Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Moe/Archive

Report date May 1 2009, 19:02 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by Smartse (talk)

The articles Wind turbine syndrome and Nina Pierpont have both been put forward for deletion (Articles_for_deletion/Wind_turbine_syndrome and Articles_for_deletion/Nina_Pierpont) and discussed at WP:COIN (Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard). These users have all appeared today, made one edit and at the AfD/COIN in support of the articles. This seems extremely suspicious activity in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Apologies that we both started investigations at the same time I don't know if one should be deleted or not. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This is insane. I do not have multiple accounts. I have discussed the blatant attempt to hide the truth with friends but I did not open any other accounts. So now anyone who finds truth in what I am saying must also be smothered? If you will check, all of these come from completely different ISPs from all across North America.

I write some articles on health problems with wind turbines and the Dr. who is researching it. Suddenly I'm being called names and charge with offenses I did not commit. Why are you people so afraid of the truth that you must act like fascists? Is the truth really that scary? All members of cults must often act unreasonably to demonstrate their adherence to "the cause".I suggest you all get yourselves to a deprogramming centre.Grandma Moe (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Grandma Moe|Grandma Moe]] (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting to report this. Also add
 * Comments by other users

Drawn Some (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also considering putting this up for consideration. I'll point out that in her defense Grandma Moe appears to have admitted that the other users in questions are meatpuppets as an argument against them being sockpuppets. As she may be a relatively new user, it is unclear whether this is intentional or not. Nevertheless, according to Sock puppetry, "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." This therefore doesn't seem to be a useful defense; in fact, it appears to be an admission that she has, at a minimum, inappropriately (although possibly as a result of a lack of understanding of WP rules rather than bad faith) solicited external support for the purpose of influencing the appearance of consensus. Locke9k (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Smartse (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Suspected sockmaster admits meatpuppetry, which is blockable anyway. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

I actually believe Grandma Moe's story, but either way this behaviour is unacceptable. These accounts have edited with the sole purpose of commenting in a specific AfD, which is blockable. I have thus blocked all the listed accounts with the exception of Grandma Moe, to whom I've issued a warning. I won't bother tagging the accounts because, as meatpuppets, they're not strictly sockpuppets, and we don't have a specific template for admitted meatpuppets. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 09:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)