Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MyNameIsDenise/Archive

Evidence submitted by AzureCitizen
I am user AzureCitizen. This is my first ever SPI request, so I apologize if do a poor job of composing this text. The account I suspect to be a sockpuppet is MyNameIsDenise, an account I believe is being controlled by another editor in an attempt to influence the outcome in a hotly debated thread on Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.

The account "MyNameIsDenise" was created on July 23, 2008. The editor made five edits to Ornithology related articles on July 23-24, 2008. Account then went dormant until December 17, 2008, when editor made three edits in relation to the controversy over President Obama's attendance to a Church sermon given by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. in Chicago. Account went dormant again for a year and a half until July 25, 2010, when it made it's first appearance at location Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy.

The first edit in the thread was made here. At that point, it easiest to see the conversation flow by looking at the thread itself here. My summarized version of events (from my personal subjective perspective/opinion) would be as follows: User MyNameIsDenise entered the conversation at a point when earlier on July 25, other editors flipped the status of the page back and forth with reverts over whether or not consensus had been reached. User MyNameIsDenise posted a "drive-by" comment, in a new section entitled "Establishing Consensus", in which User MyNameIsDenise expressed conclusory support for one side of the argument, expressed disagreement with the other side, and announced they were casting a vote, stating "The vote is now 5-2, and I hope this ends the edit war so nobody gets blocked." I questioned the sudden appearance of the new editor by implication. They understood the implication and responded "Release the hounds. Run a Checkuser. I've edited here as an IP editor for a long time: ornithology-related articles occupy about 99 percent of my work..." I asked them what the IP was, assuming this would show a long standing edit history primarily editing Ornithology related on birds. No IP address was provided. Although their response has been redacted by other editors, User MyNameIsDenise responded three times that I should lead by example by publicly posting my full name, date of birth, home address, Social Security number and bank information to establish trust, or else I could just assume they were a good faith editor. You can see those redacted edits here, here, and here.

I believe that the user declines to show their long-standing Ornithology-editing IP simply because revealing the IP (or a Checkuser request doing the same) would show they are not a long standing editor of many years who has been editing Ornithology related articles 99% of the time. I also think it is likely that the puppeteer is logging in from one location while logging in to use the sock from another location, which is giving the puppeteer confidence that the sock will not be traced back to them.

A Checkuser request would quickly ascertain whether the suspected account is a sock being deceptive, or instead a legitimate user who should not be challenged in the debate, based on whether or not it is a long standing editor who has been editing bird related articles 99% of the time for years. The purpose of the Checkuser request would not be to invade anybody's privacy or to satisfy curiosity, but to quickly detect whether this is a legitimate user who has been wrongly accused, or is in fact a deceptive sock who is concealing facts for cover while attempting to subvert good faith debate and consensus. Further, I would think the fact that when challenged the editor MyNameIsDenice specifically responded "Run a Checkuser" can be construed to mean they have voluntarily consented.

In closing, I should note that the following editors are the editors primarily involved in the ongoing debate at this time besides myself:

Xenophrenic, Ceemow, Phoenix and Winslow, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, Wikidemon. . AzureCitizen (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - This case is incomplete. You can't give a user account and accuse it of being a sock of no one. Just because an editor is new doesn't mean they're necessarily guilty of anything. ( X! ·  talk )  · @138  · 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that just because an editor is new doesn't mean they're guilty of anything. I try hard to assume good faith but in this case, the coincidence of the new editor's arrival on the scene coupled with the words they used in a drive-by attempt to settle a contentious debate triggered strong suspicion and intuition that a sock was being called into use by an editor who has been pushing their will very hard in the discussions.  The suspected sock gave a bizarre reason for their appearance (that they have been editing bird-related articles extensively for years as an IP editor, but they created the "MyNameIsDenise" account for the express purpose of editing political articles to "avoid appearing to be a sock", yet in a period of two years they only edited one article and had an extremely low single-digit edit count).  Socks often give bizarre explanations when challenged, but they also often make simple mistakes in their assertions that trap them quickly.  This one asserted they're a long standing editor of bird articles as an anonymous IP, but when asked then what is that anonymous IP to make it plain to everyone they have jumped into the debate as a new editor with clean hands, they don't even answer the question.  Instead, they ask me three times to post my name, address, phone number, social security number, date of birth, and bank account information publicly on the Talk Page to challenge me back.  This would be a bizarre response for an innocent new editor but a typical reaction from a sock who cannot come clean because it is literally not an option (i.e., then they just get banned).
 * I understand and appreciate your point that the case is incomplete because I haven't given the specific user account that I think is the editor in the debate who is secretly controlling the sock. I do suspect one specific user in the debate to be the guilty party (from the list you see at the bottom of the evidence section), but was hoping that first the deception of the apparent sock could be revealed (that the new editor isn't really a longstanding editor of bird articles 99% of the time; I suspect the Checkuser will show that isn't even remotely true) before I name the alleged guilty party and "point the finger".  I figured showing there truly was a sock puppet in play would be a good first step, and thus warrant naming the alleged guilty party along with what evidence I can muster.  If you can't proceed any further without me making that accusation however, I understand.  Please let me know.  I would like to do this in whatever manner is policy-compliant and "fair" for all involved. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * X! is correct in this case; there is nothing for us to do. I can only suggest you e-mail any concrete evidence to the Arbitration Committee. We as administrators will need something more concrete to take action. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)