Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernice McCullers/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

These three account have only contributed to Articles for deletion/Peter A. Appel and Peter A. Appel. John Smith 1776 and Johnny Smith 1776 are clearly the same person. John Smith 1776 is the creator or the Peter Appel article and as soon as the article was nominated for deletion Bernice McCullers shows up at the AfD full of personal attacks. Johnny Smith 1776 (a new account) show up about a half hour later to sign something that was actually added by the IP address about 15 minutes after Bernice McCullers -- Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- added a additional IP that I missed. This one signed as Bernice McCullers here: I don't know enough about these IP addresses, but someone correct me if I'm wrong, but since they are very similar doesn't mean they are the same user? Shouldn't an indefinite block be appropriate here because they engaged in vote fraud?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

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

I find it to be ironic that Rusf10 would have me investigated for sock puppetry. But before I address that irony, I will respond to the allegations against me. I have never pretended to be anything more than a SPA and I did, in fact, join Wikipedia for the sole purpose of contributing to Peter Appel’s article. I am not, however, the subject, nor am I related to him or close friends with him, and have nothing to gain, financial or otherwise, from contributing to the article. I have never spoken to Appel about it and based on what I know about him (not nearly as much as Rusf10 tries to imply), I doubt that he is aware of this deletion debate and I would also guess that he couldn’t care less about its outcome.

I will acknowledge that I took it personally when Rusf10 and John Park Lambert took it upon themselves (himself) to cavalierly dismiss this person, who I genuinely admire, as non-notable and unremarkable, without really knowing anything about him. I also put a lot of effort into the article to ensure that it met Wikipedia’s standards for sourcing, and did not want to see that go to waste. And as far as Johnny Smith’s account goes, I do know the person who set it up (it was not me) and we did discuss this AfD debate, and he came in to provide further support for inclusion. He is not John Smith (nor am I) but he used a similar name because he thought it would be more credible to piggyback a prior contributor. Given our inexperience, neither of us knew anything about “canvassing” or sock or meat puppetry, and didn’t even think about it or know that it was wrong. I soon came to learn a lot about it after reviewing the editorial work of Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert.

After I was attacked by Rusf10 for being a SPA, I spent some time trying to learn more about Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines. I also took a close look at the editing of Rusf10, who nominated the article for deletion, and John Park Lambert, and found a remarkable correlation in their comments in AfD. For example, during the period from November 25, 2017 through December 14, 2017, they both participated in approximately 50 of the same AfD debates relating to biographies (many of which were nominated by Rusf10) and voted the same way every single time. Often, Lambert came in to second the delete request when there were no other comments. And perhaps most remarkable, they voted to Keep once and it was for the same person (Mindi Mersner). While I don’t have much experience at this, doesn’t behavior like this warrant an investigation into whether these two are sock or meat puppets, or, at a minimum, if any canvassing has taken place?

I would also add that Rusf10’s most recent comments to Appel’s AfD debate are very curious.

First, it appears from Rusf10’s contribution page that at 16:49, December 30, 2017, he added the citation to K.e.coffman after an anonymous comment posted in the AdD debate, and it was not K.e.coffman who added the citation. If that is the case, how would Rusf10 know it was K.e.coffman when it's not on K.e.coffman’s contribution page (the citation added states that the anonymous comment was made "19:12, December 27, 2017," yet a review of K.e.coffman's contribution page shows no sign of that entry)?

Second, if Rusf10 added the citation to K.e.coffman, he did so almost immediately after I added my comments regarding the anonymity. How would Rusf10 know it was K.e.coffman so quickly after I added my comments. If the answer is Rusf10 already knew before I made my comments, then why didn't he add the citation to him earlier?

Third, if Rusf10 did not add the citation to K.e.coffman, and K.e.coffman added it, it doesn't appear on K.e.coffman’s contribution page. If someone other than Rusf10 added the citation, it appears we have another “coincidence” to go along with the “coincidence” of 50 for 50 deletion agreements -- the citation was added by someone other than Rusf10 at the identical time that Rusf10 provided his separate comments. Odds of that are close to zero.

Fourth, Rusf10 stated that K.e.coffman "just forgot to sign it." How would Rusf10 know that K.e.coffman forgot? How does he know that K.e.coffman didn't sign it for another reason? Did he speak with him? Did he read his mind?

Given my inexperience as an editor, perhaps all this can be easily explained. It just seems odd, doesn’t it? Please let me know if any of the foregoing warrants an investigation.

