Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane/Archive

01 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Starting on January 17, User:NickCochrane was involved in a heated re-direct discussion about Halifax, Nova Scotia in Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 16. Also on January 17, User:NickCochrane created an AfD at Articles for deletion/List of high frame rate (HFR) movies.

It should be noted that User:NickCochrane has a very strong POV that digital video is inferior to film. More on that below.

The user:LenaLeonard account was created on January 19 and its very first edit was a support of User:NickCochrane's position in the Halifax, Nova Scotia redirect debate. 

After creating the user page, User:LenaLeonard's second edit was supporting user:NickCochran's position in the AfD. 

In the last fifteen or so days, both User:NickCochran and User:LenaLeonard have been making major edits, all in a agreement, to Digital cinema The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey High Frame Rate

On January 27, User:NickChochran created the AfD's Articles for deletion/Filmlook and Articles for deletion/Film look. Neither of the AfD's were based on Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY nor WP:GNG. After mostly "Keep" votes in both, on January 31 User:LenaLeonard dropped in to both and voted "delete" ("as per Nick") with no WP:NOTABILITY or WP:GNG rationale. 

What's most particularly telling is that User:NickChochran has been demonstrating very anti-digital "film is of higher quality" POV edits which is the exact same position of User:LenaLeonard in the same High Frame Rate article. 

Thank you for reading. --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Amendment - In addition to the above, I now notice on the Sony HDVS article in which LenaLeonard makes a disparaging remark about the article ("This article gives me a headache") and then an edit to it,  is in the very next edit followed by NichChocharn making a major removal of content from it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Per User:Pburka' comments below on remarkably similar edit patterns to the now-blocked Yohowithrum (blocked for using multiple accounts), I'll add Yohowithrum to this. --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi, just noticed this silliness and I thought I would throw my two cents in - I'm not quite sure who User:LenaLeonard is, but I agree some of the similarities seem kind of weird at first, but I noticed Lena mentioned in a response on an AfD that I created that we are both members of WikiProject Film, which would explain similar edits. Other than that, the admins can decide, if the Checkuser did not turn up an IP similarity I would suggest making this case closed. On another note for admin's consideration. User:Oakshade has been less than kind to me, and since my AfD nomination of the article Filmlook, he has not been too friendly obviously. I had made the AfD, when in fact, directly after it, he changed the topic/subject of the page from a video technique to a company:. Anyway, say what you will, but this is just a way for Oakshade to vent against editors who disagree with him. I'll let Lena know about this. NickCochrane (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been part of these AfDs, and would like to note that Nick has made a factually incorrect statement: Oakshade clarified an issue in the lead one of a pair of articles that Nick nominated for AfD, he did not change the topic/subject. Nick reverted this change, and I reverted Nick's revert to return to Oakshade's edit. Lena's AfD comments ignore policy, and a lot of Nick's fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT - just as Oakshade has stated here. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @Lukeno94 - Well it was disruptive to the AfD on the previous topic. @Admins: I've let Lena know about this case - but I've also asked if she is from Halfiax or Toronto which will hopefully explain some of the similar edits. I'm sorry, but not "buying" my perfectly sound explanation is not very Assume good faith. Cheers. NickCochrane (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been curious about NickCochrane for a few weeks. I'm suspicious that he may in fact be a sockpuppet of User:Yohowithrum. The two users have very similar interests (Halifax, Shambhala Buddhism, Etobicoke School of the Arts, film, and films directed by Justin Friesen (a.k.a. Yohowithrum)), and NickCochrane has even gone so far as to delete comments about one of Yohowithrum's conflicts-of-interest. Pburka (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, User:Yohowithrum got blocked on December 6 for two weeks for abusing multiple accounts (that account creation block got extended to a month on January 1) and the Unser:NickCochrane account was created on December 31, so the timing works out too. --Oakshade (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm still posting on this, but here we go, for everyone's information, this is what's up with this other person who sprang out of the woodwork: User_talk:DeltaQuad. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What the hell is all this? I'm thoroughly confused - I have zero explanation to offer, but I would like one. I've never been involved with a sockpuppet case - but isn't this an issue of if someone is using one or more accounts on a single computer? Are there not users that have similar edits all the time? And how is it that these admins can subjectively say yes or no? If someone could please explain this all that would be great. Thanks. LenaLeonard (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've also just read the "Defending yourself against claims" section and have noticed that Oakshade and Lukeno94 have both been very argumentative with NickCochrane. Oakshade was upset with Nick over the AfD nomination, which was legitimate, and likely has enough consensus now to be a "Keep". But I would say this is a "Bad Faith" nomination by Oakshade who has been simply disagreeing with Nick's opinions as an editor. LenaLeonard (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * May I suggest an admin close this? Obviously you haven't found conclusive evidence per IP address and the edit history is really, at the end of the day, coincidental. Can User:LenaLeonard get on with our lives and continue editing? Thanks, Nick Cochrane. NickCochrane (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this close, but there is clearly conclusive evidence, else this would've been thrown out long ago. I myself am not 100% sure you are socks, but I am certain you are, at the very least, meatpuppets. There is very strong evidence to suggest the latter is at least going on. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm suspicious of any editor who leaps directly into AFDs. Further, in addition to issues raised above, both Nick and Lena prefer to edit on thursday, and based on editing times, are asleep at the exact same times. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Compliments for the clear, concise report and evidence. Both accounts geolocate to the same city. One uses a residential connection, the other edits from the workplace. It's definitely that these two accounts could be operated by the same individual, and in light of the behavioural evidence you've brought forward, that's  to be the case in my opinion. WilliamH (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't buy NickCochrane's explanation at all. This was LenaLeonard's first edit. There is also the fact that that edit came just *two minutes* after the account was created. These two things suggest to me that a) we are dealing with someone who blatantly isn't a new user, or b) someone else, who was pointed to the discussion and signed up for an account so he could contribute to it. WilliamH (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Between the technical evidence and the behavioral evidence, I also find it that LenaLeonard is NickCochrane or, at least someone working in concert with NickCochrane. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found some things that I want to discuss with another CU before I comment here. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  06:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After talking with DoRD (not saying the following was his conclusion also, this is my version) the following are related, but a meatpuppet connection is still a factor that needs to be considered by the closing admin:
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  18:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After going through a much more detailed investigation with DQ, I agree with his conclusions, and have updated my statement above. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, was the account checked?
 * Yes. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to conclusively link these users togeather as sockpuppets, but it does appear there is meatpuppetry going on, but that isn't reason for blocks. So i'm closing this out. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)