Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rendall/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
- The IP editor posted to Teahouse and within minutes Rendall updated their post. Rendell has subsequently denied being the IP editor but there are strong behavioural reasons to believe they're the same user. The IP editor's posts overlap significantly with Randell's posts at Talk:Graham_Linehan and User talk:Rendall in both content and phrasing.

The initial post is clearly related to the Graham Linehan article/talk page if you have that context but doesn't mention them specifically. I can't see how Rendall would have known about the initial post within minutes of it being created and that it related to the Linehan article unless they are the IP editor. There's also no clear reason they would have edited the post of another user, and they've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that that isn't acceptable. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

WP:SOCKPUPPETRY includes a misuse component, which I do not see alleged here. My post did not deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. My creating a Teahouse post to ask anonymously, in isolation as a one-off, about what to do when I observe serious misbehavior is explicitly allowed under legitimate uses regarding privacy given my fears about stalking and intimidation from the people I was actually talking about. It is unfortunate that Rendall made the changes that they did, because it seems to have drawn people who had been following them for some reason and self-identified with the allegations, even though the post does not mention them or accuse them. 91.153.203.110 (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are Rendall then your activity on that page would clearly fall under "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people.". Depending on if your privacy argument is accepted as valid, it would also fall under "Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."
 * If you are not Rendall do you have an explanation for how they came to be aware of and to edit your post within minutes of making it? I can't see a plausible explanation aside from that you logged back into your account after making the IP post, then revised it forgetting you were logged in. JaggedHamster (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that your IP address is in Lahti, Finland according to https://ipregistry.co/, and that Rendall's user page links to their website which says they live in Lahti, Finland. JaggedHamster (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is truly baffling behavior on your part. My anonymous post discusses stalking, intimidation and other serious misbehavior. If there is any legitimate use of anonymous posts at all, surely it is that. There is no mention of you, however. Nevertheless here you are, attempting to link my IP address to an actual real-life person. Are you truly not aware how terrible that looks for you? Which is the more serious misbehavior, do you think: an anonymous post on Teahouse that in no way breaks the rules and makes no allegations; or abusing the sockpuppet investigation system to find out who that person is? If Rendall's interest in my post were due to similar circumstances to mine, and they were inclined to bring it to dispute resolution or arbitration with allegations of stalking and intimidation, this behavior practically makes the case alone. Do you not see that? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest having a look at WP:GEOSOCK, WP:IPSOCK etc. If a user voluntarily reveals where they live it's fine to use that as supporting evidence of sockpuppetry, and similarly for the location of IP addresses. Are you really claiming it's coincidence that you and Rendall both live in the same town, both became interested in the same article within the last few days, edit each others posts, and repeatedly make the same points while using very similar wording?
 * Also, the posts on Teahouse clearly break the rules mentioned above if you are a sock of Rendall. JaggedHamster (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The investigator will close this without a finding. Your allegation is serious, but the evidence is trivial and this is not a legal hearing.
 * Please do go on though: What would you like to see happen here? Why? Why you think Rendall or I is worth this kind of attention? What specific disruptive editing are Rendall or I guilty of? How did you yourself find the Teahouse post? Did anyone ask you to initiate this action on their behalf? Do you want to retaliate against Rendall, and if so, why? Do you feel that this action improves Wikipedia? Why are you convinced that the Teahouse post was about you? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the most ridiculous thing ever. Posting at the teahouse while logged out, about the exact same thing you were just discussing while logged in, then modifying your comment under your user account that links you to the exact same location as the IP you just used, then ludicrously pretending to be affronted about this while logged out again, all the while using the exact same edit summary style (capitalized 'Reply', idiosyncratic '=>' for 'becomes', etc. etc.), when you could have just complained while logged in. I agree with some of what you have said about the stonewalling and the POV editing, but this preposterous charade is not the way to fix it.  Tewdar   10:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Same questions to you as above, Tewdar: How did you find the Teahouse post? etc.? What other evidence do you have? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the Teahouse post by visiting the Teahouse page (!). I then spent 2-3 minutes satisfying myself that you and Rendall are indeed the same person. Just your edit summaries make this hilariously obvious. Imagine what behavioural investigators will find in a couple of hours... 😂  Tewdar   10:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am pretty confident what will be found.
 * So, step me through. You go to Teahouse, see a post called Stonewalling?. You open that post and see people you know who seem to believe it is about them? What do you do then? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * After that, I saw that people had worked out you were Rendall, looked at the page history to see that logged in Rendall had edited logged out Rendall's comment, looked up your IP address using the whois tool, looked at Rendall's userpage which linked to his website which has the exact same location, looked up logged out Rendall and logged in Rendall's edit histories and compared them, and chortled so hard my sausage nearly fell out of my mouth. I'm delighted to answer any more questions you might have. 😂  Tewdar   11:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why did you do this? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And what was funny to you?
 * Finally, do you consider that an example of disruptive editing? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did this and found it funny because your activities reminded me of The Benny Hill Show. I personally didn't find your actions disruptive, and don't really care whether you get sanctioned or not. I'd prefer not, actually, to find out what you'll do in the next sketch. 😂  Tewdar   11:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We shall see what the next sketch is, indeed!
 * Do you believe the post to be about the Graham Lineham page and if so, why? 91.153.203.110 (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should ask Rendall, since they deemed it necessary to heavily modify your Teahouse question, which is certainly 100% compatible with everything Rendall said on the Linehan[sic] page and various other places. Are you actually trying to convince me that you are not the same person as Rendall? Please, don't bother. I've had enough fun here for now, let's wait and see what behavioural have to say.  Tewdar   11:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not at all trying to convince you of anything. Just trying to get material for the "next sketch". 91.153.203.110 (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's the curtain-closer, you'll need to set it to the tune of Yakety Sax.  Tewdar   12:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This comment is not to defend myself against this allegation. The evidence is flimsy, the repercussions are dire, and I have confidence in the investigators.

I simply note here that this allegation is retaliation for a content dispute on the Graham Linehan talk page. These editors all arrived from that page. These editors are not disinterested, neutral parties interested only in establishing sockpuppetry to improve Wikipedia, but motivated by a desire to harass those with whom they disagree. Further, they are here after disrupting a conversation that they did not want IP (or me) to have on Teahouse, even though it did not apparently involve them or reference them.

Further, this incident can be used to help establish a pattern of harassment and badgering of editors with whom these people have content disputes. They erred with this accusation, however. There is no possible good faith, innocent path from the Graham Linehan talk page, through IP's post, to this accusation. They apparently comb through editors' histories to find material to weaponize the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes as a tool of harassment.

Personally, I am an open book. On my talk page, I invite the curious to visit my website where I have a blog and myriad ways to find me online. It is clear, however, that IP wants privacy for whatever reason. Whatever these people believe to be true, this is clearly harassment at best, and likely a doxing attempt. Rendall (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - CheckUsers cannot publicly link IP addresses and accounts. As there is only one account, I am declining the CU request with no comment on whether any check was run as any results could not be posted here. This case should proceed on a behavioural route. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly obvious that there's loutsocking going on here. We have the editing of the Teahouse post, some editing similarities, and some other links that I don't think are wise to share publicly but will happily share with any admin/SPI clerk on request. While the IP didn't directly attempt to influence the discussion on the article talk page, the Teahouse post could be seen as an attempt to avoid scrutiny and create the appearance of "impartial" interest in the case which makes this inappropriate use of multiple accounts / IPs. The IP has already been blocked, and I am blocking the account for 2 weeks (as this is a first offense - any further socking will almost certainly result in an indef block). No tags. Closing.  firefly  ( t · c ) 15:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)