Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reddon666/Archive

31 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Articles for deletion/Leelah Alcorn seems to be attracting a lot of votes from brand-new or fairly new accounts and IPs. Not sure if socking, meatpuppets or just a bunch of separate editors that happen to have the same interest, but it needs investigating. Might also be worth comparing to User:Trickmind, whom hadn't edited Wikipedia since March until today, and User:Wikidan829, who hadn't edited since August 2013 until today, and removed SPA notices from the discussion. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

This submission fails to comply with the basic requirements for such reports. Read the advice box above the edit window, at least!

Where's the evidence of socking? You need to supply at least some evidence of why you suspect sock puppetry. The least you need is diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected. Vaguely worded submissions, such as this one, will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable. Grewia (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Votestacking at an AfD is the suspected offence - and how did you find your way here, Grewia, when you haven't been named here, and last edited in September? Indeed, your only activity then was to accuse a whole bunch of people of being socks yourself, or to notify them of a SPI investigation, so who exactly are you? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you expect us to do your work for you? If the evidence is clear, then you won't have a problem presenting it here, as explitily required by the guidance. And for the record, I have never accused anyone of being a sock. Grewia (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then who are you, if all you do is go around notifying people of random SPIs? And you aren't expected to do anything at all. It's blindingly obvious what is supposed to be done here, but I am going to state it again, just to help you out, I'll make it bold; the sudden influx of brand-new accounts and long-idle accounts makes it look like there may be vote stacking going on via sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. *facepalm* Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's so obvious to you, then provide the diffs. The last thing we want to have to do is go hunting around looking for the evidence which you assert is there, but cannot be bothered to produce. If no evidence is brought to this report then this will be closed for lack of evidence. Simple as that. Grewia (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * And when you do provide the necessary diffs, they will need to show something that you think proves that the accounts are operated by the same person, which is very different from showing the operators have similar views. Grewia (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, stop dodging the question of who you are, because all you've ever done is SPI-related things, and that's pretty much it bar a couple of userspace edits. Secondly, when most of these accounts have only edited the AfD so far, then diffs are not explicitly needed. Thirdly, this is standard form for votestacking AfDs; diffs generally aren't listed as they are superfluous. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's keep to the purpose of this report and avoid distractions. What is your evidence that all of those accounts are operated by one and the same person? That they have all voted to keep a certain article (which you haven't provided evidence of either) is not conclusive, there are several possible innocent explanations for that. Grewia (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No distractions? So you aren't a distraction. Riiiiiiiiiiight. You know that undeclared alternate accounts are not allowed to edit Wikipedia space, right? Given how very familiar you are with SPI, you must know this. So you're violating policy either by being a sock yourself, or by violating WP:ILLEGIT. Take your pick. In other words, I'd be pretty justified in removing all of your posts based on that policy violation. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So now this SPI is collapsing before our eyes, you need a scapegoat. In the same way that your reasoning that led to this SPI was flawed, your reasoning that I must be illegitimate is also flawed. That, however, is of no concern here in this SPI. Raise it elsewhere, if you think you have the evidence, but remember: try to think through all of the more likely alternative explanations first, before making a fool of yourself with that accusation too. Grewia (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And don't think no-one noticed your hasty declaration of one of your alternate accounts, just before you threw that accusation about me above. Grewia (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, that account had linked directly to me since the very beginning; I hadn't gotten around to doing the inverse since I recreated my user page. The declaration was from August 2013 - hardly "hasty". Secondly, I'm not quite sure why you've taken it upon yourself to start to follow me around, but I would rather recommend against you continuing to do so... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not a sock puppet. I am a long time Wikipedia user and just created my first account today. I am not sure if there is something specific you need from me to prove it but will check back later. I totally uderstand! --Boomboomwiki (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, hopefully you will be found innocent; it certainly looks suspicious that so many new accounts, like yours, have appeared out of nowhere. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for commenting inline. I am not a sockpuppet. I edit on Rational Wiki but have never edited here. I have a vested interest in the Leelah Alcorn situation. I have been in contact with some of her friends. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I am transgender myself. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The deletion article was posted to the #JusticeForLeelah on twitter which is VERY busy the last couple of days. It isn't surprising there are so many new accounts. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're nearly getting there in terms of formatting :) It might be worth requesting that people stop creating accounts to !vote in the AfD, as an influx of new accounts can actually derail the situation, and there are plenty of experienced editors stating that they think it should be kept. This also goes some way to establishing why long-dead accounts have been resurrected, but I still believe that an SPI is needed; it's as much to exonerate the innocent of most of the suspicion as it is to catch out those who are socking. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm not a sock puppet either. I've been a user of wikipedia for a very long time, originally as LouisC. Earlier this year I began transitioning and signed up for a new Wikipedia account when I was making new accounts everywhere. I didn't realize I could request to change my username until after making the new account. I've left a note, as LouisC, on my old User page, and also on my new User page, as proof that I am the same person. That account is now retired and has not been in use for over a year. - erisrenee (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK Erisrenee, thanks for the response. If you'd be able to log in with the LouisC account and confirm the above, I will happily remove you from the SPI. :) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Boop! Louis C. (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Removing your name as a result. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This SPI strikes me as likely being in bad faith, intended to harass users who "voted" on the Leelah Alcorn article deletion. I am anonymous because I wish to be, not because I'm a sockpuppet.174.21.172.56 (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would agree with you. There does appear to be some uproar around the idea that Leelah is worthy of an article, some of which has evidence of being in bad faith and that refuses to bend when exposed to evidence that she is notable. Reddon666 (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the AfD, you'll see that I actually !voted to keep the article; so no, it isn't in bad faith. An influx of brand-new accounts can derail a discussion, and that is what I was trying to prevent, if someone was breaking the rules; after all, we're essentially on the same "side". Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found this http://mctanuki.tumblr.com/post/106787146716/leelah-alcorns-wikipedia-page-is-still-in-danger . I expect they are probably more such posts out there on tumblr vote stacking the afd discussion.Avono (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My account got deleted I see. I find this a bit bizarre as I feel I provided proof that I am not a sock puppet. I am a trans woman that also tried to take my own life once so this article is important to me. I only have one account (or had). It almost seems that someone is trying to knock down the number of "Keep" votes. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved your contesting of the investigation to the main discussion section. I don't think your account was deleted -- it just appears you haven't made a user page, which is why it's coming up as a red link. Reddon666 (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. --Boomboomwiki (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sockpuppeting. This AfD has received extensive attention from social media, which has motivated many to participate in it, and the death and cause of Leelah is a close topic to many people who may not feel the need to have active Wikipedia accounts otherwise. Reddon666 (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Checkuser comment: Given the extensive attention both the article and the AfD received off-wiki, It is extremely likely that the majority of these new accounts have been motivated to participate from that vector, rather than in any formally organized sockpuppetry. I can't see a good reason to go about checkusering all these accounts, when the outcome of the AfD has already been decided and even I can see that (absent the participation of these new accounts) the result would have been the same.  Checkuser .  Risker (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Risker, and so I am closing the investigation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)