learned to assume good faith, to respect others, to debate constructively, to present good sources for your claims, and to accept the evidence that is shown against your arguments, and are willing to reach a consensus without reverting the work of others, then all this headache will have a positive outcome both for you and for Wikipedia. It is entirely up to you.
--Alonso 17:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you generalize my position (not talking to you or Diegou since I always believed you were sockpuppets) about the discussion on the Mexico article in order to, what it seems to me, give a bad image of my person. Well, you continue to do that, since it really does not hurt me, not in WP nor in my real life. And I also love how you talk about me like a super rule breaker. I mean c'mon what rules have I broke? 3RR? Yet you talk about "my unwillingness to abide by WP rules". The one that thinks has the absolute truth is you, judging my "behaviour" and generalizing it. You certainly care a lot about this. =) AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You broke WP:AGF with this spurious page, SqueakBox 17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your comments here are another proof to our arguments. No, I don't have the absolute truth, yet four users have found your accusations spurious. That is called consensus. I honestly do not understand why you insist on saying "you guys care a lot about this, I don't". Yes, I care about Wikipedia, because I believe in this project, I wouldn't be an admin if I didn't believe in it. Yes, I believe any personal attack and false accusation whether it is Wikipedia or real life has to be dealt with accordingly. (Besides, I don't see why wikipedia is not "real" life, unless your contributions here are not honest). Please, take my advise, which I guess you didn't read. Learn from this experience, change your attitude. Do not risk yourself to the point of being blocked. --Alonso 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, what you did in the Latin America page was not only 3RR, but pure and simple VANDALISM. I am a new Wikipedian, but as far as I understand the policy, you cannot delete sourced information without discussing in the correponding talk page, or at least without any single justification. I sent you not one but TWO vandalism warnings, which you conveniently and immediately deleted from your user page. So that it is clear what we are discussing here, I will transcribe here your reply to my first vandalism warning:
"Editing an article is not vandalism. The same claim can be made of your recent deletion of economic information by J.Alonso. However nobody accused you of "vandalism", right? I will not let you edit information to demerit Mexico as you have proven to do. Just take a loot (sic) at your contribution page. You are surely an anti-Mexican. Revert as many times you want, I will do the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
Alex, you said "Revert as many times you want, I will do the same". You are self incriminating!!! For the record, this what I replied as my SECOND vandalism warning:
"Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Latin America, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Diegou 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (please stop)
You just wrote in my talk page the following: "Editing an article is not vandalism. The same claim can be made of your recent deletion of economic information by J.Alonso. However nobody accused you of "vandalism", right? I will not let you edit information to demerit Mexico as you have proven to do. Just take a loot at your contribution page. You are surely an anti-Mexican. Revert as many times you want, I will do the same. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
First of all, I am glad that you do not think anymore that Alonso and I are the same person. I recall that you said in the talk page of the Mexico article the following: "I have strong evidence showing J.Alonso and Diegou are the same person (WP:Sockpuppet) so I'm reporting this". You never reported it, so apparently your evidence was not very strong, and never apologized with Alonso and me.
Second, you are not editing but DELETING. More specifically, you are deleting: (i) the GDP growth table and (ii) the HDI indices. You cannot delete sourced information unless you have sources that demostrate that the source I provided is wrong.
Third, I already explained Alonso that I did not intend to delete anything but only to reorganize. In any case, Alonso already put back the information he thought was missing, and I am OK with that.
Fourth, I am not trying to demerit Mexico (or any other country). Please explain in what Mexico is demerited by (i) adding a GDP growth table, (ii) adding the HDI index and (iii) rearranging a table in alphabetical order.
I kindly invite you to participate in the talk page.--Diegou 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)--Diegou 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
As you can see, I gave you a new chance to participate in a civilized manner on the debate, and I even asked you kindly to do so. What was your reply? You again deleted the information without any justification (VANDALISM again), and filed this sockpuppetry accusation ...
Alex, as this process is advancing and evidence of your behavior in Wikipedia is coming to surface, you are embarrassing even more and more. Come on, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. You've lost your discussions in the Mexico article on the standard of living issue, you've lost again when you vandalized the Latin America article, and you're losing here. Please stop and don't make a fool of yourself. Please accept that you were wrong and apologize with Alonso and me.
