Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( originally filed under this user)


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

This investigation was intended to be filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Lilipo25, which currently redirects to this page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Swagsevo).

At Special:Diff/1009515492, Lilipo25 commented at User talk:The Queen of Cups V: "Hi, I hope you don't mind, but I formatted your vote on the Reliable Sources page (put an asterisk in front of it and bolded "reliable") to bring it in line with the rest of the votes and just wanted to let you know."

After Lilipo25 modified 's comment at Special:Diff/1009515098, Rad Fem Ish performed a similar violation of the talk page guidelines with another one of 's comments in the same discussion at Special:Diff/1009546173.

Rad Fem Ish is an account that has, so far (aside from creating a user page), exclusively edited on Talk:Equality Act (United States) and to add comments echoing Lilipo25's positions in the discussions on these pages. —  Newslinger  talk   05:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding recently created account that fits a similar pattern:
 * – Created on 19 February 2021, 4 edits total, 2 edits on Talk:Equality Act (United States), 1 edit in
 * —  Newslinger  talk   06:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a track record of off-wiki canvassing in this topic area. The PinkNews RfC in July 2020 was subject to off-wiki canvassing on Twitter, as documented in  – see the Wayback Machine archive links of the tweets by @feministbirther and @lil_p12345 at the bottom. —  Newslinger   talk   08:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The archived tweets (linked from the PinkNews RfC) include:

They opened an RFC (Request for Comments) and it expires in 3 days. TRA editors are bullying everyone else down & it's looking they are going to reinstate Pink News as a reliable Wikipedia source unless more people get in there and voice an opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PinkNews 28 Jul 2020 This is correct. It's why we need more radfems in there editing. The TRAs have a ton of people doing it and they work as a bloc to keep articles biased against women and their allies.

There is a need for comments on PinkNews as a reliable source here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#PinkNews 28 Jul 2020


 * This particular Twitter account was deleted or renamed, and the tweets were deleted, after the canvassing was reported. —  Newslinger  talk   08:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am including this information because meatpuppetry is prohibited under the policy against sockpuppetry. I had received a report via email (dated 30 July 2020) on off-wiki canvassing related to the above tweets with regard to the PinkNews RfC; this report is also relevant to the current sockpuppet investigation. I am able to forward this email report to any administrator investigating this case, although I would need to ask the reporter for permission beforehand. —  Newslinger  talk   08:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor sent me the report in confidence, so I will not be revealing their identity or the contents of the email in public. I will forward it to any investigating administrators, after requesting permission from the editor. —  Newslinger  talk   08:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EMAILPOST, "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that 'In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki'". —  Newslinger  talk   05:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unable to share on-wiki the parts of the report that contain information about Wikipedia editors that have not been disclosed on-wiki. However, the policy on the posting of personal information states: "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy)." —  Newslinger  talk   09:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki canvassing (meatpuppetry) would also be a violation of a confidentially-sensitive policy. —  Newslinger  talk   09:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the email does not contain "personal information" in the sense of a "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address" or "photograph". The email does contain off-wiki evidence of off-wiki canvassing (meatpuppetry) that has not yet been shared on-wiki. —  Newslinger  talk   11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor has given me permission to share the email report with investigating administrators. —  Newslinger  talk   05:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the behavioral evidence leans toward meatpuppetry rather than other forms of sockpuppetry, I have removed the request for a CheckUser scan. —  Newslinger  talk   05:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have noticed an error: an edit made by Rad Fem Ish at Special:Diff/1009533494 was accidentally tagged as an edit by The Queen of Cups V in Special:Diff/1009538442. I have amended my initial comment accordingly. However, the other behavioral evidence still stands. —  Newslinger  talk   05:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor who sent the report has never been banned from interacting with you. Again, I am prevented by policy from disclosing the contents of the report here, as it contains communications (specifically, Twitter posts) that have not yet been disclosed on-wiki. —  Newslinger  talk   06:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am filing this investigation now because this is the second instance of apparent off-wiki canvassing on the reliable sources noticeboard concerning a discussion on a source in this topic area. During the in July–August 2020, off-wiki canvassing was found, but the impact on the RfC was unclear, and I was not confident that a sockpuppet investigation would result in any action – hence, no report. The current noticeboard  is the opposite case: editors have clearly been canvassed to the discussion by off-wiki means, but the communications are not visible from a web search. This investigation combines the two instances of disruption into a single case. The 30 July 2020 email provides more details on the PinkNews RfC incident. —  Newslinger   talk   06:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The investigating administrator will contact you directly for your response to the report, if needed. The report was most likely sent to me because I am one of the more visible patrollers on the reliable sources noticeboard. And to clarify, the report does not claim that you "had done something to violate twitter rules"; it concerns off-wiki canvassing, which relates to a Wikipedia policy. —  Newslinger  talk   06:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have received a second email report from another editor regarding this investigation. Based on the strength of the evidence in this report, I am closing this investigation and referring the matter privately to the Arbitration Committee. I will have the written report submitted within 24 hours. —  Newslinger  talk   15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The report has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee, which will handle the case from here on. —  Newslinger  talk   08:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify the nature of the report submitted to the Arbitration Committee, my comment from another discussion is reproduced below:
 * —  Newslinger  talk   06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for closing the investigation. My intent was to convey that, since the case has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee, I am no longer offering to share the email report with investigating administrators. —  Newslinger  talk   06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for closing the investigation. My intent was to convey that, since the case has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee, I am no longer offering to share the email report with investigating administrators. —  Newslinger  talk   06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Well, this seems extreme, but knock yourself out. If you'd like any extra permissions to check my IP addresses or anything else that aren't covered under the usual allowances, just ask and I will happily grant them. I've never had a sockpuppet account on Wikipedia and I don't now. Lilipo25 is the one and only account I have ever had here. This is actually my second time being accused by someone right after they disagreed with my opinions, but I assure you that there is nothing to find.

