Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorifredrics/Archive

19 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Lorifredrics is effectively a single purpose account which is used to conduct a campaign against Kingston University. She made four minor edits unrelated to this university in 2008, but other than that every one of her edits has been to do with attempts to post negative publicity of one form or another about the university, and recently her editing has been entirely to do with persistent attempts to use Wikipedia to publish her statements on a controversy involving a conflict between her husband and the vice chancellor of the university. Following a discussion about her at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, she was topic banned from editing articles on this subject at 07:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC). The account KingsonRules was created at 00:49, 19 July 2011, and is a completely single purpose account, having so far made a total of 7 edits, every one of which has been concerned with furthering Lorifredrics's campaign. Both Lorifredrics and KingsonRules have made accusations that other editors are being paid to edit to suppress their point of view. All of KingsonRules's edits have been to two articles from which Lorifredrics is topic banned or to their talk pages, apart from one edit to Lorifredrics's talk page, in which he/she exhorts her to "keep the fight for justice going". It seems to me that this is a clear case of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but I would appreciate a checkuser, because exactly what action against Lorifredrics would be appropriate might depend on which of those two is the case.

This is being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

It is worth mentioning also that Kingston University has a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry in a campaign to insert negative information about the university, as can be seen at Sockpuppet investigations/Catface1965/Archive.

One final point, which may not be relevant, is that some of KingsonRules's edits have been restoring edits of User:Bentheadvocate which had been removed.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I have nothing to do with any of the other editors who've been editing the Kingston University pages. I do not know who they are, and did NOT solicit support from any friends, family or others who might agree with my views or those of my husband.  Indeed, while I have been sanctioned for merely raising questions about other editors, the dogpiling onto me by way of such accusations as Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry have gone unpunished.  Very unfortunate, but it all tends to prove the points I've been making about the vitriolic and excessive fervor with which some editors have approached these topics.  I promise not to hold my breath for an apology from anyone involved in the lynch mob.--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Likely, but I'll endorse to confirm. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The two are ❌. TN X Man  13:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to close this. I'm not surprised that the two are unrelated, I initially thought this was more a case of WP:MEAT if anything, but I don't see how even that can be shown at this point. Right now there is no administrative action to take, at least not for the abuse of multiple accounts. --  At am a  頭 17:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)