Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1candidate/Archive

25 May 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

This is an invalid alternative account. A1Candidate has acknowledged it as an alternative account here. They have never explained why they had the two accounts in the first place, but they explicitly disclaimed CLEANSTART and said they abandoned the A1 account and switched to this somehow-already existing account due to harassment here in Oct 2015 and they made the same claim again today here.

A1Candidate's appeal of Arbcom-imposed sanctions was unanimously declined in June 2015. and others have noted that the A1candidate account was under alt med sanctions when it was abandoned, Guy in the ANI case he filed about this in October 2015, and User:Atlan today, here.

Both Guy and I had tangled with A1candidate plenty on alt med issues.

RoseL2P first appeared in an Arbcom case that opened in Sept 2015, mostly about me. User:Geogene raised concerns about where this "RoseL2P"" account had come from which had brought sophisticated evidence but had very few contribs, here.  That thread was closed pretty quickly. The ANI case mentioned above was opened after that, but then was closed because the Arbcom case was still open and no one knew if this was going to be addressed again at the still-pending Arbcom case.  It wasn't.

RoseL2P was active again briefly in December 2015 to !vote in support of an RfC to narrow the scope of MEDRS, here.

In Feb 2016 RoseL2P paticipated in an AN against User:MastCell with this dif for example (the whole AN thread is here), concerning an AE decision MastCell had made. In the context of that, MastCell posted the disclosure of the A1candidate account on RoseL2P's userpage, which RoseL2P immediately reverted.

RoseL2P was active again today, yet again at an Arbcom case, now attacking Guy - see here - and also !voting at an AfD on an altmed topic. I posted a disclosure of the A1 account on RoseL2P's Userpage here, was reverted by RoseL2P here, and I restored it here

In response, RoseL2P posted at User:SlimVirgin's Talk page here (repeat of dif above) arguing that they should not have to disclose the original account. I noted at that thread that I was considering filing an SPI here, after which SV said she was too busy to deal with this, and noted "I would say it's not a SOCK violation, but it will depend on when you did it, and whether people could have been expected to know when you gave evidence at the GMO case"

If you have looked at the diffs above, it is clear that nobody knew who RoseL2P was at the first Arbcom case, and subsequently with things erased/archived, no one would know who they were. A1candidate has been using an alternative account, in my view deceptively and to evade their blocks and their sanctions and reputation and contentious past (many ANI filings), since October, and always in strategic attacking ways.

I believe the SOCK should be indeffed and possibly the master as well, but that is of course at the discretion of the admins here. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)) (redacted - no blocks were active, but sanctions and reputation were Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)) (add "attacking" Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC))
 * They have now admin-shopped this a second time, here. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that useful clarification User:Awilley. As I have written I see the use of the RoseL2P account to be basically "ninja" - the way it has been actually been used has been to attack the enemies of A1 but without the baggage of being recognized as A1, especially by people unfamiliar with the situation and who just looked at RoseL2P's contribs. Use of the RoseL2P account has been wholly bad faith, in my view and not a good faith cleanstart. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I am going to stop writing stuff. I have defined this as clearly as I could and maybe beaten the dead horse to boot. I will just respond if asked. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to provide this comment from today at Arbcom, made even while this discussion is ongoing.  This editor gave up trying to build an encyclopedia when they lost their appeal and abandoned the A1 account; the intention to continue using the SOCK account to attack the perceived enemies of A1 could not be more clear in that dif. The community doesn't need people who come here only to litigate against their perceived enemies.  Both of these accounts should be indeffed for SOCKing and NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I'm not sure whether I need to defend myself and I really don't have much time for this so I'll just make my statements short and concise:


 * I've always been very upfront about all accounts under my name. As early as 2012, I told a trusted administrator that I owned two separate accounts (A1candidate and RoseL2P) and have later confirmed it on at least two occasions.
 * The claim that I have been "using an alternative account...deceptively and to evade their blocks and their contentious past" is demonstrably false - Apart from a single (expired) restriction in a topic area which I've stopped editing completely (and have no more interest in), both of my accounts have no outstanding sanctions whatsoever and a clean block log.
 * Due to privacy issues, I do not wish to put a link to my former account. However, if any uninvolved administrator feels that I absolutely must make this disclosure on my main userpage, I would be willing to comply. Please see this ongoing discussion
 * Finally, I want to emphasize once again that my name change was undertaken because I was harassed by a group of editors (who were making false COI accusations against me and fabricating fake information about my private life). I request all reviewing administrators to do what is necessary to protect my privacy and to stop Jytdog from outing me all over the place.

Thank you.

