Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MIAJudges/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
SPA account FedCourts20 was created on June 29th to post the same keep vote (see [] and []) on several Afds for unconfirmed Joe Biden judicial nominees, using similar reasoning/wording, with a lack of using the notability guidelines, regarding why the articles should be kept as MIAJudges []. Let&#39;srun (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * The user @Let'srunput in approximately a dozen deletion requests for nominees to be federal judges using close to, if not the exact same language for the request. I replied using the same language for my opposition because the reasoning was the same for each. Most of the deletion request have been rejected since by an administrator. My rationale to keep was agreed to by numerous other users.
 * President Trump nominated 230 nominees to be federal judges & to my knowledge not one of their Wikipedia pages had a deletion request because they were not notable. President Biden has so far nominated 176 nominees to be federal judges & prior to this users numerous request last week, only one, Tiffany Cartwright, had a request to be deleted. The rationale for that was due to her not being confirmed despite every other Biden nominee not having their pages requested to be deleted, let alone deleted. This user used the Tiffany Cartwright deletion as one of his reasons for deleting the other pages he requested. I replied that her page had since been put back up despite not being confirmed yet (The initial reasoning for deleting her page in the first place). Several users saw my rationale & clear inconsistencies with the argument & had her page taken down again since then. This is in addition to each of the nominees pages this user tried to have deleted having several references on them. As a reminder most of the deletion requests this user put in has been rejected ever since.
 * Unfortunately this user & one other have since become obsessed with me. After the second day of the deletion request, this user along with one other tried to throw their Wikipedia seniority to belittle anybody who may have not had as many years contributing to Wikipedia. Then they tried to accuse me of saying things such as me accusing their motivations not to be in good faith or motivated by politics when a simple scroll up would show it wasn’t me that said any of that. They threatened to have me banned for commenting too much despite me commenting twice & all subsequent comments were direct replies to them tagging me in their comments.
 * After the second day of commenting back & fourth of the AFD I reminded them the topic wasn’t about me but about should judicial nominees be considered notable like they have always been or should all of a something they not. I asked this as well as one other user to stop tagging me in their comments & allow other users to comment & give their opinions as the AFD has seem to be taken over by a couple of users. The result of my request was FOUR STRAIGHT DAYS of them continuing to tag me in their comments. Another user actually replied that I have repeatedly asked them to stop including me in their comments.
 * That leads me to day five. Yesterday I log in & the other user wrote in three different deletion request using my name. And now, today in day six since I asked these users to leave my name out of their replies I wake up & see THIS.
 * Two days ago I said the actions by these users were borderline harassment. Now I am outright calling it harassment. I am a volunteer on Wikipedia, not paid just like everybody else. I should be allowed to give my opinion on an AFD (Reminder the majority of these deletion request had an administrator agree with my position) without having other users spy on my page, make false accusations, try to get me banned & then go almost a full week of continuing to include me & my name in their comments after I’ve asked them to stop. This is harassment & I am asking this user to no longer communicate with me or use my name in any of his replies on any pending post unless I reply or write additional comments, which I won’t just like I wouldn’t have for the previous 4 days had they stopped tagging me like I asked back then.
 * A side not, I have put in a proposal to have all nominees for federal judgeships to be considered notable. This would prevent users like the one in question here to be able to put in these deletion request in the first place. More importantly it would stop the back & fourth that would lead to harassment like this. I hope my proposal is looked at & considered in the near future. Wikipedia is a great vehicle for learning about these nominees. I saw last night one of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia on this subject has written in his page he is taking a break from Wikipedia out of frustration with this process. I don’t want to see more of that so I am hoping this policy can be changed.
 * MIAJudges (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - With so few edits by the suspected sock, there is insufficient behavioral evidence to block, but I think there is enough to warrant a check. Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 4 edits isn't enough to justify any action. FedCourts20 hasn't edited in a week, so there's no ongoing disruption.  I'm going to close this with no prejudice against refiling if future events justify additional scrutiny. RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Ping Let&#39;srun, who previously filed an SPI on this request, which was closed with ''4 edits isn't enough to justify any action. FedCourts20 hasn't edited in a week, so there's no ongoing disruption. I'm going to close this with no prejudice against refiling if future events justify additional scrutiny.''

I am refiling as I believe subsequent events justify additional scrutiny.

MIAJudges's behavior escalated into a community site ban. In the lead up to that ban MIAJudges admitted ''This is not my only Wikipedia account. I use this one specifically for the judiciary.'' MIAJudges refused to disclose the name of any other account(s). I believe this justifies a check for additional active or sleeper accounts.

Evidence linking MIAJudges and FedCourts20:
 * MIAJudges edited an article in draft space. Less than a day later new account FedCourts20 is created, their first edit is to jump into draft space and de-prod the article MIAJudges had just edited.
 * Two minutes later FedCourts20 jumps to AFD and copy-pastes the same response across one two three AFDs in less than two minutes. Less than 8 hours later MIAJudges also copy-pastes a response across those same one two three AFDs in less than three minutes.
 * Both users gave fundamentally the same keep rationale with superficial rephrasing:
 * even if a nominee is not confirmed ... nomination is still notable
 * Even if the nomination fails ... person is still notable
 * Both users know enough to use talk page indentation, but both users anomalously post their signature on a separate line.
 * Both accounts are strict SPA (U.S. federal judges), wearing it as their username/identity.
 * MIAJudges commented on the previous SPI page. It's a 4.5k wall of text but the cliffnotes version is that MIAJudges didn't even deny socking. Instead they argue for their edits, ranting that they are victim of spying by other editors, obsession by other editors, and harassment from other editors. It reads like a justification that canvassing and socking was the only fair response to their imagined persecution. Alsee (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Thank you for the additional evidence. I ran some checks.  The best I can say is, but  due to proxy use might be a better description. RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see enough to block/tag as suspected. Case closed. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
MIAJudges had an almost exclusive interest in judges and was cBanned on 20 July. 8planets was created 6 days later and immediately began editing articles of judges. There is no overlap in specific articles that I saw, but both exclusively edited judge articles. Both use identical-style edit summaries, often one-word such as "Picture" "Link", or the occasional "Missing word". Finally, 8planets added to their own talk page this list of judges without pictures a month ago, then went to MLAJudges website earlier today to remove that identical list made by MLAJudges from MLAJudges' talk page. It seems possible that MLAJudges made a sock, copied their old task list, then realized that it was incriminating and tried to cover their tracks.EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 8planets has posted an explanation to their talk page which, while a bit of a stretch, is plausible enough to give the benefit of the doubt. I'd like to withdraw this report. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ RoySmith (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
202zone opened their account roughly 1 week after 8planets was banned and like the previous accounts has consistently been exclusively editing articles of judges, along with using the same type of editing summaries such as "Picture" and "Link". Let&#39;srun (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I was going to start this same SPI but saw that it had already been opened. The editing similarities are very suspicious. Editing the pages of judges, adding a section titled "Notable cases", and using an asterisk to format the "Notable cases" with bullet points rather than in prose style. See, for example this and this. This is quite clearly the same user. Marquardtika (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is my first time seeing this. I would have responded earlier had I saw previously. I am a new user to Wikipedia. I am not sure how this works but I would have appreciated a note on my page so that I could have responded sooner to this.
 * 202zone (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)