Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1989 Rosie/Archive

Evidence submitted by AussieLegend
User:1989 Rosie was a disruptive editor who persisted in reverting other people's edits without explanation and who refused to discuss edits until she was finally blocked for a short time, and then only after a considerable amount of poking and prodding. Coincidentally, shortly after her final plea to be unblocked was denied, User:Coral Bay was registered and began editing. After 1989 Rosie was unblocked, both 1989 Rosie and Coral Bay edited until 30 December when 1989 Rosie stopped for reasons unknown. Coral Bay is now the active account. The types of "contributions", articles edited, editing style, refusal to provide accurate edit summaries and refusal to discuss anything are identical. Coral Bay even refuses to deny that she is 1989 Rosie. Other editors have also noticed the identical styles. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional information - Coral Bay has now been blocked for four days for disruptive editing. Coincidentally, 1989 Rosie has reappeared. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it seems no action will be taken on this matter until after Coral Bay's block finishes, I've left notifications in, probably very bad, Geman on the talk pages of both parties, since neither responds to anything in English. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

 * I don't think anyone has championed Rosie or attempted to help more than I, but I have serious concerns about the Rosie/Coral Bay situation. I think there's little doubt they are one and the same; I've referred to Coral Bay as Rosie in two edit summaries, and not been corrected.  We also know Rosie/Coral Bay is not a native English speaker.  This, in and of itself is not an issue, but in her case, has become one because she's come to the English Wikipedia having been banned on the German (her primary language) one, is unable to understand English well enough to read what's on her talk page with comprehension (although I do see signs she does read and understand some of it), and to provide meaningful edit summaries.  I noticed the similarities in the two user names' edits almost immediately, but assumed Coral Bay was Rosie's attempt at a do-over.