I saw that Rad Fem Ish hadn't formatted their reply correctly (didn't put the asterisk in front of it or bold the word "reliable") so I did it for them and notified them. Someone kindly did the same for me when I used the Reliable Sources board for the first time and I appreciated it; the formatting on Wikipedia can be complicated. It would never have occurred to me that an admin would take that to mean they were my sockpuppet. My sincere apologies to Rad Fem Ish for causing them this trouble with what was meant as a helpful gesture. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Now that Newslinger has added Mandy, I apologise to them, too. I would guess that accusing anyone who disagrees with the opinion that Gay and Lesbian News is a hate site of being my sockpuppet will discourage some people from voicing that view on the Reliable Sources board. All I can do is apologize to those who do, and reiterate that I will happily grant this investigation any power it is in my authority to grant that might help them check out this claim, or any other that Newslinger adds. (I don't suppose I'll be getting an apology when all of this turns out to be false?). Lilipo25 (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that these are more likely to be meatpuppets than sockpuppets. Mixed in with the brand new accounts in the RSN discussion are dormant accounts with prior activity going back several years. More likely in my opinion that these are simply newly registered editors who have been canvassed to this discussion from somewhere offsite, likely a "gender critical" forum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is Newslinger now posting off-site canvassing from a Pink News discussion last year as evidence that I have sockpuppet accounts or have done something wrong? If Newslinger has some evidence that I was involved in that canvassing, I would very much like to see it. This is more irrelevant piling on to attack me for having a particular feminist viewpoint that an admin doesn't like, and it's not appropriate. Kindly conduct your investigation and clear my name. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) This may be part of the meatpuppetry. People have used the replies to LGB Alliance tweets to advocate for agenda editing eg this. Also possibly this or a similar place may be where they're coming from. Urve (talk) 09:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen bullying of accounts with a gender critical viewpoint on the reliable sources board before, but this is OTT.
 * For the record, I have not canvassed anyone, either. There has been a lot of talk on several feminist boards in the last few weeks (because of the upcoming annual Art and Feminist Edit-a-thon, which takes place in less than one week) about the extreme bias against radical feminist views and organizations on Wikipedia. This is due to several recent articles, and one in particular, clearly being edited by groups of editors with an intense dislike toward the viewpoints of radical feminism. But I have not seen any feminist on any site suggest or direct anyone to edit particular articles. And the one that everyone objects to doesn't appear to have been altered in some time and remains heavily biased, so it seems unlikely that anyone signed up just to change it.
 * On the contrary, almost every opinion I've seen offered - including a number of past WP editors - has been in agreement that women shouldn't bother trying to edit Wikipedia because they'll just be bullied and deleted, so it's a complete waste of time. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not said that you in particular are responsible, but it seems pretty unlikely that a significant number of brand new and infrequently active accounts would make their appearance in one place to push the same view without them being directed there. Has the RSN discussion and the Equality Act (United States) article been specifically mentioned? I checked Twitter, Ovarit and Glindr (the usual "gender critical" haunts) and found precisely nothing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've seen the Equality Act page mentioned as being biased once. Not the RSN discussion, or at least not recently or in relation to this publication. I did see it mentioned when Pink News was up in RS last year. Neither of these pages is the one that the majority of people were bothered by. I am not on every single feminist board on the internet (I am on three prominent ones, however) and I can't guarantee that I would have seen every post that's been made on Wikipedia's bias. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you link to the specific discussion where the "Equality Act" was described as biased? Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I absolutely cannot, nor would I ever agree to do that. What is discussed on feminist boards - and not all of the boards are open to be viewed by anyone anyway; some are private Facebook groups - are discussions among women on topics that affect us. It's one thing to say in general terms that something has been discussed. It's something else entirely to provide a public link to individual women's comments, without their consent. Feminists are routinely subjected to doxxing and even rape and death threats from people who dislike their views. There is zero chance I would ever consent to open other women up to that possibility, no matter what I am accused of. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume Newslinger is posting that twitter account because the user name looks similar to my Wikipedia one (Lil P12345). I can't account for that. I don't even know if it's a real account or something someone set up specifically in an effort to cause problems. I have a twitter account that has been active since 2007 and it is the only one I have. It does not share a user name with my Wikipedia account, and I would never be stupid enough to use a similar name on two different platforms, knowing how easy that is to track.
