Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Suzannelan/Archive

21 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Four new user accounts, all four make their first edits on Nov. 20, all four edit bios of Republican members of congress, all four add flattering information on the members' political positions, and to be frank, all of the edits are similarly terribly written. Arbor8 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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

We are all members of a high school AP Government class. Our assignment was to research and edit the page of a member of the House of Representatives. Our edits were to be factual and contain citations. We were encouraged to concentrate on new members since their pages would have less information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Muldoon (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What the person above said. Also, I'm a flaming liberal, and any "flattery" was simply my attempt to be neutral; to be honest, some of the statements from the Congressman I researched made me want to vomit. I am too busy attempting to recall Scott Walker to engage in any pro-Republican sock puppetry. Furthermore, I'm sorry if my writing offends your literary sensibilities and strikes you as "terrible," but I assure you it's nothing more than an attempt to be brief, simple, and factual as the assignment directed. Ticctacc (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: As is pointed out in the discussion below, I (and most others, I believe) simply reported votes, position statements, and interest group ratings. While these may seem like "flattery" to some, I can assure you that, although citing a positive rating may appear to be flattery, receiving high ratings from the NRA and awards from business groups (as I mention in my edits) is not a "good thing" in the eyes of many people. It is just a fact that shows the reader what interest groups support the politician in question, and as such allows the reader to draw conclusions about how the views of the politician correspond or contradict their own views.Ticctacc (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My overriding concern with the votes, interest groups, etc, is that while all the information was factual and sourced, sometimes we can unintentionally allow bias to creep in when we're deciding which votes to include versus which to exclude -- the notion of which votes are "important" is a matter of opinion that varies from one person to another. So, I have kept a very close eye on political positions, votes and endorsements being included in Congressional bios, and admittedly kind of freaked out when I noticed several brand new editors simultaneously adding potentially contentious content to articles where that delicate balance had been achieved. I apologize for acting in haste, but please understand that I didn't intend to attack any of you personally (I initially thought you were the same person abusing multiple accounts -- It happens more often than you would think), but rather acted out of concern for the work others have done to make these articles as neutral as possible. Arbor8 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Sock or meat? Let's find out. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to throw this into the mix - that edit summary could be indicative. Any thoughts? WilliamH (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly could be a misguided civics assignment. If that's the case, how should we proceed? Even if the edits aren't malicious (and I don't think that they are) they are poorly written and unconstructive. Arbor8 (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that, if the accounts are misusing Wikipedia, we block them all and leave talk page messages asking the assignment co-ordinator (if there is one) to contact one of us directly through EmailUser. AGK  [&bull; ] 10:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say turn autoblock off it does come to blocks if it just a school assignment. Alexandria (chew out) 14:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ everything that's been said. Can an admin take the lead here? I'm happy to help, but I'm kind of out of my depth here. Arbor8 (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Since when is a class project sock or meat puppetry per se? In fact, such projects are encouraged under WP:SUP According to the guideline: "Many of these projects have resulted in both advancing the students' knowledge and useful content being added to Wikipedia."

I have examined most of the edits and I simply do not see any signs of actual sockpuppetry. Many of these edits seem factual--some, if not most, simply inform readers on political positions and votes and none of the edits seem obviously biased left or right. The political positions and votes of members of congress are relevant to their bios and stating them in their bios is helpful to those who oppose or support the positions and votes.

If this is not the result of a class project than we should consider that there are 525 members of congress and no doubt there are 525 bios on the members. The fact that new accounts added information to 16 of these 525 on the same day does not show sockpuppetry or nor does it merit blocking without more evidence of identity.