 * Sadly, that's proven not to be the case, and I still have the same, shoulder-sagging response when I see her edits on my watch-list. Instead of trying to improve, she's gone down the same path of tendentious edits, repetitive reverts with occasional 3RR violations (none reported, but there are a couple) and absent edit summaries.  While it does merit noting that Rosie/Coral Bay does make some constructive edits, the overwhelming impression is one of the types of edits noted above.  That and the fact that Coral Bay appears to be an evasion of the block makes clear that some sort of action is in order.  I think it also behooves the admins to find a German-speaking admin who can make clear to Rosie/Coral Bay just where she stands and what has to be done to improve her standing here.  If we are accepting non-English speaking editors, the point must come where we must redouble our efforts to communicate the rules, and not just sit back and say "well, if she can't speak English...", a practice that makes things difficult for us all.  Drmargi (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt in my mind that these 2 accounts are the same person. 1989 Rosie and Coral Bay both edit by the same philosophy:“My way or the highway”.  As has been mentioned under evidence, these 2 accounts edit mainly on the television pages.  Both editors refuse to leave edit summaries and continually revert other edits without explanation.  Both have broken English and refuse to engage in discussions.  This leads me to question if she has trouble understanding the warnings, or just cannot put together a reply in English.  Coral Bay clearly does not read (or understand) the edit summaries of others who give reasons for an edit.  She just hits revert, just like 1989 Rosie.  3RR violations have been common recently, and she cannot consistently give edit summaries or defend her actions.  Some of her edit summaries are false (e.g. “revert vandalism” or ‘typos” when there is neither) and just a way for her to disguise her warring edits--another hallmark of both Coral Bay and 1989 Rosie.  For sure 1989 Rosie and Coral Bay are one and the same, they both edit like a bull in a china shop.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is enough proof that Coral Bay and 1989 Rosie are the same person. From Coral Bay starting editing on December 12, the day after 1989 Rosie's ban expired, both editing on the same articles to both having an English and German account. Believed that the user is German due to use of German links in the edit summary and poor English when saying something. While WP:CLEANSTART gives the right to a user to create a new account to start over, 1989 Rosie/Coral Bay correctly waited till the block was over Coral Bay started editing 2 days before the ban ended (at least here, on the German account the ban was indefinite). The user clearly violated the two latter paragraphs, editing simultaneously from December 12 till December 29 and continue the same editing pattern under the new account. I doubt Coral Bay/1989 Rosie will make a defense here her for him-/herself.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that 1989 Rosie was blocked for 7 days on December 7th, thus ending the 14th. Coral Bay started editing on the 12th, so this was before 1989 Rosie's ban had ended, not after.  Coral Bay's edits on December 12th were on English pages.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Logical is correct. Coral Bay appeared shortly after Rosie's last attempt to have her ban lifted or shortened, but before it expired.  Drmargi (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the day after the third request to be unbanned, couldn't remember when the ban ended. Could have known from resuming editing on the 15th, my mistake.  X  eworlebi (t•c) 02:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem to have all the confirmatory evidence we need, with the reappearance of Rosie. I have concerns about other editors who willingly engage in these edit wars with her across multiple pages (two in particular, one of whom I stopped cold on the Leverage article yesterday).  It takes two to tango, and I speak from experience when I say it's easy to get caught up in the nonsense, but there have been a couple editors in particular that seem to feel Coral Bay/Rosie's history give them license to ignore WP:3RR.  That troubles me just as much, perhaps more, than Rosie's conduct because these editors give her the impetus to keep going. Drmargi (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
1989 Rosie indefinitely blocked with autoblock disabled. The person may continue to edit as Coral Bay (once the block expires). WP:CLEANSTART (or any portion of WP:SOCK in that matter) does not preclude switching back and forth between accounts. User is strongly advised to stick with one and only one account. –MuZemike 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by AussieLegend
WP:DUCK - User:1989 Rosie has one known sock, User:Coral Bay. User:CoralRosie appears to be a combination of the two names. The editor's user page states their previous account was hijacked but both 1989 Rosie and Coral Bay were blocked indefinitely after the last SPI case. The editing style of CoralRosie in the edit war at List of Castle episodes is identical to 1989 Rosie's style, even down to breaching 3RR almost immediately after creating the account today. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
CoralRosie is a sockpuppet, I agree, but not of 1989Rosie. First off, Rosie barely spoke English, did not discuss, and did not use edit summaries, much less the elaborate ones we see from this editor. Second, this editor's command of English is far too good to be 1989Rose. Third this editor is angry and using one set of edits to either make a point or win a battle, not to improve the article where the warring took place. This is quite clearly another editor (I think I know who, but will hold off naming him until I have a bit more to back it up.) This strikes me as a transparent attempt to make it appear Rosie is back while trying to act in a provocative manner for an entirely different reason. I would think a checkuser would be in order. Drmargi (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CoralRosie is apparently watching this discussion, which Rosie would never be able to read, and has now attempted to write an edit summary as though he is Rosie. It's a bit late now, given he's written a number of well-structured summaries to suddenly write in broken English.  Drmargi (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Blocked and tagged. Tim Song (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Xeworlebi
DC Fan 5 has a very similar edit pattern, including the German account. User already got a temporary block for the same behavior that 1989 Rosie was banned for. From WP:SOCK "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against your old account." old account has an active ban, including previous socks Coral Bay and CoralRosie.  X  eworlebi (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I agree that the tendentious editing by DC Fan 5 bears a remarkable similarity to that of 1989 Rosie / Coral Bay. — Jeff G. ツ 23:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see this investigation at all. For a few weeks now, I've been wondering if DC Fan 5 was Rosie. The editing patterns do seem similar, the warring, the types of pages s/he edits, the continual reverting, as well as the somewhat argumentative broken English in edit summaries or comments elsewhere. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that DC Fan and Rosie are possibly the same person but perhaps he or she is making a clean start. Other than a few edit warring and going over the 3-revert rule. DC Fan's edits are pretty constructive and are done in good faith. QuasyBoy (talk) 5:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As WP:CLEANSTART states "A clean start is permitted only if there are no active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against your old account".
 * DC Fan 5 joined June 27 and got into two edit wars the very next day, and got a temporary block for this behavior note even 10 days into the "clean start" account, which is exactly the type of behavior that 1989 Rosie got banned so often. But thats an entirely different discussion, WP:SOCK states that a clean start is only permitted if no active sanctions are in place, which is not the case here.  X  eworlebi (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that now. From what I see 1989 Rosie was this person's first account and apparently had a dispute and was blocked and started the Coral Bay account. The second account was blocked because of the first account obviously. This user's main problem is obviously edit warring but other than that this user edit's are using done in good faith and never for vandalism. QuasyBoy (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
– 1989 Rosie and other blocked socks are for CheckUser purposes. Any actions will need to be determined by behavioral evidence alone. –MuZemike 19:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This new user is engaging in the exact same disruptive activity (i.e. adding unsourced, unverifiable stuff and edit warring, in which the user has already had a block for edit warring) as 1989 Rosie and other socks have done. This is basically block evasion with no attempt to learn from previous actions. Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 23:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)