Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crossroads/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

1. For the past month, Crossroads has been the main if not the only editor protesting the use of the singular they as a compromise for a subject who's pronouns remain unknown. See their comments at Talk:Utada_Hikaru

2. On the 23rd at 8:44 UTC, Unnamed anon makes this edit adding hidden text for a consensus against they/them pronouns that does not exist.

3. Unnamed anon is reverted on the 23rd at 9:22 UTC.

4. The very next day on the 24th at 20:58 UTC, Crossroads starts a new talk page discussion on pronouns here.

In my opinion, Unnamed anon is clearly a sock based on their username and editing behavior. I believe Crossroads is likely the sockpuppeteer as they are the only editor who's edits appears to match that of the sock's.

See their interaction history for more. –– FormalDude  talk  08:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Crossroads and I have clashed on content at times, and I suppose if I'm too involved to take an adverse action, I'm also too involved to take no action, so I'll leave the end decision to another clerk/admin... But I see almost 0% chance that this is a sockpuppet of Crossroads, or likely of anyone in the GENSEX topic area. I have a general rule of thumb that people usually aren't very good at socking and very bad at socking at the same time, and it applies here. Crossroads would have had to lay the groundwork for a sock with over a year of non-GENSEX-related edits, and then do something as unsubtle as make a controversial edit on an article where they've already staked out a position. That's going from Icewhiz-level planning to "newbie who thinks they invented sockpuppetry" stuff.What this looks like is someone who edits a lot of TV stuff and has no particular exposure to the GENSEX topic area wandering into an article at the nexus of the two, making a questionable edit, and getting reverted. If I may give a word of advice on alleging sockpuppetry: Before accusing someone, you want to be sure that it's plausible as sockpuppetry, but also that it's not plausible as not sockpuppetry. There's a subtle difference between those things. Here you have a user who is behaving in a way characteristic of some sockpuppets, yes; but there's also a much more innocent explanation.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, to nitpick myself (and by extension the filer for not making this clearer), I see they've interacted in the past about Utada Hikaru, including one time when the debate their spilled over to WT:MOS. If anything, though, that just provides more evidence that this isn't socking. They seem to approach the topic from different directions, and here Crossroads even objects to UA's characterization of they/them pronouns as grammatically incorrect. (A few of the most adept sockmasters will strategically disagree with themselves, but I don't see what the benefit would be in this case.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 10:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I do not find the evidence presented remotely credible. Two people happening to share similar opinions on a content issue isn't evidence of sockpuppetry and these users' editing styles and interests are completely different (Unnamed anon seems to spend most of their time editing about cartoons, including anime, which probably explains the interest in Utada Hikaru). The alleged overlap is mostly on noticeboards and is not convincing. Closing, strongly recommend G6 in lieu of archiving. Spicy (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)