The editing styles and content vary. Some of the material is supported, some not. Some of it is poorly written, some is not. I suggest that rather than pursuing a sock or meat puppet block on what are likely different individuals, or go against a clear WP guideline that encourages class contributions, that we correct the grammar and factual errors these various individuals have made and add cite needed tags where applicable--and leave their accounts alone. The material added is by and large not incorrect or inappropriate, it is generally neutral, and tends to improve the articles.--KeptSouth (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughts. I don't think multiple accounts are being abused either. It would be helpful if someone contacted us so we know what's going on, and no doubt us being able to help them would be advantageous to their project. I've left a message on GraceHandy's talk page as that is the account that edited most recently (within the last hour). WilliamH (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I see where you all are coming from, and I had no idea that this was a class project when I posted the original SPI with four editors. That being said, a lot of folks have put a lot of work into making BLPs of members of Congress as balanced as possible, free of suggestion bias, cherry-picking, and so on. Speaking only for myself, it's frustrating to be called in to clean up after a gaggle of brand new editors who, if this is an assignment, probably don't want to be editing anyway.


 * I'm glad they're participating in the project, but I don't think BLPs of political figures who are up for re-election in less than a year is a great place to start.Arbor8 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently you did not read the edit summary of the first editor on your sockepuppetry list, Fmnfb4444. '(Added content on 2010 Election, legislative activity; sources are nonpartisian. School Assignment.) " KeptSouth (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I must have overlooked that. I apologize. Arbor8 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, there are much more benign topics on which to begin editing or coordinate a class project. As I said, I would implore any of these editors to contact me, just for posterity so we know what's going on - it'll be advantageous for all parties involved. WilliamH (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Arbor, though you may be frustrated, (and aren't we all), I don't see where your removal of the material in the numerous articles is really justified. Would you restore the material and ask for a close on this SPI? In particular, would you restore this sourced material that you removed due to your SPI? Brian Bilbray article, | Sean Duffy article, Schraeder article, Nan Hayworth article, |Rick Berg |Jim Matheson; | Charles Bass article, Raul Labrador article; |Joe Heck article Robert Hurt article --Thanks---KeptSouth (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the SPI isn't warranted and I'll ask that it be closed. However, I'm not comfortable reverting edits that, however good their intent, cherry pick votes, describe legislation with loaded, partisan language, contain irrelevant quotes, draw their own conclusions from a list of roll call votes, and contain such problematic phrases as "some speculate," "has done her best," "refuses to state his views specifically," etc. I'm happy to go through these articles one by one, re-adding the content that belongs, re-writing other content in a more neutral way, and generally improving these political positions/rating/donors sections (although I'm not convinced they're always warranted) but that is going to take some time. Arbor8 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it would be helpful if someone from the class could give us a list of all the articles that were edited, so we can take a look at each.Arbor8 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Moral of the story : assume a little more good faith. As for politicians being the subject of a class project, I'm not surprised, even universities do that. We should offer some advise on our policies and guidelines aka "house rules", hopefully a few may like Wikipedia enough to continue contributing after their project. - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, all 16 of the wholesale reversions of the AP class' writing by Arbor8, appear to have magically disappeared! All's well that ends well, I suppose, but if I were a member of that class I would be put off by the treatment the contributions were subjected to. And, I must remark that the blanket claims made by Arbor8 immediately above about bias, irrelevancy, bloating...are bloated and possibly indicative of an agenda to keep political position information out of the politician's bios. Of course, no personal criticism of A8 is intended. Regards KeptSouth (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I take that back about the reversions being reversed. They apparently were not. therefore, I am posting the following comment, addressed mainly to A8:


 * I feel I need to point out, with all due respect, that you are perhaps not the best person to undertake your proposed gatekeeping function in this matter.


 * First, you admittedly removed the contributions of numerous new editors due to your incorrect suspicion it was the result of sockpuppetry. You stated the writing styles were the same, yet they are obviously  very different. You severely criticized the writing style of the students - yet it is mostly quite good. And, if you had not reverted the material, some of the students no doubt would have improved it with subsequent edits, as they are likely doing this for a grade.


 * You also mistakenly failed to notice that the first person on your suspected sockpuppt list expressly stated in their first edit summary that this was a class project using unbiased sources. Then you later claimed not to have noticed this though it was also previously pointed out by ___. Your error here may certainly be just another of the many many good faith mistakes you seem to be making regarding the political bios, but in my view, all of these mistakes together indicates you should perhaps take a step away from these articles for a time.


