Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KoKingsmill/Archive

13 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Was not sure what section of Wikipedia to report this to so hopefully I am in the correct place. I created an account in order to leave a message here as there are some numerous concerns that I have with an article on Wikipedia (Stephen Leather). I see from the page history that there is potentially negative information that continues to be introduced from what looks like a single source; however, this single source appears to be doing it from multiple accounts to make it look like someone else is doing it. Does this make sense? I hope I did things correctly below and I also left the notice on the page for Mr. KoKingsmill (not sure what this does).

The users are as follows:

1. KoKingsmill – From this person’s contributions, they only did 4 edits and they were all for Stephen Leather. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KoKingsmill)

2. Morning277 – This person did a lot of edits on the article so I am not sure if involved, but the contribution section states that this person has been blocked already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Morning277).

3. Sagaciousphil – This person does not have that many contributions but there are numerous to Stephen Leather. Looks like they did edits to a couple of other articles to attempt to hide who they are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sagaciousphil). It also looks like they spoke with user Bbb23 on numerous times about the article.

4. David Quantick – This user only has 5 edits and 1 is to Stephen Leather. This also looks to me like someone who is editing different articles to hide that they want to vandalize this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/David_Quantick).

5. Natalieolson – This person also has very few edits and one to Stephen Leather. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Natalieolson).

6. Wastedyuthe – And again with this one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wastedyuthe).

There also seem to be quite a few IP addresses as opposed to usernames that edit the article. My concern is that someone is coming in for the purpose of leaving negative information to discredit this author. I am not sure of the criteria that needs to be met to write this stuff, but it looks like the information that was just introduced is just a single sentence at the end of an article about someone else.

I apologize if I am in the wrong location for notifying someone of this. Let me know the correct location if I am wrong and again, sorry. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thanks. AinsworthAussie (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Well this is interesting! I have a whole number of things to say to this:

1. I'm rather tempted to say that it seems that Stephen Leather and his supporters are getting more sophisticated in their attempts to have negative material about him removed from Wikipedia.

2. I'm rather surprised that it is me that is the top person accused of sockpuppetry.

3. Previous to creating this account, I had done the occasional edit on Wikipedia but hadn't engaged in talking to other users before. As I had started doing so I thought having an account would be better.

4. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that AinsworthAussie has created an account just for this.

5. Perhaps this should've been my first point, but I am not engaging in sockpuppetry. None of the other accounts listed are anything to do with me.

6. I'm surprised to see that Morning277 has had their account blocked as a result of a sockpuppet investigation as they did a lot of work on the Stephen Leather article.

7. Following on from point two (I'm listing these points as I think of them rather than editing what I've said), if there is anyone that is going to be engaging in sockpuppetry it is Stephen Leather and his supporters, so, reluctantly, I would have to suggest Sagaciousphil is in some way.

8. As Morning277 and Sagaciousphil have either improved this article or been positive in defence of Leather, perhaps the two of them are indeed engaged in sockpuppetry, owning multiple accounts and utilising them in a misleading way.

9. As for discrediting this author, I would say that Leather has done that by himself. I had never heard of him until I read that Guardian article by Nick Cohen. It contained negative information about Leather which I felt deserved to go on his Wikipedia page. And AinsworthAussie, the place to discuss whether negative information should be included is on the Talk page, which is where I've explained and backed up what I've done. As you will see, part of it is even backed up by an audio recording of what Leather has said.

10. Finally, in reply to this, "it looks like the information that was just introduced is just a single sentence at the end of an article about someone else", I don't know what you mean when you refer to "someone else", the Telegraph article was definitely referring to Leather. And if you're against sockpuppetry then I would have thought you would be against what Leather is reported to have done and so would support the inclusion of that sentence. KoKingsmill (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to being flabbergasted to find I'm being accused of being a 'sock puppet' by both User:AinsworthAussie AND User:KoKingsmill in the above. Should any Admin wish to check my account, please do so as I can assure any interested parties the only account I have is this one.


