Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnitaConchita/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

AnitaConchita edited the User Talk page of Copyeditor100 to remove warnings -- an action that Copyeditor100 theirself has also done. Then, AC edited the User page itself of Copyeditor100 to identify them with a short bio, before AC seemed to log off and Copyeditor100 logged on and edited the bio AC put on their user page.

It's not unheard of for an editor to remove vandalism from another editor's talk page, especially if they had been watching it or communicating with them, but there seems to be no evidence of this. Only that AnitaConchita added a WL on the Flo-Bert Award article to The Silver Belles -- a page that Copyeditor100 has edited extensively and then AC immediately edited Copyeditor100's talk and user page -- seemingly without remembering to switch login info. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ETA, for unclear reasons there is also User:Anitaconchita which has no edits, but the same content as User:AnitaConchita, not a duck or a sock, but maybe just weird in that it's unexplained. JesseRafe (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Sorry, for the confusion. I've been editing in the WikiWomen events and LA Wikipedians groups for a while, and starting with a new community after starting a new job in a new location. Re: the different accounts - I'm working with the WikiEdu folks to see if I can get the User:Anitaconchita merged with my original profile, or deleted entirely, as it was the result of a typo in the WikiEdu dashboard. I'm also working with in the context of one of these WikiEdu courses. That context is lost in the wiki itself, but is documented in WikiEdu. had come to me after some interactions with JesseRafe on the The Silver Belles page, and the editor felt like they were being trolled. This is also why I encouraged to start with smaller, non-controversial edits (like the one I made to the Flo-Bert Award) that addressed concerns on the original page, in this case the "Orphan" issue. I hope this adequately demonstrates that I am participating in good faith. In general, I try to avoid conflicts here. AnitaConchita (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

--- Clicking on AnitaConchita profile shows the page is already well-established. A cursory glance of her profile page signals that she is a trained professional who instructs others on editing content on visual editor, linking content material to other pages, and offering feedback on developing content.

In response to the CheckUser remarks, when AnitaConchita edited User:Copyeditor100 profile, if edits on the user page were deemed unwanted or unnecessary, given the format of "undo", all changes could be undone. However, seeing as AnitaConchita  specializes in instructional feedback, all was done in good faith. Much of the confusion stems from what one editor might deem "incorrect." Dear Administrator, can you link the page where an editor cannot erase content from THEIR OWN Talk Page?

In the past, I have raised several points of contention against the accuser that have seem to have struck a particular nerve and has resulted in an overzealous watchful eye on pages, edits, and feedback. This was confirmed with the last comment of s/he trying to over-police. The comments' tone raised by the accuser seem to go beyond "this is not a personal attack" guidelines when responding to the Sock Puppet allegations: "Much of the confusion can be alleviated by Copyeditor not deleting the links on their Talk page, but... wait for it... reading them. The user's barrage of questions on my talk page are largely nonsense with little to no bearing to their edits and nor my edit summaries they claim to be about. I'd tell them, but they'd delete it.// Also, be very careful calling people trolls, even if it is hearsay -- you're the one saying it and it sounds like a personal attack. Although a hilarious one, given the history of my talk page who the troll in our seems to be."

Warnings are issued for a purpose, but my decision to delete them from my Talk Page does not signal an inability to abide by warnings or to continue to commit the "alleged transgressions," but rather, can point to any user who has irritated another user and then monitor their actions, who visits their page, the types of edits they do, when they delete, or edit their own Talk Page. The intentions behind these actions, the culture of editing they create, and their purpose are worth pondering.

So, no, AnitaConchita and User:Copyeditor100 are not sock puppets.

Thank you and Happy Friday,

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyeditor100 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Much of the confusion can be alleviated by Copyeditor not deleting the links on their Talk page, but... wait for it... reading them. The user's barrage of questions on my talk page are largely nonsense with little to no bearing to their edits and nor my edit summaries they claim to be about. I'd tell them, but they'd delete it. Also, with regard to your actions -- it is not generally advised that one editor remove justified warnings on another editor's talk page. This can be misleading because it might lead the offending editor to think that the warning no longer applies and that their actions are licensed. Also, be very careful calling people trolls, even if it is hearsay -- you're the one saying it and it sounds like a personal attack. Although a hilarious one, given the history of my talk page who the troll in our seems to be. JesseRafe (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Question - if you wanted to delete the lowercase profile, why did you edit it??? Was leaving it vacuous not an option? There's no need to try to merge it if it had no history. JesseRafe (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
It's fairly obvious that and  know each other and are probably not socks. What's not as clear is whether what they are doing violates WP:MEAT. I don't mind that Anita is helping Copyeditor with their userpage, but I don't like Anita removing a valid EW warning from Copyeditor's Talk page. I also can't help but highlight a very "funny" post to 's Talk page by Copyeditor: "Wikipedia warring is quite odd but enjoyable." No one has ever had put it quite that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My last thought on that was like that of a cop who finds criminals posting geolocated videos of their deeds on Facebook. Almost was looking forward to receiving a bright new alert should they make good on their threats and I'd be the one who got to copy-and-paste that on a noticeboard! JesseRafe (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Closing with no action. This is not socking, and I don't believe it's a violation of WP:MEAT in the usual sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)