And one comment to SqueakBox: I appreciate very much your intervention, but I think that it would be convenient to keep record of this process and not to delete it, as a proof that the accusation was fake. As you know, Alex made first his accusation of sockpuppetry in the Mexico talk page, so I would like to have a record showing (i) that Alex finally filed the case and (ii) that it was shown that he was wrong.--Diegou 11:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you and your uppish attitude. You say you "gave me the change to debate" (like you're entitled to do that) and then you said "I lost" (lost what? I mean this is only a sockpuppetry claim not yet solved). In the Mexico article, I decided not to "debate" with two accounts that to me were the same user, that's it. And finally, I don't have anything to apoligize for nor I will. Have a nice day. Perhaps I should recommend you to do something interesting in your real life? I don't know. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 13:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether "uppish" is a compliment, but thank you just in case.
Regarding what happened in the Mexico page, you are not telling the truth. I am transcribing the history page:
(cur) (last) 22:47, 5 December 2006 Titoxd (Talk | contribs) (um, no - read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence; it stays on the talk page until a source is found, or it is gone)
(cur) (last) 22:41, 5 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m (→Standard of living - Restoring sentence, while "debate" is still going on it should not be removed)
(cur) (last) 20:00, 5 December 2006 Beagel (Talk | contribs) (Although Mexico is an OECD member, this category doesn't include member countries)
(cur) (last) 16:17, 5 December 2006 SqueakBox (Talk | contribs) (→Standard of living - rm controversy)
(cur) (last) 13:11, 5 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m (Do not delete the sentence until "consensus" is reached.)
(cur) (last) 12:12, 5 December 2006 Diegou (Talk | contribs) (Deleted sentence until consensus is reached on the talk page on this controversial issue.)
(cur) (last) 18:37, 4 December 2006 AlexCovarrubias (Talk | contribs) m
(cur) (last) 13:06, 4 December 2006 Diegou (Talk | contribs) (Deleted until consensus is reached on this sentece in the talk page. Currently there are three people (i.e.: the majority) in favor of deleting it and two in favor of keeping it.)
That is, you withdrew when Titoxd (an administrator) told you not to insist on your continuous reversions. Do you recognize a pattern? It is exactly the same thing you did in the Latin America article!! But in the last case the matter was even more serious because you committed VANDALISM, which you tried to conceal by means of this fake sockpuppetry case.--Diegou 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, if for you Wikipedia is not "real life" and you make fun of us for taking this seriously, then why are you here? Do you honestly believe in this project? Your attitude only confirms that your vandalism is justified because you actually don't seriously believe in this project, and you wouldn't care less about the outcome of this even if it is your account that gets blocked for 3RR and vandalism. I have asked you to change your attitude; we all win if you simply learn from your mistakes and if you start to debate in a civilized manner. I believe (and I hope it hasn't been naïvely), that you can be a good contributor. I care less if you apologize to me or not. But if you change your attitude and start thinking about what you are doing, and begin to actually believe in this project (which happens to be as real as it can be in this internet-based era of communications) then this whole headache will have at least one positive outcome. But I will insist no more. I am willing to go all the way through with this process. --Alonso 15:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with your uppish attitude. You are no one to "judge" if I am a good or a bad contributor. That only shows how arrogant you are. Who do you think you are!? I'm not changing anything in my attitude, because what YOU want me to change is not my attitude in general (which is very different) but my attitude towards YOU. I have no respect for people that that use sockpuppets. As I already said, I ignored YOU (J.Alonso/Diegou) because I always suspected you were sockpuppeting. Period. Can't you read? AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have a problem with your spurious sockpuppet allegations not your edits, SqueakBox 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, how come you are treating Alonso and me as only one person? You said above: "No no, I still believe you are the same person. It has just been not verified so I technically need to refer as "both", since I'm the one that first suspected and the one that reported." So, where did the "technical need" go now? And what about my comment to your post: "Interesting that you believe in things that you admit yourself that are not verified. Not very rigorous, really?". You never replied. It is difficult to follow your logic, Alex. Or maybe, and I think that's the case, it is too simple.--Diegou 18:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's got the uppish attitude? A user who offers mediation and encourages other users to participate? or a user that refuses to participate constructively and attacks other users, never assumes good faith, shows no respect for anyone, and ignores others? You have violated several wikipedia rules, and yet we have offered mediation and treated you with respect. I am not judging you, but do you have the "right" you to judge my [purported] uppish attitude? You are guilty of the same things you are accusing others of doing.

