Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fleet Lists/Archive

16 August 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

On 10 August, I began to edit articles relating to Sydney Metro Northwest. This brought me into conflict with User:Fleet Lists, who primarily contributes to New South Wales railway station articles such as these. Fleet Lists and I had two disagreements, and two days later, User:Turingway joined Wikipedia. (Though it's probably not relevant, it's intriguing that the username appears to reference a test of whether something is real or computer-generated.) Fleet Lists and I have a disagreement on certain matters relating to station articles. I don't propose to argue that dispute here, save to say that we disagree on (among other things) the use of the Template:Infobox station electrification= and code= parameters, and whether lists of bus routes are encyclopaedic.

At the time of writing, Turingway has made 27 edits to 13 pages (and/or their related talk pages). All but two edits were to pages I had edited in the previous days.

Some of these are not suggestive of sockpuppetry. This may be evidence that I'm wrong, or of Fleet List's sophistication in operating a sockpuppet. The six pages which Turingway has edited (once for each) that do not support my suspicions are:
 * Articles for deletion/Harbour SkyLink
 * Rouse Hill railway station
 * Sydney Metro
 * Talk:Transport for New South Wales
 * Victoria Cross (disambiguation) – I have never edited this page
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains – I have never edited this page, though the edit appears to relate to my dispute with Fleet Lists.

Two pages provide only weak evidence of sockpuppetry.


 * On Norwest railway station, Turingway's only two edits were made directly after mine ( within a day; and within 15 minutes). Though the substance of the edits is not contentious, both amended text I'd added. This is not suggestive of malice, but does show unusual attention to my edits.
 * On Dunmore railway station I performed a merge on 15 August. This was reverted by Turingway, then a subsequent change was reverted by Fleet Lists . I accept that this could merely be evidence that the two users work on the same pages at the same time. However, Turingway has never – with the exception of a single post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains about our dispute (to which Fleet Lists is also a party), and a single non-contentious edit to a disambiguation page – edited a page not previously edited by Fleet Lists, myself, or both.

The remaining five pages are as follows:


 * Albion Park railway station – First edited by me on 14 August. Turingway made their first edit the following day. Both Turingway and Fleet Lists  subsequently make reversions of my edits relating to the code= parameter over the next 24 hours.
 * Cherrybrook railway station – First edited by me on 10 August. Turingway made their first edit on the 12th (though this was non-contentious). From the 13th, the page's history is characterised by changes by me followed by reversions by Fleet Lists and Turingway
 * Turingway edits Talk:Cherrybrook railway station to support Fleet List's point of view. There are no other contributors to the discussion.


 * Victoria Cross railway station – Created by me on 10 August. Turingway made their first edit on the 12th. On the 14th, they reverted removal of the electrification parameter.
 * Shellharbour Junction railway station – First edited by me on 14 August. Edits reverted first by Fleet Lists then by Turingway
 * Fleet Lists edits User talk:Mqst north (my talk page), leaving a comment in support of a post by Turingway. There are no other contributors to the discussion.

It is also noteworthy that:
 * No-one besides Fleet Lists and I (save for bots) have contributed to any of the station articles referenced above since Turingway's account appeared. Many had had long periods without editing by anyone besides Fleet Lists. For this reason I would conclude that they are obscure – a relevant factor in considering warning signs of sockpuppetry.
 * Turingway has never made an edit directly subsequent to Fleet Lists, even though they almost exclusively edit articles that Fleet Lists contributes to. Conversely, Fleet Lists has only ever once made an edit directly subsequent to Turingway – and that change was separated by about 20 hours. These two facts are strongly suggestive of the two accounts not being independently controlled.

I apologise in advance if I am wrong about this. Mqst north (talk) 07:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I am amazed at the length the accuser is going to, to eliminate any editor who does not agree with him. This is the second case in the last couple of weeks since he started editing information in existing Sydney NSW stations on 10 August such as Kiama railway station where he has totally destroyed service information which has been replaced by historic information with which there is nothing wrong. There are a number of such cases which are discussed in a number of places such as User talk:Fleet Lists as well as the next two paragraphs, Talk:Bomaderry railway station and User_talk:Mqst north. Although no consensus has been reached he just goes on his way destroying the information from more stations. I think it is about time an admin had a look at the activities of this member. In the mean time I will stop contributing to Wikipedia as I feel I am wasting my time.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The editing behaviours of the two users remains strongly suggestive of sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry), even if they are using different IP addresses. This perception is reinforced by the fact that Turingway edited several times a day, every day, from when he joined on the 12th until I posted my suspicions here. Since that time, he has made no edits. Again, not proof by itself (it has only been a couple of days), but certainly suggestive of WP:BRIEFLY. Mqst north (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - per provided diffs.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The two accounts are ❌.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this case with no action as I'm unpersuaded that the behavioral evidence is strong enough to overcome the clear technical evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)