Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seattleelection/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Likely COI editor repeating same changes. E.g. ->  Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

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

To whom it may concern--

As noted in response to sockpuppet notification under "talk": I am basically new to wikipedia editing (did dabble a little several years back) & unfortunately forgot password to new account I opened recently, so did start a second account. (With 20/20 hindsight given this development, should have put more effort into just changing first account password--live and learn.) Also had some trouble initially figuring out how some of the edits had actually posted, so some early changes inadvertently may have been posted twice. Some (other) changes were made again (redone) because I could find no evidence that person who changed them back addressed the substantive issues raised when I first made changes, as noted in my explanations in page history. (Respectfully request that all editors refrain from simply changing language back without addressing substantive issues raised in the text and/or explanations in page history; see also PPS, pasted in below.) To be crystal clear, not using multiple wikipedia accounts contrary to policy. Did not ever go back and forth between using multiple accounts, & zero intention of ever doing so! Also trying to be transparent about reason for all edits (see explanations on page edit history).

Some (duly calm) concerns have arisen for me about the possible motivations behind this report. It is important for community members to be able to contribute information to Wikipedia, and I have tried to do so fairly and accurately. My initial motivation was based on going to the page as an information seeker on this very important election, and finding it helpful in many respects but not so helpful in some. This was not a criticism of anyone in particular; I initially assumed not enough folks had gotten around to adding info and updates and correcting inaccuracies (but given my experience so far I am starting to wonder if other factors are in play). Regardless, I filled in a few gaps in this article to the best of my knowledge (assuming that others were and would be doing so as well, crowd sourcing since no one of us has perfect knowledge or the best perspective), correcting inaccuracies, and contributing edits that help increase the readability and also the even-handedness of the page--all corraborated by independent sources and/or transparent comments about what I felt could use improvement and why I chose to contribute what I did. As noted above, I do try to be transparent and provide comments on every edit I make (except truly minor changes, such as correcting a prior formatting error that I wasn't aware of until I reviewed the updated page).

Specifically, my concerns with regard to this particular page had primarily to do with some inaccuracies/misleading info about how voting actually occurs in King County, along with the apparent short-changing of two of the six widely-acknowledged front runners in the race, Cary Moon and Nikkita Oliver. I am concerned that my attempts to transparently address these concerns have been labeled a possible conflict of interest--rather than my intent of providing additional cited information and clarifying edits that are accurate and useful for Wikipedia users, especially when combined with other contributions. The main purpose of this page should be for people who want to use Wikipedia as a source for accessible and reasonably concise information on the 2017 Seattle mayoral election, including to get accurate information about the candidates, shouldn't it?

As noted in PPS of response to sockpuppet notification under "talk": IMHO still makes no sense to list the top candidates in the order that has been repeatedly reinstated on this page--neither alphabetical by first or last name nor order on ballot nor order they filed in nor amount of money raised (high to low or low to high), nor any other apparent (semi-)objective rationale. Perhaps not intended, but appears to be just so they can be grouped together & labeled as Democrats in a nonpartisan race--or is there another explanation that could be made clearer to both readers & editors? And why insist on not only listing both Moon and Oliver last, but also describing as "activists" and nothing else as if they are twin outliers in this race, when they both clearly have distinguished themselves in different ways professionally and with their community involvement (& now are distinguishing themselves further by running second & third respectively out of the top six in field of 21 for a major US city mayoral race)? I thought Wikipedia pages were supposed to be part of a crowd-sourced modern day encyclopedia & info source, not what seems to be a de facto monopoly for a particular editorial perspective? Why is this specific language/phrasing so important that there is an unwillingness to make or accept *any* significant modifications even now? I would never claim that my edits related to this in the brief intro section (list alphabetically, remove descriptors besides that they're all considered frontrunners since those details are provided short scroll below) are the best solution for these issues, but just changing the language back clearly isn't either. Thanks for your consideration.

I also am concerned that this page includes live links only for the four nonpartisan race candidates labeled as "Democrats" and apparently favored by the main author for that affiliation. Combined with the way the names are listed & descriptors, the live links provided or not just adds to the appearance of favoritism. In addition to trying to reword intro for fairness & accuracy as noted above, I did attempt to provide an outside (independent) source for a link for Oliver as clearly allowed in Wikipedia guidelines (along with editing her description for accuracy in the listings for all 21 candidates & providing additional cite to back it up plus updating notable endorsements), but link was quickly undone. (IMO, Moon's initial info in the 21 candidates listing was more accurate than Oliver's, but she also deserves a live link that I hope someone can provide and that will not be immediately undone.) I would think that Wikipedia would welcome these kinds of well-researched and documented contributions and encourage them for all six of the front runners--indeed for all of the candidates--not in effect censor them by leaping to accusations of possible sock puppetry and COI. I am just one person and I can't know or do everything, but that's the whole point of Wikipedia isn't it?

The main author of this page appears to be unaware of their own biases and even possible COIs, and to make negative assumptions about others (that are probably erroneous in my own case, but hard to tell given little transparency). This page includes plenty of editorial shading from the main page author, some in the form of highly selective quotations from a few news sources (see e.g. intro, results section). While IMO most of this is not problematic in and of itself, in the overall context achieving fairness and balance would need either a broader range or omit. Yet the edit history of this page (not just related to my attempted contributions) seems to show a pattern of quickly undoing anything s/he doesn't agree with even if properly cited etc, while only rarely providing any rationale via comments as to why the edit is being made or contributions undone. Perhaps a little self-reflection might be in order.

That said, despite my concerns detailed above, I very much appreciate the obvious time, involvement, and the solid information (not to mention skill with formatting) that has been provided for this page by the main author.

Thank you to all who may be involved for your consideration.

Seattlecare (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  17:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no overlap between the accounts and the forgotten password is accepted as the reason for the second account. I have blocked the other account as a precautionary step and am closing this case. The content issues are to be discussed elsewhere.