 * I am feeling very targeted by Newslinger, who right after replying to the Reliable Sources page that mentioned my saying the Lesbian and Gay News was reliable this morning to strongly disagree with that viewpoint, sent me a notice that I have expressed interest in a topic that is under discretionary sanctions, and within hours had filed this report against me alleging sockpuppetry and is now alleging meatpuppetry last year. I recognize that Newslinger is an admin with a great deal more power than I have, but I do wish a disinterested party would conduct an investigation and put a stop to this. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Newslinger, if you are in fact in possession of a "report" that has information about me, personally, that is relevant to this investigation, I should very much like to know both who wrote it and to read it. That is an extremely disturbing thing to hear, particularly as I do not recall ever interacting with you before today and can't imagine why someone was sending you or anyone else reports about me.Lilipo25 (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are telling me that someone wrote a "report" about me that they sent to Wikipedia admins with whom I had never had any contact "in confidence" nearly a year ago, and that you are now offering to send to any other admin who wants it, but I can't know who wrote it or what it says? And this is acceptable under Wikipedia rules for admins to do - share outside 'reports' about editors without letting the editors know about them or defend themselves against what might be in them? Or even know if they contain personal information about them? That is openly threatening and frightening. Lilipo25 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no conflict of interest, I am not "harassing" anyone by disagreeing with your POV that Lesbian and Gay News is unreliable, no one has ever offered to pay me for editing Wikipedia and I am certainly not a danger to children nor have I done anything to give the impression I am. So I wouldn't appear to be covered by that rule. Your threats here to reveal personal information about me to "any admin who wants it", without even telling me what it says or who has compiled it, is the most frightening bullying I've ever encountered here. Have you ever made this threat to anyone else editing Wikipedia whose opinions you disagreed with? It feels very much like a threat intended to get me to quit editing altogether. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the since-deleted tweet that spawned this thread; based on replies, seems like a good match. Urve (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Additional reply here. Probably more, many deleted. Urve (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Also. So idk. Urve (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Also eg although this is old. Looks more like a coordinated effort by the OP to that thread, that has since deleted their tweets, than socking. Urve (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "OP" I mention here has privated and their replies seem to indicate that they feel as though they had nothing to do with it; I increasingly don't think Lilipo has anything to do with the canvassing, though the other accounts are still worth a check. My 2c. Urve (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I should be careful here- I don't think they (and the other tweets I linked to) were privated because of this thread (though I obviously don't know). I'm imagining it's the womxn news and some twitter bullying. Urve (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * None of these twitter accounts are mine and they are not relevant to a sockpuppetry claim against me which has now just become a pile-on from everyone who disagrees with my views on the the Lesbian and Gay News. Having said that, those don't look like meatpuppetry to me. They are tweets urging feminists to get involved with Wikipedia due to its bias. They don't tell anyone to go edit any particular articles. Wikipedia does need more women editors and more feminist ones, too (but this page has made me understand better than any other during my time here why nearly every one has quit trying). Lilipo25 (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those with discerning eyes will notice I never said that nor even referenced you. Urve (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You posted it in a sockpuppet investigation of me! Lilipo25 (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, you all win. I now have two very anti-feminist admins making it clear that they are targeting me and this isn't going to get any better. I lasted two years as a WIkipedia editor and that's far better than most women, and certainly better than most feminists, do. But I'm being threatened with sinister secret "reports" with "personal information" about me and no one will tell me what is in them or who wrote them, but they're being offered to be passed around, and that's just sick.