RoseL2P (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply to Bbb23


 * 1. I am referring to my former account A1candidate which I've stopped using.
 * 2. Apart from my disclosure to an administrator on Wiki Commons, I have not done so. Where would be the right place for this?
 * 3. As explained earlier, I created a separate account to test the [[Wikipedia:Page Curation|

page curation system]] on Wikipedia. Back in 2012, I was a relatively new editor trying to learn about the nuts-and-bolts of the Wiki machinery. One of the biggest questions I had in mind was related to the autopatrol and curation process: What if a vandal volunteered themselves as a page curator and rejected all decent articles while accepting only the very bad ones? This sounded like a potentially large loophole and I was certain there must be a mechanism in place somewhere to stop people from doing that. If so, where would this mechanism be placed? Since I'm a naturally curious person but didn't know the answer, I decided to do a quick test by creating a new account. What I found out was this: Not only was I allowed to participate in AfD discussions just everyone else, I could even review new pages and mark them as good or bad despite being a completely brand new account. To me, this felt like a free pass for serial vandals and I wanted to report the problem but didn't know who to contact. Anyway, it was just a small experiment to satisfy a curious mind and there was no harm done to anyone. After I was done with the experiments, I went back to my main account and continued editing as usual until I met Jytdog and his friends sometime around 2013 or 2014.
 * 4. No, but I will do it immediately after replying to these questions.
 * 5. Absolutely not. I created a separate account in 2012 just to do a small and harmless experiment, that's all. For the sake of reducing drama, I fully support a voluntary indefinite block on my former account (A1candidate) in the hope that this will end all future outing attempts.

If you have any furthers questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

RoseL2P (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@: I'm not sure what the correct response to these outing attempts should be, but if you think there's not much the OS team could do then I wouldn't want to waste everyone's time with an unsuccessful report. Let me put it this way - If you saw the following statement: "Wikipedia puts powerful editing tools at the hands of all readers and users." Wouldn't your response be something along the lines of "Really? This applies to new accounts and potential vandals, too?". What happened was a one-off experiment and I didn't see a need to make a disclosure (at that time). As I've said, I'm willing to leave my userpage as it currently stands if you (as an uninvolved administrator) think that is absolutely necessary. As for JzG, I am not looking for greater sanctions per se but an honest attempt to comply with WP:Civility. Per this edit, he was well aware that I had switched accounts. What I cannot understand is why he felt it necessary to throw in a baseless sockpuppet claim without a shred of evidence. Is this not a good example of a frivolous accusation? Also, I do not view any of these discussions as "battles"; they're just debates among people with opposing views. RoseL2P (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: I think I've addressed all of the salient issues raised by Jytdog and others in my previous posts, at least from my point of view. Since the case appears to be getting stale, I'll take a short break from this site but will drop by at regular intervals over the next few days to check on the status of the case. If anyone has a specific question, query, or concern that you think I should address here, please give me a ping or leave a message on my talk page. I'm always open to civil discussion so don't be afraid to contact me personally. Best, RoseL2P (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is "stale" only because folks have been waiting for your response to the questions asked by BBB, which you have not answered. You are signalling that you are not prepared to answer BBB's questions nor actually address the concerns raised by me and others (your initial use of this account was to attack me under a disguise and you have continued to fight to use it that way to attack others; you are no longer here to build an encyclopedia but rather only to litigate).  This is what you do, A1, consisently.  You say X but you are actually doing Y.  Here at SPI that will not work; admins here look at what you actually do.Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am going to say just one more thing. If you had wanted privacy, which CLEANSTART does grant, you should have stayed away from old topics and opponents.  You have no right to the privacy of a CLEANSTART if you go back to your old topics.  Instead you have gone directly at them, and fiercely, and you have gone no where else.  I believe that your claims of wanting "privacy" are typical of the way people lie here at SPI.  That is one of the reasons why I chose this venue; admins here are used to that.  The A1candidate account was used up and had come under sanctions that were only going to get more intense with time, especially after your appeal of your Arbcom-imposd sanctions was unanimously declined in June 2015.  So you abandoned it, and you turned to a new account.  Your actions as RoseL2P are all that matter here, and the pattern of your efforts to use this account to attack old opponents  - people and guidelines - under the guise of a  clean account is very, very clear.  That is over.  My hope is you are finished at Wikipedia altogether.  But we'll see.  Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

First off, there was no violation of the two restrictions A1candidate was under, after they returned as RoseL2P. I think we need to acknowledge that at least. That said, A1candidate stopped editing right after receiving the restrictions, while embroiled in disputes in the alternative medicine topic area. I don't think it is a stretch to believe the abandoning of the A1candidate account is a direct result of the sanctions, rather than the claimed "harassment". When they returned as RoseL2P in September 2015, they didn't declare the link to A1candidate and the fact that they were operated by the same person wasn't known or apparent to everyone. This wouldn't have been much of a problem, had they stayed away from alternative medicine, but from their second edit they went right back to a related topic area by commenting on the GMO arbitration case. They clearly had an axe to grind, yet deceptively stated they were an "uninvolved editor".

