Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albiet/Archive

28 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The three editors User:Albiet, 64.134.102.201, and User:Tammytoons all participated in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jill K. McNulty. Albiet voted to keep the biography. Then 64.134.102.201 voted 'keep' along with a personal observation in defense of Albiet and against User:Sionk who had voted 'delete'. This was the first-ever post by the IP address, which appears (from an online search) to be based in the Corona neighborhood of Queens, New York. Ten days later, the IP posted three more AfD votes and in each one she identified herself as Tammytoons. This was three days after the account Tammytoons was started with the comment "Hi I’m Tammytoons, I am a lawyer in California. I attended U.C. Davis Law. I recently joined Wikipedia as an editor at the request of a friend." The account Tammytoons has not edited the same articles as Albiet, but the IP address and Albiet both voted to keep the McNulty AfD, with the IP address self-identifying as Tammytoons. I'm suspicious of an IP address which appears to be from New York and an editor who says she is from California, both signing together on the same posts. As well, it is odd that Tammytoons from California would know about the biography of little-known Jennifer Blumin of New York, that is, enough to vote to keep the AfD. I'm concerned that Albiet has created the Tammytoons account for the purpose of sockpuppeting, or at least contacted a friend for meatpuppeting on the same McNulty AfD. The Tammytoons comment "at the request of a friend" makes for a strong meatpuppet argument. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - it has been a difficult situation, because I would normally welcome anyone who joins Wikipedia to help correct systematic bias (I'm signed up to WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender bias task force). I've hesitated to open an SPI, but very little rings true about IP 64 or new user Tammytoons. They seem to share Albeit's eccentric, tortured writing style and Tammytoons signs their name in a similar way to Albeit. They began editing Wikipedia at Articles for Deletion, which is unusual enough in itself, joining on 16 August but chose to contribute in an AfD listed two weeks earlier! In fact all their other contributions seem to be on AfD's that have been listed the same day as their edits. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I, too, am the exact sort of editor who usually welcomes someone appearing to balance the gender bias on WP. Unfortunately, this is a behavior issue now. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: In the Jill K. McNulty debate User User:Tammytoons has been quite candid that she is also 64.134.102.201. She deleted with interlineating her prior vote, before again making a second vote and therein explains that she was prior 64.134.102.201, but had, after, decided to open her own account to participate in Wikipedia more fully. She even did not sign in thereafter as Tammytoons during debate so both the 64.134.102.201 and Tammytoons appear in signature. So, I cannot really understand the value of comparing Sionk . This is a ruse.
 * The accusation arises from my earlier warning Sionk about a possible act of his vandalism of a contribution I made to MacKinley, after I restored my work, and goes back, really, quite a bit further. He has followed me about the Wikipedia for almost all of the months that I've been here, inappropriately, editing out portions of my articles, while contradicting their sources without evidence, which I then had to correct, while pointing out in edit how his actions were inappropriate, and he has inappropriately tagged articles of mine, which clearly meet notability guidelines, as possibly not notable, also, causing me to remove the tags with editorial comment as to the guidelines. This "editor" has roll back privileges???
 * Finally, he is now engaging in his own sock puppetry to make it look like another user instigated this investigation that "he, though sorely injured victim, was so reluctant to himself file".  Earlier today I caught Sionk attempting to solicit  Uncle Milty  to file the complaint. See  Uncle Milty  talk. I immediately called Sionk out on this on his talk page. See that page (After I posted this, Sionk edited evidence of the communication off his talk page, but if you go to View History there you can still find it at 19:29, 28 August 2013‎ Albiet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,366 bytes) (+2,660)‎ . . (undo)). Maybe this is why he's fretting now. He seems to have been at least a little more discreet in enlisting Binksternet, who also happened, just, today, to vote in an obscure debate on an Illinois Appellate Judge Jill K. McNulty, an area that Binksternet User Page would indicate in which he does not have the remotest interest. Amazing isn't it. I shall be requesting my own investigation of Sionk for sock puppetry. Albiet (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet
 * Bring it on. File a complaint if you wish. I'm completely fed up with your incendiary taunts and accusations. You do a fine job of drawing attention to yourself, I've absolutely no need to invite strangers to act on my behalf. Sionk (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have and in further rebuttal only Uncle Milty  talk. E trail evidence is a cruel master, isn't it?  Albiet (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Oh, How did Sionk know to comment so plaintively here anyway, when no one including Binksternet had notified him prior that the investigation had been requested or was ongoing. Check Sionk talk page. Yet another in a long string of astonishing and unexplaied coincidences or is it more likely that Sionk has been coordinating things with meatpuppet Binksternet through means other than Wikipedia? Hmmm, now which is more believable? 71.119.47.208 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Wow, if I intentionally don't sign in as above, no reader can confuse that I use both User Name Albiet and this IP address. Interesting. Especially if I, like Tammytoons, had just told them so anyway. Interesting experiment. Albiet (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Your Talk page is on my 'Watchlist' (because I've commented there, not least to notify you of the AfD). Binksternet openly informed you of this investigation, hence I noticed it too. Sionk (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You've only just recently made 1 single comment on my talk page regarding the Afd, so why do you say "not least", and why would you earlier have put my talk page on your "Watchlist"? The only things on my talk page are notices of a need to disambiguate a recent edit and other such unsolicited notices. Seems like an odd interest or "fixation". I would think that you could find thousands of better sources of spontaneous events for view or of reading. Albiet (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Albiet


 * Comment by uninvolved user Hi Albiet, I've reviewed your contributions and I think you're a very valuable editor. However I also believe that these guys have a case and it looks to me like you have indeed broken the rules. I would hate to see you blocked over this, so may I please suggest to you that you apologise for breaking the sockpuppet rules and promise never to do it again, and we can leave all this behind? I think that's the best for Wikipedia. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I think this warrants a check, mainly based on editorial similarities. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 16:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - L Faraone  18:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * with respect to the two editors, with regards to the IP. L Faraone  20:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing, then, given the lack of checkuser evidence to support sockpuppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)