 * I have diligently avoided responding to remarks made by KoKingsmill on Talk:Stephen Leather as personally I find his tone unnecessarily hostile/acidic. Sagaciousphil (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I find it curious that a WP:SPA is accusing other editors of being WP:SPAs. Based on WP:BOOMERANG, I suggest running a CheckUser on AinsworthAussie, who clearly isn't here for the first time.  Some of the accusations are especially frivolous and would have to involve time travel, e.g., David Quantick would have to go back two years to make other edits to "hide" the 2012 edit.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * User:KoKingsmill has now added further commentary to the Talk:Stephen Leather page. While I will continue to maintain my account is assuredly not a sock puppet, I do agree the account KoKingsmill appears to simply have been created to discredit a single author. As the page is a Biography of a Living Person, I would tentatively suggest it might be wise for Admin to keep a watchful eye on alterations made to it in future. Apologies if this is not the correct place to include this but I have tried to avoid getting into an argument situation with KoKingsmill - unsuccessfully, I'm afraid. Sagaciousphil (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be fishing. The editor made some rookie mistakes in the filing so it's not necessarily an experienced editor. Although I tend to agree that something fishy is going on here so there is a reasonable suspicion. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage in a game where I up the ante just because I've received criticism. Firstly, I repeat what I said in a post originally posted on the Stephen Leather Talk page:

''(1) I only [said what I said] because sockpuppet accusations seemed to be going around, (2) you will note that I made it reluctantly, (3) I also said perhaps, I didn't say definitely, and (4) it is only you and Morning277 that have wanted to change the article in a way that is better for Stephen Leather. Considering that Leather has twice now been found out using sockpuppets, it is hardly unreasonable of me to suspect the one other person on here that has been positive about Leather.''

I stand by now what I said in my 10 points neither more strongly or more weakly than then (I hope that makes sense).

Secondly, as to the idea that I created an account simply to "discredit a single author", why would I bother? Why not just stick with an IP address?

Thirdly, I made all of one edit to the page which was then reverted as "vandalism" (which I then reverted), and one edit to the page more recently! Frankly, the whole idea that all I am here to do is to "discredit" an author is ludicrous!

Fourth, as I said before, "as for discrediting this author, I would say that Leather has done that by himself".

Finally, yes, this page is a Biography of a Living Person, but the implied idea here that there can be no criticism of someone has already been argued over on the Talk page. As I say to AinsworthAussie further up this page, "the place to discuss whether negative information should be included is on the Talk page, which is where I've explained and backed up what I've done. As you will see, part of it is even backed up by an audio recording of what Leather has said." KoKingsmill (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

One additional point for clarity: when I made the recent change to the Leather article, this is what I said as a comment for the article history page: "Added a brief bit from The Telegraph, a national broadsheet."

As you can see, I made no claims that the Telegraph article was wholly or even mostly about Leather. When I made my point 10 above, it could be the case that my understanding of what AinsworthAussie meant by "someone else" was different to what was actually meant (although the fact that AinsworthAussie hasn't reappeared to defend what they were saying doesn't help). I took it to mean that that specific sentence was about someone else, which it wasn't. KoKingsmill (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Requested to be placed per another functionary. Please wait till there is a reply before taking any action on this case. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarily archiving. We've waited almost a month for this to be actioned. AGK  [•] 17:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, this investigation was place on hold until a private matter (the details of which I will not divulge) was discussed off-site by our functionaries. This discussion concluded some time ago, with no agreement to take any substantive action about these named accounts. A few moments ago, I opened this page back up for public investigation, then immediately closed the page because this matter has been stale for some time. Nevertheless, these accounts can be investigated or blocked at any point, in future, and the one-month hold that was placed on this investigation can be safely disregarded. Sorry for any confusion that this may have caused. AGK  [•] 18:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)