Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alaskayoung1/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This user seems to have a come to the conclusion that our article on Bisexuality is various types of offensive (biphobic, homophobic, harmful etc). They have failed to articulate exactly why in any coherent manner but they seem to have registered several accounts to make the same confident but unexplained assertion in more or less the same terms. Compare their various edits on Talk:Bisexuality, User_talk:DanielRigal, Wikipedia:Help desk and this edit to Bisexuality (which is interesting because it accuses people of "creating new sexual orientations", which sounds more like an anti-LGBT talking point than a pro one). I tried to make a suggestion for improvement on the talk page but they have not engaged with that and just keep on restating the same incoherent position using different accounts. Alaskayoung1 is the only account to edit on any other topic and seems to be the sockmaster. The others seem to be SPAs solely for kvetching about bisexuality. These all showed up in quick succession after I pushed back on Alaskayoung1's edit and their tone is so similar that I can't imagine that they are not all the same person. I can't tell whether the intention is sincere or intentionally disruptive but either way the sockpuppetry is unacceptable. DanielRigal (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've added Margharet cullen to the list. This one seems to have a more coherent tone but it is another brand new SPA account that has never edited anything other than Talk:Bisexuality and it is massively implausible that they are not related somehow. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I'm here to respond to the claims in order: 1) "This user seems to have a come to the conclusion that our article on Bisexuality is various types of offensive (biphobic, homophobic, harmful etc)." Actually, I only said that the definition was wrong and that it spread misinformation about bisexuality, therefore resulting in biphobia (never said it was homophobic because I perfectly know the difference between these two), and it can clearly be seen by the only message I ever sent you.

2)"They have failed to articulate exactly why in any coherent manner" Again, I did explain but you simply ignored me I guess. The definition of bisexuality is "attraction towards the two sexes" (therefore to all genders) or "attraction regardless of gender" like it has always been defined in the community and especially during Stonewall and the first pride(s), when the bisexual community had begun their activism. The Bisexual Manifesto of 1990 clearly states that "bisexual" doesn't mean "two genders" and it says "do not assume that there are only two genders". In the other academic works I cited, which you conveniently ignored making me pass for a random lunatic instead of someone who has been studying queer history -- they all clearly also define bisexuality as "attraction regardless of gender" and I could give you all the exact quotes of all these works. Whereas for the "new" definition what sources are there? You said that "definitions change" but that doesn't really make sense. Why would the definition of something that has always existed suddenly change, if not to accomodate other new sexual orientations with the same meaning? The fact is that you had to find a difference between bisexuality and these new sexual orientations to justify their existence and in doing so, you always, without failing, result in biphobia. I'm not saying that you have to erase these sexual orientations from Wikipedia completely, but at least on the page of bisexuality I don't want to see wrong definitions or bi-erasure, like you do when you write that "attraction regardless of gender" is actually pansexuality (I think this was in the first section with the definition), completely erasing our history!

3)"but they seem to have registered several accounts to make the same confident but unexplained assertion in more or less the same terms. Compare their various edits on Talk:Bisexuality, User_talk:DanielRigal#Bisexuality, Wikipedia:Help desk and this edit to Bisexuality (which is interesting because it accuses people of "creating new sexual orientations", which sounds more like an anti-LGBT talking point than a pro one)". This is false because I only have one account and I think that you could see that if you check the IP(?); Sorry I'm not an expert in computer technology but I think you could easily see that those accounts are not from my computer, I think they're not even from my location if there's also a way to check that (?)

4) "I tried to make a suggestion for improvement on the talk page but they have not engaged with that and just keep on restating the same incoherent position using different accounts. Alaskayoung1 is the only account to edit on any other topic and seems to be the sockmaster. The others seem to be SPAs solely for kvetching about bisexuality. These all showed up in quick succession after I pushed back on Alaskayoung1's edit and their tone is so similar that I can't imagine that they are not all the same person". Unfortunately I have only just seen now that you answered my message on my talk page, that's why I didn't answer. But I read the whole thing and it doesn't really offer methods of improvement, it just basically said to accept that "definitions change" and you talked about "everyone choosing their own labels", which is also a harmful phrase because sexual orientations are not labels. You are born with one, you can't choose it. And again, those accounts are not mine and I don't even know the people behind them, but I guess like it has come to my attention that this definition of bisexuality was incorrect, it might have come to other people as well.

5) "I can't tell whether the intention is sincere or intentionally disruptive but either way the sockpuppetry is unacceptable". The intention is that we, bisexual people, are tired of being constantly questioned, invalidated, erased from the same community that should welcome us, of seeing our history constantly erased and of seeing other people change our definitions and speak over us. We are never being listened to. In order to accept/validate new sexual orientations you are constantly invalidating bisexuality, confining to "two (or more) genders" which is the exact definition that we have been fighting since the 1960s. Wikipedia should be a place that gives correct information and not misinformation. But other than that, I don't really care anymore, so if you want to keep using wrong definitions and spreading biphobia you're free to do so. --Alaskayoung1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskayoung1 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: I should also tell you that an user registered 4 years ago on Wikipedia thanked me for the edit I made, so this is also proof that this sentiment is something common to many people, it's not just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskayoung1 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Update #2: I just saw on Twitter that a few bisexual people exposed this definition of Wikipedia and in general the Wikipedia page about bisexuality, so that could be why you received many different new edits, since the tweet got 3.000 likes and many comments/quotes. I could give you the link of the tweet if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskayoung1 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I have only just become aware of the possibility of Twitter based brigading here. In that light, it is possible that not all of the above are the same person but the similarities in style still make me pretty certain that some of them are. Brigading is a form of meatpuppetry, so that would still be a problem even if it is not the specific problem that I thought it was. If we can get a CheckUser done then should reveal which accounts are which and, if that puts Alaskayoung1 in the clear, then I'll be happy to apologise for my mistake.
 * As regards the article content, a small improvement has now been made which should be sufficient to address any confusion arising from the previous wording. This is an outcome that would have been easier to achieve without the completely unnecessary drama from the hyperbolic complaints, unhelpful edits, socking and/or brigading. The text was never biphobic, just somewhat unclear. There was never any need for drama. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
 
 * This article confirms that there was a controversy about this page on Twitter, which seems like a good explanation for why a bunch of new accounts would show up to make the same edit. It's not unlikely that there was some canvassing going on, but at this point none of the accounts have edited in almost a month, so I don't think blocks or a CU investigation would be useful to prevent ongoing disruption. I'm not really seeing the similarities in writing style, either. I'm closing this case without action for now; feel free to re-report if there are new developments. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)