Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rochelimit/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Last month I tagged a couple of articles by Rochelimit as needing copyediting, and when he removed one of the tags inappropriately I told him he should ask someone else to do the copy-editing. Immediately thereafter, several new accounts (all SPAs or near-SPAs) showed up and started editing these articles (which were all newly-created and on fairly obscure topics). When I asked Rochelimit about it, he said he knew nothing about it and that it must just be a coincidence, but this seems incredibly unlikely, and the fact that the new accounts mysteriously stopped showing up (and that the ones that had already shown up stopped editing) after my message to Rochelimit supports the idea that they are connected. Requesting CU since I believe they might be sock accounts created by Rochelimit to create the illusion that other editors were making the edits that I had said it was a bad idea for him to make (and he stopped using them when I clarified that I meant for him to use the GCE), but if they are meatpuppets (specifically off-wiki friends or relatives) then they would probably still geolocate to the same part of the world and CU can check that. I recognize the possibiliy that one of the four accounts, (the only non-SPA, who actually made twelve apparently unrelated edits before editing a Rochelimit article), is unconnected to the other three and to Rochelimit, but it seems at least as likely that it is related to the apparent sock-farm that mysteriously appeared on this article last month as that it has no relation to any sockpuppetry. There is also the fact that actually showed up before I told Rochelimit about "asking someone else", though not before I had tagged the article as needing work. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I didn't introduce any grammatical errors to the article: I reverted an edit that had removed some grammatical errors but introduced others, and had removed the maintenance tag despite this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * flank -> flanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The diff you cite is me reverting an edit that did fix some errors, but introduced others, and was overall disruptive because of the removal of the maintenance tag. I don't feel it's appropriate to blankly revert an edit that might have had some positive effects, so I made some effort to keep the positive fixes, but I won't take responsibility for accidentally re-introducing another user's error because I just happened to miss one of the fixes. In my experience most users would simply blank-revert, without making any effort to ensure they weren't reintroducing errors. This diff shows the changes from before I ever touched the article to the revert (i.e., the ones I noticed and actively chose not to revert), and "flanks" is not there. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look through a bunch of Rochelimit's articles and talk page comments, as I have (well, I checked a bunch of his WP:WAM articles and read his replies to me), you'll see that they have a high degree of variance in their English proficiency. When they are careful, they are perfectly capable of writing perfect or near-perfect English. The problem was that the first couple of copyedits they did themselves were not careful, so I said they should get someone else (the Guild of Copy Editors was what I was thinking) to look over the articles. If Rochelimit was creating a sock account to pretend to be a random good samaritan who came across these articles and immediately started proofreading, they would naturally be very careful when doing the cope edits in question wouldn't they? That, plus it's entirely possible (as I said further up) that they are not socks but friends/relatives whom Rochelimit considers to have better English skills and asked to come in and help him, which would still be disruptive and (I think?) is something CUs can check for. Note also that (again, as I said above), if this is what was happening, it is super-fishy that it stopped happening when I told him not to do it, even though he claimed no knowledge of it.
 * Rochelimit: No, I don't trust you, because the narrative you presented on your talk page is very difficult to believe. The only alternative explanation I can think of is that the accounts are all socks of someone with a grudge against you (this person?) who wants to make it look like you are socking/meating, I can't think of any other reason a new account would go to those specific articles and do exactly what I told you to get someone to do. That said, this is nothing personal, and I hope you don't take it that way. The reason I didn't notify you about it is because I thought you were automatically pinged when someone opened an SPI on you (I guess not).
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

On second thought... Per my above reply to Rochelimit, I recognized the remote possibility that this was a joe-job by someone with a bone to pick. And the fact that it's continued (or, rather, resumed) while this SPI was open has convinced me. , and  all look just as much like Rochelimit sock-/meat-puppets as the others listed above, but I think there's no way in hell Rochelimit would be so brazen as to do it with an SPI underway. The fact that it happened while this SPI was open, though, actually supports the idea that it's a joe-job. Striking all the above but not withdrawing the request for CU, since joe-job or sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry I can't understand why anyone would not want to get to the bottom of this.

Can you think of anyone who would want to frame you for sockpuppetry? I'd be happy to be proven wrong in all the above and to have the title of this SPI changed to the name of whoever is actually behind these accounts, but I might need a name.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm disowning this SPI.
 * Everything I said above was accurate to the best of my knowledge at the time, and was meant in sincerity and good faith. I think a CU should be run to figure out what on earth is going on, and I think Bbb23's reaction here has been even more inscrutable than usual. (I appreciate that CUs have to be deliberately inscrutable, but criticizing others for not anticipating one's inscrutable reaction seems to go overboard.) The reason I want nothing more to do with this is that Rochelimit's reaction (which essentially amounts to conflating my actions with those of a racist troll on his talk page and insinuating that I am only doing this because I have a "grudge" against him over WAM) is outrageous and is making me feel nauseous.