I can understand Jytdog's strong opinions here, as RoseL2P was gunning for him right from the start, without Jytdog knowing he was actually dealing with A1candidate. Personally, I am not sure if RoseL2P needs to be blocked. I do think they should be restricted to one account and that previous accounts need to be clearly declared on their user page. The "privacy issues" and "harassment" Rose2LP claims, are actually the disputes at alternative medicine that didn't go their way and I don't believe they require undeclared alternative accounts for protection.--Atlan (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I decided not pursue this originally, but the short of it is that A1candidate is subject to ArbCom restrictions and is not eligible for a full WP:CLEANSTART due to this ArbCom resolution. Due to the sanctions, they needed to declare the linked accounts at a minimum, but has been trying to avoid that. That resolution is clear that bans are in order if editors try to avoid this. Trying to claim immunity because the sanctions just ended even though they were actively disregarding the resolution during their sanctions is disingenuous at best, but does appear to be a tactic to avoid scrutiny. An admin already placed the required notification on both pages, but A1candidate removed this from their RoseL2P account.. The guidance from that admin was clear that, "disclosure of alternate accounts required by WP:SOCK; not eligible for "clean start" as editor is subject to active sanctions". The combination of trying to hide the link between accounts in this manner and the sock behavior others have described above gives the weight that more severe action is needed considering A1candiate/Rose2LP has already been reverting admin actions in this regard. At the least, the two accounts need to be linked due to the ArbCom sanctions, even if one account is blocked. Editors shouldn't get a pass for violating this because they actively tried to hide it when others tried to enforce the requirement. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When RoseL2P commented at the arbcom case, they appeared to be an "uninvolved" user, not A1Candidate who has had content disputes with them before. Evidence of this is given in that one user left a thank-you note for help from a "truly uninvolved user". RoseL2P was content in being considered that, as this is their reply . I see this as intentional deception, in an attempt to sway the arbcom case by testifying as an "uninvolved" user rather than as a habitual combatant with involved parties. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * A note about the sanctions mentioned above, which I imposed. The sanctions consisted of a warning, a WP:0RR restriction on Acupuncture, and a WP:1RR restriction on articles related to alternative medicine. There was no topic ban or interaction ban. I imposed the sanctions here on 24 May 2015 with a year-long duration (meaning the sanctions expired yesterday). A1candidate stopped editing on 25 May 2015, and RoseL2P resumed editing in September 2015, but didn't edit any articles about acupuncture or alternative medicine that I can see. The closest they came to the topic area was this comment at the MEDRS talk page, and their participation in the GMO arbcom case that involved some of the same users who edit alt-med articles. Neither of these would have been a topic violation IMO, let alone a violation of their article-space revert restriction. ~Awilley (talk) 05:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please answer the following questions:
 * 1) When you say you don't want a link to your "former account", are you talking about A1candidate or some other account?
 * 2) Early on, did you disclose the linkage between the two accounts here on Wikipedia (your disclosure at Commons is not really the same)?
 * 3) Your statements about privacy and outings appear to arise from comments by other editors in 2014 and 2015. Both of your accounts were created much earlier than that. Why did you need two accounts in the earlier years?
 * 4) Did you report the attempted outings to the OS team?
 * 5) Putting aside whether RoseL2P is legitimate, is there any reason why you now need two accounts? In other words, would you object to an indefinite block of A1candidate?
 * Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my questions. Some follow-up. I don't believe reporting the statements by other editors to the OS team will do much good if for no other reason than the amount of time that has elapsed. But you can still submit a request if you wish. Frankly, I can't understand editors who create two accounts as an "experiment" to find out how the "machinery" at Wikipedia works. I came across this claim once before, IIRC, and I didn't understand it then, either. But even if you think that's appropriate, which, btw, it is not, why didn't you declare the two accounts? There are at least a couple of disturbing things about what you've done at Wikipedia. First, you seem to have only declared alternative accounts when pushed, and even then you resist it. Two, your most recent edits at Arbcom are very troubling. You are seeking greater sanctions against an administrator with whom you have had battles in the past without alluding to any of it (unless I missed something), either the battles or your other account. How can that possibly be acceptable?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for you this is not a consensus decision. Although I'm still troubled by some of what you've done since you've operated two accounts, I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself. Therefore, I've blocked A1candidate and left your "preferred" account unblocked. There are currently userboxes on your user pages declaring that each account is an alternative account of the other. You must keep those userboxes on both pages. If you remove them, I will indefinitely block the RoseL2P account. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)