 * You also apparently mistook the edits as biased toward Republicans -- and this was proven false when one of the contributors vehmently denied such a bias, admitting he is a flaming lib. If you were fooled into believing the contributor was of the opposite political persuasion, then prima facia, the edits were unbiased.


 * As the reason for your reversions is totally incorrect, and some of the material is clearly sourced, I believe you are again wrong to refuse to restore. You have now made blanket, non specific criticisms of bias and cherry picking, etc. that certainly do not apply to most of the material I have reviewed. However, you say your criticisms are now the reason to keep the material out, or make it subject to your gatekeeping and editing. Based on the fact that you have not given specific and valid reasons for removing particular passages:


 * 1. I am restoring the sourced contributions that you have removed wholesale. If you have specific objections to specific statements, then you should state your reasons in the edit summaries, and remove those particluar passages.


 * 2. I may also restore the uncited information that do not violate BLP policies, with the addition of cite needed tags. Per WP policies and guidelines on sourcing, if cites are not provided in a reasonable time, then the material can be removed.


 * 3. You have given no valid reason to remove the work of the entire class, and that is what you have done. I am baffled by your audacity, and by your request that class members should disclose to you any and all other contributions they have made. Why in the world would they do that?


 * 4. I think we all need to keep in mind WP's policy of encouraging participation by students, as well as the guidelines that state no one owns an article, and that edit summaries should describe what was done in the edit and why.


 * 5. None of this is intended personally - I just disagree completely with your actions regarding these new contributions,and I believe I have articulated a reasonable and logical rationale for my position. --Best regards--KeptSouth (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

KeptSouth, I won't respond at length to your comments (although that is not to say that I don't think they warrant a response, and any other editor should feel free to do so). However, I think you have been unfair on the other editors who are involved in this investigation. We made it quite clear that nobody noticed until after the investigation was opened that this was a school assignment. In no way have we suggested that class assignments are unwelcome, and in every other respect Wikipedia goes to great lengths to encourage that kind of participation. Wikipedia has a serial problem with people abusing multiple accounts to circumvent editorial oversight of their contributions, which is why these accounts were scrutinised; with that in mind, I am unsure why you refer to our audacity. How can it be audacious to ensure that these are genuine school assignments, not somebody abusing multiple accounts under the auspices of an educational exercise? Although I may have missed something, I do not think anybody criticised the quality of the contributions of these accounts. Finally, I think you must realise that it is wholly reasonable to ask that, if a school assignment is taking place, that we be notified as a courtesy, so that we can settle internal questions in advance—such as the one that inevitably will arise (and here already has done) that the accounts are genuinely editing as a classroom exercise. Returning to our original investigation, I am delisting this investigation from the queue of pages awaiting checkuser data, without prejudice to re-listing if it cannot be established that this is a genuine assignment. If there is an issue with the quality of the submissions but no problem with the authenticity of the school assignment, then this is not a matter for the SPI process and should be directed elsewhere: I do not think anybody would contest that we don't have enough else to be dealing with. Lastly, could somebody follow-up shortly on the contact that was initiated with a member of the ostensible classroom assignment, if there is some sort of confirmation that this is a school exercise; and if there is, could a further request be made that a confirmation e-mail be sent from an institutional address regarding the validity of this exercise? If the question is not settled tomorrow or on Thursday (it is mid-week during term-time, so we should not have to accept a further delay in the response to our attempts at contact), I imagine we will proceed to investigate this as a standard abuse of multiple accounts. AGK [&bull; ] 00:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that instead of addressing the points I made—which describe why this case should be closed and why the information should be restored—you have chosen to attack my actions in seeking to resolve this matter and to emphasize my use of one word which you take out of context and misinterpret. It also seems you have checkuser access yet you do not indicate whether you performed the check or what the result was. And now, despite the absence of indicia that sockpuppetry is involved, much evidence to the contrary, and even a request to close by the initiator of the case, you have added an additional barrier: "a confirmation e-mail" from a school address that must be received within two days, or the class edits will still be investigated as "a standard abuse of multiple accounts".