 * To be clear: this has nothing to do with WAM; if I wanted to get Rochelimit disqualified from WAM I would have said somewhere in this SPI that I thought he was a serial sock-abuser and should be banned, but that's the opposite of what I have been saying -- that he slipped up by either socking briefly or inviting friends/family to come and help him win a Wikipedia content dispute, has been evasive about it, and should be warned; receiving a warning for a slip-up does not disqualify people from editathons, as far as I am aware. And if I wanted to get Rochelimit disqualified from WAM I would have opened this SPI when I first suspected him more than three weeks ago.
 * I don't want any more of this nonsense, and really just want to get back to building an encyclopedia. I really didn't think a standard procedural SPI (which was almost immediately endorsed by a clerk) would result in these kind of ridiculous accusations and attacks on my credibility.
 * I hope another CU picks this up based on the evidence above and we can get some closure, but even if this gets closed without a check I'll still rest easier than otherwise. I'm unstriking all the above since my attempt at magnanimity was not received the way I thought it would be, and this comment kinda makes it redundant.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP is who I think might be doing a joe-job. Or it might have been RL trying to create the false impression that he was being harassed, for all I know. The accounts are suspicious for the same reason as the ones I added earlier, but support the idea that it's a joe-job specifically. I don't think the constructiveness of the edits matters since it's either (a) someone violating our sockpuppetry policy by pretending to be multiple people, (b) someone recruiting people off-wiki to help them win an editathon by getting around the copyediting rule and not do the heavy lifting themselves, or (c) someone trying to create the false impression of either a or b.
 * And to be clear, it's not you who is questioning my good faith. It's Rochelimit, who despite the fact that I'm not the only one who thought this was suspicious, has been insinuating on your talk page that this SPI was filed as a result of his having snuck ahead of me in the WAM charts, rather than a good-faith suspicion that (a) was shared by an uninvolved clerk and (b) I had already expressed before he snuck ahead of me in the WAM charts.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I feel very sad by this accusation. Apparently Hijiri did not trust me. Is it okay to feel upset by this? I hope i will not be accused wrongly because i dont do sock/meat. :(((( --Rochelimit (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Coincidence, and I'm glad to have people fixing articles even when they appear out of nowhere.--Rochelimit (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm convinced there's enough here for checks at least; Phamtson seems like a duck case without CU, still considering the rest. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Struck duck part. Was rushed and did not consider to same extent as full recommendation for admin action. I do still believe the endorsement was correct, considering the low visibility of the articles in question. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this endorsed for the moment in case another CU sees things differently, but I don't see enough evidence to run a check, let alone to take any action without a check. A check is particularly unappealing against a long-time editor, (I'm deliberately pinging them because in this instance I believe they should be notified), without a higher level of proof. I also see little disruption caused by these events - more like a tempest in a teapot. Finally, it's ironic that the three editors (Rochelimit, Hijiri88, and Phamtson) all commit grammatical errors in the museum article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm adding a few more comments before I forget them. First, let's rule out Fdkgh 8475dir geo9utskdj completely. Their only edit was vandalism to an article created by Rochelimit. As for the other three, let's discuss socking first. The best copy edits were by Ollinilsson and EmilyHauer. If Rochelimit's copy edits are so deficient, how could he operate accounts with good grammar? Phamtson's copy edits were not great. Why would Rochelimit operate an account that does mediocre copy edits? Theoretically, he can do that with his own account. As to meat puppetry, let's assume the three editors are friends of Rochelimit. As meat puppetry goes, it's pretty tame to ask friends to improve articles. It's actually constructive. Plus, a CU would not likely be able to demonstrate meat puppetry through location. Rochelimit is undoubtedly editing from Indonesia. It wouldn't be surprising, given the articles, that the others are as well. If another CU doesn't pick up on this by tomorrow, I will be closing this with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the IP whose addition I don't understand at all, the newly added named accounts are a bit odd, but the problem with checking them is they, like the others, are making generally constructive edits. I'm as curious as the next person, but curiosity is not a valid justification for running a check. I don't enjoy disagreeing with a clerk's endorsement, but if I do and ran the check anyway, I would be failing in my job. Finally,, I never said or meant to imply that you filed this case in bad faith. I always thought you were sincere and concerned. Nor am I trying to be "inscrutable". I'm trying to include as much information as I can to help everyone understand why I think this case should be closed without a check.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing for insufficient evidence of socking and of abuse.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)