 * So I will quit and you have won and chased one of the last feminist editors off Wikipedia. I will not, however, leave before this SPI is completed. I want my name cleared first. So use whatever admin influence you have to get SPI cracking if you want me gone. I didn't do anything wrong and I won't leave until that's made clear. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A strange thing to say, since I specifically said below that I *didn't* think this was sockpuppetry, but meatpuppetry. Oh, and calling me anti-feminist is a personal attack, and since you know nothing about me whatsoever, one that is so ridiculously untrue as to be laughable. Feel free to redact that at your convenience. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been told on this page that meatpuppetry comes under sockpuppetry, so I assume that is also being investigated here. As for my statement about your views, I have only run into you in ANIs where you have made comments agreeing with those calling radical feminists "TERFs" and other statements which showed a strong bias against radical feminists and their views. But you needn't worry about any 'personal attacks', I will happily retract since I'm leaving anyway once this SPI is over. Being threatened with "personal information" about me - when I am not even allowed to know what it is or who compiled it - being passed around is flat-out sinister and sick, and more than I can take. Lilipo25 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Trans-exclusionary radical feminists are a very small subset of feminists, as you very well know. But where is this "personal information" idea - I can't see it?  Forgive me if I'm being dense. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cute (both the spelling out of the slur and the statement that doesn't justify open bias against a group of feminists in any way). Lilipo25 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And you see, that's the problem - you are unwilling to accept that some people - obviously in this case mostly in the trans community - may have a problem with certain aspects of radical feminism. We can't pretend that a trans-exclusionary subset does not exist, so as Wikipedia editors we have to deal with it like any extreme wing of an ideology. It is always going to cause issues if people assume that peope who have a problem with that side of feminism have a problem with feminism as a whole - because the vast majority of them don't.  Thanks for the link - I missed that. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, Black Kite: I very much accept that some trans people have a problem with certain aspects of radical feminism, just as some radical feminists believe that aspects of gender identity politics threaten women's rights. But as Wikipedia editors, it is not, in fact, up to you to declare it "an extreme wing" of an ideology or to threaten women for those views with the release of their personal information. You have the right to your personal views just like I have the right to mine. For any admin to use their power to threaten and intimidate an editor because they disagree with their personal views is both terrifying and very, very wrong. If you can't see that, I honestly don't know what to tell you. Lilipo25 (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. As an encyclopedia, it is not about our personal beliefs, it is always what the reliable sources tell us; and reliable sources tell us that those aspects of radical feminism are not the mainstream.  That does not mean those views are any more or less valid than any others, but we do have to deal with what they mean in the real world per WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH.  To give an analogy, if you had a political party, a minority of whose members were found to hold racist views, we would need to be very careful not to impute that all party members held those views, nor that the party itself condoned them. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I honestly do not care how important you or Pink News think radical feminism is to the feminist movement at this moment. I've just had a frightening and violating threat to reveal personal information about me that some editor has compiled made against me by an admin with power and am being bullied off of Wikipedia for my views. Do you really think this is important to me right now? Please just do what you can to get the SPI done so I can leave. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Martyr complex, much? You are not one of the "last feminist editors left on Wikipedia" by any stretch of the imagination.  There are plenty of feminists actively editing every day. Although one was bullied off, just last week. They are an intersectional feminist, though, rather than "gender critical", so I guess that made it ok? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course you're here, Bastun, with a completely irrelevant and unhelpful attack on me. It's amazing how you show up any time there's a chance to pile on me and never have anything useful to add, just more name-calling.