As far as your investigation into me goes, I’ve told you everything I know. If you want to close out my account, feel free. I don’t intend to do much more editing. If one of my contributions was to bring someone worthy of note to the attention of Wikipedia’s readers for the six years the article stood without complaint, I’m fine with that. And if my other contribution is to call out editors like Rusf10/John Pack Lambert for their obvious sock and meat puppetry, as well as their canvassing, and thereby help improve in some small way the quality of Wikipedia’s pages, then I’m fine with that as well. User:Bernice McCullers. 16:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @Bernice: it's very easy to see who posts an "anonymous" comment. Please see this diff: ; the top of the page says it was added by User:K.e.coffman (i.e. myself). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the fact that Bernice McCullers said "If one of my contributions was to bring someone worthy of note to the attention of Wikipedia’s readers for the six years the article stood without complaint" and her account first edited the article in 2017, it obvious s/he used more than one account. Also s/he admits to canvassing Johnny Smith. Her claim that she did not know about wikipedia's policies is also not credible since she accused of being a sock/meatpuppet as soon as I pointed out she was using a SPA (which by the way is not an attack).--Rusf10 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Rusf10’s statement that it’s not credible I didn’t know Wikipedia’s policies is wholly unsupported. Just because I responded by laying out strong evidence that Rusf10/John Pack Lambert are sock puppets or meat puppets, or that Rusf10 has engaged in canvassing, doesn’t mean I had pre-existing knowledge of these rules.  In fact, hours elapsed between his comment and mine, during which I reviewed some of the editorial work of Rusf10/John Pack Lambert and familiarized myself with Wikipedia rules and protocols when I began to suspect that Rusf10 and Lambert were the same person.  It’s not rocket science.


 * In addition, Rusf10’s comment regarding multiple accounts makes no sense. First of all, I've acknowledged canvassing, even if due to inexperience, and am prepared to delete my account as a result if requested to do, so why would I lie about John Smith or whether I voted twice?  Second, John Smith has not engaged in the AfD debate.  At all.  If I controlled the account, why wouldn’t I have just used it to make a Keep comment rather than canvass with Johnny Smith?  And why would the person who did add the comment use a name so similar to John Smith if I controlled the account?  If I controlled John Smith’s account, wouldn’t it have made more sense to have that account add a comment and then have Johnny Smith use another, completely different account name?  Rather than trying to exploit some poor writing on my part to argue a moot point and waste all of our time (I simply meant to say that I made contributions to an article that has been around for a meaningful period of time, six years, and no other editor thought it needed deleting), Rusf10 should explain how he and John Park Lambert always wind up together on the same AfD debates and how it is possible that they agree with each other on EVERYTHING.


 * I will also add that in the last few days I have spent considerable time reviewing Rusf10’s editing history. When he gets beat down on the merits of a deletion debate or when an editor justifiably calls him out for breaching Wikipedia protocols, he has a habit of charging that he’s being personally attacked, and not addressing either the merits of the debate or the charges against him.  And when he attacks the commenter first, as he did with me in this deletion debate, he then whines that he’s being attacked when he gets hit back.  In this debate, he has said twice that he’s not going to defend himself because my “accusations” are absurd or because I have a conflict of interest.  That's nothing more than a smoke screen, and he is trying to divert you away from the facts.  The reason he says he doesn’t feel a need to defend himself is because he can't.  There is no defense to his statistically off-the-charts correlation with John Park Lambert in deletion debates.  And the curious nature of his most recent comment regarding K.e.coffman just further highlights that he canvasses and plays fast and loose with Wikipedia's editing rules.


 * Rusf10: Instead of trying to divert attention from accusations of your sock and meat puppetry and canvassing, why don’t you lay out the case why it’s not true?   Or, alternatively, you could own up to your sock/meat puppetry and/or canvassing and save some poor administrator the job of having to go through the mountain of evidence that will inevitably turn up in an investigation.  Even though I wasn't aware of what canvassing was when I engaged in it, I now know it is improper and I'm willing to accept the consequences.  You should be willing to accept the consequences as well.  Most likely you will receive no more than a rebuke and a warning, and you will be able to continue to spend the bulk of your life editing Wikipedia pages, arguing with editors and otherwise commenting incessantly on the lives of others.