Besides you have not only had this attitude towards me and Diegou: you have history of ad hominem attacks and allegations with other users as well in several articles related to Mexico, Brazil, Latin America, BRIC, etc. --Alonso 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need the attention of an administrator

Administrators: We have tried by all possible means to establish a civilized and constructive dialogue with AlexCovarrubias but he has refused to participate and has reaffirmed his destructive attitude and his unwillingness to cooperate in a respectful manner. Four users have responded to Alex's allegations and have provided evidence of his vandalism, his violation of the rules of our community and his unwillingness to cooperate and treat others respectfully.

We have tried to mediate and asked him to stop his destructive attitude so that we could get back to working as a team. He is unwilling to accept evidence that has proved him wrong which has been provided not only by us, Diegou and me, but by external users as well. This debate will never end, and he will not stop until he gets what he has been asking for.

I ask of an administrator:

  • Check my and Diegou's IP addresses. I do not have anything to hide. Moreover, that would be the clearest proof that his accusations were spurious.
  • Take note of Alex's:
    • Vandalism in Latin America. I do not think this is a violation of 3RR, since there was no dispute between two different versions. This is pure vandalism. He repeatedly deleted valuable information and the work of other users (a table of GDP data and HDI). While no reasons were given for his actions, I assume based on his comments in Talk:Mexico, that he thought this "compromising data would demerit (sic) Mexico". These repeated deletions were a personal attack to all work done by either Diegou or me (presumably since we had opposed his arguments in Talk:Mexico) and not a valid reversion of a controversial issue (there was no controversy and no discussion at all). While Diegou, SqueakBox and me asked him to stop his reiterated deletions and to provide a reason behind his silent vandalism, he ignored us, deleted our petitions from his talk page and continued reverting. This accusation of sockpuppetry was his last minute resort to win an edit war.
    • His history of deletions and reversions, as well as ad hominem and sarcastic verbal attacks towards all users that disagree with his vision of Mexico as a superior nation in the following articles Latin America, Newly industrialized countries (his vehement opposition to Argentina being considered as such), Developing nations, Mexico, BRICS, BRIC, Argentina, Brazil (and his vehement opposition to the claims made in it and to its candidacy as a featured article), Regional power, BRIMC as well the pattern of reversions and voting of a new user who happened to be participating in the exact the same articles and decision making votes: User:Dr.Kerr. If he knew and played with 3RR rules he might well know and play with sockpuppetry.
  • Given his lack of commitment to teamwork, his vision of wikipedia as "unreal" and "unimportant" (based on his comments above) and his unwillingness to cooperate even though we offered a pacific solution to this discussion, I ask that his case be treated according to all prescribed actions for violators of 3RR and vandalism to the fullest extent.

--Alonso 17:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Sound of crickets]

10 days have elapsed since the filing of this case, and not one admin has considered that there was evidence here to justify an IP investigation, let alone to block anybody's account.

Conclusions:

(i) The sockpuppetry accusation is false.
(ii) Alonso and Diegou win.
(iii) Alex Covarrubias loses.

--Diegou 17:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No this case isn't closed unless an admin explicitly gives an indication it's closed. And there's a huge backlog on SSP, so things are out the window. MER-C 13:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C, I believe there are plenty of administrators at the English Wikipedia, and not a single one has paid attention to the recent sockpuppetry cases. This particular debate has been going on for over 11 days. We have asked administrators to check IPs and also to take not of Alex's violations of rules and vanadalism, yet he have recieved no response whatsoever from any administrator at all. Unless action is taken, this will just become a headache and a useless debate. --Alonso 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed by refusing to close it the structure is just feeding the trolls, and not for the first time on wikipedia unfortunately. Encouraging trollish users and discouraging honest editors will have a detrimental effect on wikipedia, SqueakBox 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the future policy of unified login across wiki projects and for privacy concerns, I have requested my user name to be changed to Dúnadan. This, however, does not change any of my contributions. All of the contributions done by J.Alonso have been transferred to the new user account, and the action has been registered at Special:Log/renameuser. Since the change in name has not hidden any of my conttributions (nor the IP addresses), please continue the process of evaluating this case, to the point of verifying the IP addresses that I used as J.Alonso, like I had requested. --Dúnadan Alonso 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Sorry this took so long, as MER-C mentions the backlog here is horrendous. Anyway, Dunadan/J. Alonso are clearly not the same person as Diegou. They have each made substantial contributions, often to different areas, with different styles (including their warning styles - the only thing their warnings have in common is that they use warning templates - well, that is what the templates are for), and, for just one more example, on Dec 5, 2006, Diegou edited at 10:48, 10:58, and 11:08, while Alonso edited at 11:00 twice and 11:01 once - to different articles on different subjects. Complete exoneration (como se dice en Espanol?). --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/J.Alonso&oldid=1062596484"