 * As for your claim that Awoma was "bullied off" last week, you should take that up with the admin who topic-banned them (El C) after they spent two days making pointed accusations and nasty comments to both that admin and another one. I was asleep during most of it, including the actual topic banning, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this SPI. But thanks as always for the unprovoked attack.


 * And I am, as far as I can tell, one of only three editors left on Wikipedia regularly attempting to combat the unbridled hatred and bias against second-wave feminism and feminists (the other two are men, one of whom is only barely active at this point) after the rest have all been bullied off by your group. This has created a huge case of circular reporting in which Wikipedia editors fill the encyclopedia with the idea that 'real' feminism is third-wave and second-wave feminism is a tiny fringe group, and then continue to cite the information they have generated as fact to keep even more balance out of Wikipedia. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * here Rad Fem Ish claims attribution for an unsigned edit made by The Queen of Cups V . Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page, as the only thing I was going to say that's directly relevant to this page is "And FWIW, I don't think you've been socking." Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - So, this is all quite unexpected to me. I stumbled across this because I saw that User:MandyMB now has a user page and such. Anyway, I didn't want to comment here as I had a debate with Lilipo25 the other day, but I think this is very noteworthy: I notice that User:The Queen of Cups V and User:Rad Fem Ish created their user pages today within about forty minutes of each other. User:MandyMB created theirs a few hours later. I find that rather curious. Notably, Lilipo25 does not follow this pattern, however they already had a user page far before this. Please correct me if I missed something here, but is that not odd? --Chillabit (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was edited some time after posting, to fix an indention mistake & clarify that it was not a reply to the discussion above. 22:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said below, I don't believe Lilipo25 is running sockpuppets, although I do think the chance that the others are socks is higher (especially after the diff that Thryduulf has pointed out just above). This is more likely to be a meatpuppetry / off-wiki canvassing issue. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, to be clear I didn't mean to insinuate Lilipo25's involvement with the other accounts necessarily. This just looked like supporting evidence for the other three being connected to one another, to me, not on its own but alongside everything else. I don't really know what's up with the alleged meatpuppetry, I'll leave that be. --Chillabit (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite has not only posted accusations here, they linked to this investigation on the Reliable Sources page, giving the false impression that I (and other) have done something wrong before the investigation even starts and encouraging this pile-on of those editors with the opposite viewpoint on the trans/women's rights issue with whom I have disagreed, like Chillabit and Urve. The bullying by both admins, Black Kite and Newslinger, (who have both made their personal opinions very clear on that page) of those with a dissimilar viewpoint is openly abusive of their admin status. I will ask again that the investigation take place and as swiftly as possible, including CheckUser or whatever else you want to do, so my name can be cleared before I leave Wikipedia. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I really do apologize if you feel I've contributed to some sort of pile-on here, and while I have been active on WP:RSN, it's in relation to COVID-19 misinformation by The Federalist; I really had nothing to add to the L&GN discussion. I arrived at this page through MandyMB's talk page, whose user page I saw was suddenly blue via the Equality Act's talk page. I was not invited here by an admin. Like I said above I really have nothing to say about your alleged meatpuppeting and I was here to comment about the other three users primarily. I would have avoided commenting here entirely if I hadn't noticed the similarity in user page creation timing. --Chillabit (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I am involved in the RSN thread so won't say much, except that this looks more like meatpuppetry and/or off-wiki canvassing to me, however there are a couple of quirks in the short editing histories of two of the accounts which make me think a checkuser might be useful - I can provide those privately if required. Data: User:Rad Fem Ish - created 21 Feb, first edit 25 Feb to Equality Act article, then Reliable sources/Noticeboard. User:MandyMB - created 19 Feb, first edit 26 Feb to Equality Act, then RSN. User:The Queen of Cups V - created in 2019, 2 edits in that year, first edit since then was on 26 Feb to a couple of other articles before heading for RSN. Interesting that they have found their way to RSN since the page is obscure for new accounts and isn't actually linked from the Equality Act talkpage either. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. There was already a discussion about sockpuppetry on the RSN page so I linked to this one, just in case anyone tried to start a duplicate SPI (as this one is not under the name of any of the involved editors). Personally I would have started the SPI under Queen of Cups (as that is the oldest of the obviously suspicious accounts), however I do not know what other information Newslinger has, so here we are.  Since you believe we are abusing our admin status, however, I will remove my section from the admin comments and place it in the main body, despite the fact that neither Newslinger or myself have used admin tools. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh all you want. What you, and more egregiously Newslinger, have done with your admin status to bully an editor off Wikipedia for having a POV that you both personally disagree with, is not only wrong but, at least in Newslinger's case, genuinely depraved. To make repeated threats that they have a report of "personal information" on me and publicly offer to send it to any admin who wants to see it - while refusing to tell me where they got it or what is in it - is open intimidation and it is revolting. I hate bullies and blackmailers (and the ones with power are a special breed of monster) and I hate that I have to give in to this so much that it is making me physically ill, but at least spare me your sighs. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note also User:Mcleaver, making their first edit for two years with the same POV as the above accounts. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would suggest that the diff noted by Thyrduulf above means a checkuser is indicated. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, checkuser every single editor who has disagreed with the admins Black Kite and Newslinger in that discussion. Seriously. I agree. You don't even have to worry if it's a violation of my rights or anything: I give you permission to checkuser me. Just do it already so I can show that I did nothing wrong before I leave. This is excruciating and endless.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: it seems to me that this is off-wiki canvassing but there's no evidence of it being related to Lilipo25. With some of the canvassing, I'd give significantly leeway to something even as extreme as this as we do encourage people to advertise edit-a-thons and advocate for new users to join and help with systemic biases, often with explicitly political language. The way this investigation has been communicated to Lilipo25 has been highly unhelpful and it's worrying the way people have acted towards somebody showing severe distress. In my recent editing I've experienced both wrongful accusations against me and people making me fearful for the safety of my personal information, and I think one hardly has the right to be indignant at being personally attacked by someone after failing to show them sympathy in such a situation. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * this was an incredibly kind comment and ngl, it actually made me tear up a bit considering that you and I have rarely agreed on much of anything while editing. Thank you. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have said three times in this SPI that I do not believe that Lilipo25 is actually running sockpuppets here, and that I would have started it under the name of one of the other accounts, which are incredibly suspicious. I am not worried about Lilipo25's attacks on me despite what I've said; without being patronising, I understand why someone having an SPI filed against them might feel that way. Black Kite (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not upset about the SPI. I have done nothing wrong and that will be shown. I am upset about the actions of two admins who are abusing their power to harm an editor with whom they disagree over personal views on the Reliable Sources page. One (you) posted a link to this SPI on the RS page to both give the impression that I am guilty of something even before an investigation is done and to encourage everyone who disagrees with my personal views to pile on.
 * The other is openly violating Wikipedia's own rules against off-Wiki harassment by using a "report" compiled by another editor allegedly about their own investigation into my activities off of Wikipedia, which this admin then sat on for seven months only to pull out and pass around to other admins immediately upon my disagreeing with them on the same page. And they will not tell me who compiled this report on my personal actions (which was coincidentally sent to them the same day another editor was given a one-way Iban to stop harassing me). Nor will they tell me what is in the report so that I can defend myself regarding its accuracy.
 * This sort of abuse and intimidation of an editor over personal views is frightening, violating and wrong. That's why I'm upset. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I was astonished to get home from work today and find that there had been a false accusation that I was a 'sock puppet' or a 'meat pupper' (I had to look up what that meant). While it might surprise, User:newslinger, I think for myself. You will note that as a new user, I first thought the sandpit was where I was to post bio material. After searching on the internet yesterday, I found that I could post some brief bio information on the same page as my name. I am a new editor to Wikipedia and find it chilling that false accusations are levelled at me based on an obscure and weird coincedence. I am totally new to Wikipedia. I am trying to learn what to do and have started with commenting on pages that were of interest to me. All I am guilty of is being interested in topics that are trendy at the moment. I would appreciate help with editing and what to do, not immediate approbrium for being brave enough to have an opinion. As an aside, I have a master's degree in psychology and as a corollary, I have completed papers on validity and reliability. It concerns me that there are males on this thread attacking females with baseless accusations. I have only ONE account on Wikipedia and as you can see I am a NEW USER. Please lay off the false accusations. MandyMB (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In response to Newslinger's comment above The editor has given me permission to share the email report with investigating administrators:
 * Newsliinger, I will now ask again who this editor is and what this 'report' contains. The date you say it was emailed to you (July 30, 2020) happens to be the same date another editor was given a one-way Iban barring them from replying to me on Wikipedia and was very upset about it. You are suggesting that a Wikipedia editor searched for and found 'personal information' about me outside of Wikipedia and then emailed it to an admin (you) with whom I had at that point never had any contact. The only reason I can think that they would have chosen you to email would be that they considered you would be sympathetic to their personal views against me, even though you and I had never interacted.
 * This entire action would seem to be a huge violation of Wikipedia rules against off-Wiki harassment WP:OWH, and the fact that the admin then held onto this 'personal information' about me that was sent to them only to use it against me seven months later (immediately after I disagreed with them on the Reliable Sources page about whether or not being gender critical should disqualify a source) is frightening and wrong. Worse, this information is now being passed around to other people and yet I am not being told what it says so that I can defend myself or state whether or not it is accurate. This is violating and abusive behavior from an admin to an editor with whom they disagree on personal views. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Newslinger, if you were sent evidence seven months ago that I had done something to violate twitter rules, why didn't you take action then? Why wait until the day I disagreed with you about a gender critical source to suddenly start offering to share this 'report' around? And why was it sent to you, an admin with whom I had no interaction history seven months ago?Lilipo25 (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Lilipo's Conclusion
I will state in conclusion that there is no reason at all to believe that Newslinger thought I was actually a sockpuppet, or that the other accounts were sockpuppets of me, when they opened this SPI. Every other contributor - even Bastun, who is open with their contempt and personal attacks toward me due to our editing conflicts - has acknowledged that they do not believe I have sockpuppeted and that there is no reason to think I did.