 * Sir Sputnick: I noticed you deleted the entirety of Unscintillating's commentary.  While you have far more experience at this than me, it seems that you may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.  Although there were comments not necessarily germane to this investigation, there were some that clearly were related.  Why did these get tossed as well?  User:Bernice McCullers 12:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging so he is aware of the unsubstantiated claims being made by the suspected sockmaster.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pinging John Pack Lambert. I believe he should have the opportunity to counter what you call my “unsubstantiated” claims.  I really don’t know the protocol for substantiation so I will offer up the following so you don’t think I’m just making this stuff up:


 * From November 25, 2017 through December 14, 2017, dates that I picked randomly, Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert appeared together on approximately 50 biographical AfDs and voted the same way every single time. These included the AfDs for:  Howard Benedict; Jonathan Mariner; Matthias Prinz; Terri Sue Webb; Jacob Gabriel; Charles McFarland; Roy J. Thomas; Jerry Lembo; Michael O’Conner; Brian Cury; Scott Bachrach; Michael J. Schwartz; Edward Tuhey; Job Swain; Francesco Fusco; Travis McHenry; Warren Pearson; Bob Howard; Lizette Parker; Eleanor Kieliszek; Frank W. Burr; William W. Bennett; Paul Nehlen; Paul Erickson; Jessica Ruffins; Reggie Shuford; Jimmie Alvarez; David Eklund; Anthony Scillia; Jim Milner; Thomas Milner; Rafeal Simoes Miranda; Peter Hood Ballantine Cumming; Charles Francis Paterno; Dick Churchill; Cameron Howe; Marcus Guidoti; Craig Sullivan; David Dwork; Robert Jackson; Jerry Fried; Ed Remsen; Jorge Meneses; Glenn Sisco; Jay Sniatkowski; Eso Sadikovic; and Adam Tinworth.


 * All of the foregoing were Delete votes. In their other appearance together on the AfD for Mindi Messmer, they both voted to Keep.  I have not looked any further because I just do not have the time.  I have noticed, however, that their appearances together have tailed off somewhat after I called them out.  Regardless, I thought 50 or so was more than enough to raise a red flag, especially since they both voted to Keep in the one single instance.  Given that there were a number of these AfDs that weren’t easy calls, the odds that they would both appear on this many AfDs together in such a relatively short period of time, and then vote identically, are astronomically low.  Realistically, I thought it could only mean that Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert were the same guy or working together.


 * While I sense your pre-disposition against me by referring to me as a “sockmaster” (I’m not, I just canvassed out of inexperience) and my claims as “unsubstantiated,” now that I’ve provided some concrete examples, do you think that it’s really possible that they are not the same person or working together? If that’s not the case, what am I missing?  The only other thing I can come up with is that they literally spend virtually every waking moment of their lives editing Wikipedia, and they’re everywhere.  If that’s really the answer, then so be it. What do you think? User:Bernice McCullers 18:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * it is very clear what I wrote: "sockmaster" and "suspected sockmaster" are two different things; don't mince my words. Do you want to know why your claims are unsubstantiated? Get ready, here it is: JPL has participated at 9,646 AFDs and voted delete 99% (a bit too high in my opinion but that isn't the issue) in his last 200. What does that tell you? JPL participates at AFD a lot! The keep vote you mentioned was in response to a faulty deletion nomination. Anything other than keep would have been foolish. My conclusion is your claims are unsubstantiated, perhaps a counter to this open-and-shut case, and I think you'll need actual evidence to continue flinging said claims around here before they become personal attacks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - There's no need for a check here. Given this and this, they've outed themselves as editing from the same IP range. Please block Bernice and the range for a week so that the AfD may continue without disruption, and Johnny indefinitely. John has been inactive long enough that no action is necessary with respect to that account. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have blocked both Bernice McCullers and Johnny Smith 1776 indefinitely, and the /64 range for 1 week. The reason Bernice McCullers's block is indefinite is because in my view, their behavior indicates that disruption is likely to continue once a temporary block expires. I definitely agree with respect to the staleness of John Smith 1776. Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've thought a lot about this block since I placed it, and based on the user's explanation for their use of multiple accounts above, I would be open to unblocking them. I've laid out my thoughts on User talk:Bernice McCullers. Mz7 (talk) 06:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on this editor's explicit agreement (1) not to operate multiple accounts and recruit friends in an illegitimate manner, and (2) to drop the sockpuppetry claims against Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert and refrain from making them again, I no longer believe a block is necessary to prevent disruption, so I have unblocked them. The intent of these two agreements was to quell the two sources of disruption on the AfD: the multiple accounts and the personal attacks. As Bernice McCullers has now indicated both their understanding and an intention to stop both, I hope that the discussion can continue more collegially. With that, I don't think there's any more administrative action needed to be done at this juncture, and I think this investigation can be archived. Mz7 (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)