I am a longtime editor of articles on topics covered by the Lesbian & Gay News and more importantly, I am the editor who made the original comment that I believed them to be a reliable source, which resulted in Urve opening the RS discussion in the first place and then post on my page notifying me of it. There is no reason I would NOT have been participating in the discussion, so no reason to accuse me of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry for being there and debating.

Newslinger has revealed that they were emailed a 'report' with some kind of personal information about me at the end of last July (seven months ago). This was when I was taking part in the Pink News RS debate and had a contentious debate with another user who was bludgeoning every opinion that said Pink News was unreliable. Immediately after this, that same user sent two emails to Newslinger, in the time frame Newslinger says they received this 'report' about me; the notifications of the emails can still be viewed on Wikipedia (I can show the diffs if required but will not now, as this isn't about that user, but about Newslinger).

Whatever was included in those emails, Newslinger did not use it to open an investigation into me or contact me about it (or take any other action) then, as should have happened if the report was obtained within Wikipedia's rules and proved that I had violated the rules. Instead, Newslinger saved that information and used it the first time I disagreed with them, which would be in the current RS. They opened a sockpuppet investigation into me despite there being zero evidence or even a reason to believe I was sockpuppeting, and announced that they would share those emails from seven months ago with investigating admins. This is an abuse of admin power to bully an editor for having a personal view they disagree with.

In addition, Newslinger at first implied that this report contained my "personal information" and refused to clarify what kind of information that was when I asked, until after I posted on my own talk page that I would quit Wikipedia once this SPI was completed in order to stop my personal information from getting out.

I am a radical feminist and believe in women's sex-based rights. We are routinely doxxed and threatened with rape, assault and even death by people who disagree with that, and thus must work hard to keep our identities secret online. Newslinger's threats were terrifying to me in the extreme, and left me quite literally physically ill. I still feel very unsure what information they are in possession of and will reveal, as I am not inclined to trust any admin who would use tactics this underhanded and cruel merely because they dislike an editor's views. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Hold on archiving this, please. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Remarks as an SPI clerk:
 * This case is a mess. Newslinger, you should not have closed this yourself.
 * Shared POV does not sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry make.
 * Could off-wiki canvassing be in play? Sure. That's something that is basically impossible to prove or disprove.
 * The question, then, is this: do they appear to be actively coordinating with each other, and/or are the canvassed editors causing major disruption? This is the same as how I approach SPIs dealing with similarly fraught areas where action is triggered by off-wiki fora (caste-warring comes to mind). My answer to that is "no".
 * As an SPI clerk I do not see sufficient evidence to block any of these editors and am calling this "closed without action." If whatever evidence Newslinger sent in convinces ArbCom, then they can of course act as they see fit. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)