 * There is not much more I can say. I cannot go up against such brick wall stone wall opposition because no matter how meritorious my points, they are essentially ignored, I have no posse behind me, and you, of course, are an administrator and checkuser.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that the changes should have to be reverted, especially if they were valid. Also, is KeptSouth part of the classroom assignments, or opining as a third-party Wikipedian? AGK  [&bull; ] 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I must add that I restored the material that was sourced per my reasoned and thorough discussion above and before you made this comment. You are welcome to use your checkuser access to find the location of my IP, and you will see your speculation is wrong. KeptSouth (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since KeptSouth's comments were directed at me specifically, I'm going to add my reply here instead of at the bottom for the sake of clarity. If that ruffles anyone's feathers, feel free to move it down.


 * First, I want to clear a few things up. At no point did I ask that the students disclose to me any and all contributions they had made. Rather, I suggested that it might be helpful for the students (or the teacher) to provide the community with a list of articles that were edited under the scope of the assignment so that perhaps someone could cast a more experienced eye over the more than two dozen BLPs that were substantially expanded by first-time editors.


 * It's also worth noting that all of my comments in the above "evidence" section were written when I was only aware of four accounts. Additionally, I didn't suggest that anyone was adding "pro-Republican bias" but rather that the first four articles edited were similar in that they were all freshman Republican members of congress.


 * Further, I have never suggested that I play any sort of gatekeeper role, as you stated in your comments. I volunteered to go through the edits because I was the one who reverted them. If someone else (perhaps the teacher who assigned this project) would like to go back through all of the changes that have been made to check for quality, bias and verifiable, I think everyone would certainly welcome that. But it's a lot of work, and I was offering to help.


 * Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "the many many good faith mistakes you seem to be making regarding the political bios" but if you take issue with my editing generally, that's something we can discuss on my talk page.


 * In sum: I acted in good faith when I thought there were four sockpuppets adding similar information to political bios. It happens pretty frequently and you don't have to be especially paranoid to think initially that that's what was going on here. As the number of new editors grew, I continued adding them to the SPI because I didn't want to single out some and not others. And regardless of your implication otherwise, I was not aware that this was a school project when I submitted the SPI. I stand by the reversions because while some of the content was encyclopedic (unbiased, notable, verifiable) much of it wasn't, and in the case of a BLP, I believe it's best practice to revert a problematic edit and then add the good parts back in rather than leave the problematic edit on the BLP and then take the unsuitable parts out. Obviously you feel differently.


 * I know you said that this matter shouldn't be taken "personally," but many of your accusations and implications were rather personal. I hope this reply doesn't come across as aggressive or inflammatory -- I'm simply hoping to clear the air. Arbor8 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In my view, it would be a poor use of our time to prolong this discussion. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Arbor 8 and all:


 * I believe AGK is correct that the discussion should not be prolonged. I believe Arbor and I should let the statements we made in top paragraphs of this SPI speak for themselves and not try to reinterpret or expand these statements now.


 * However, Arbor's reversions for what is now an admittedly incorrect reason (sockpuppetry), and her refusal to agree with the restoration of the sourced material, are still very much an issue.


 * I find certain aspects of Arbor's most recent post to be troubling. Specifically, where she says she continued adding accounts to her list of sockpuppets because she "didn't want to single out some and not others".  These actions would be in violation of WP:SIGNS and WP:SOC which lay out detailed signs of sockpuppetry. And, since it must ultimately be "obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sock puppetry is occurring" before action is "taken against the accounts in question for sock puppetry", to casually add accounts to the list contravenes WP sock puppetry policy.


 * I also take issue with her statement that she "stand[s] by the reversions because while some of the content was encyclopedic (unbiased, notable, verifiable) much of it wasn't, and in the case of a BLP, I believe it's best practice to revert a problematic edit and then add the good parts back in rather than leave the problematic edit on the BLP and then take the unsuitable parts out." Perhaps that is an arguably okay approach at times, but in removing chunks of material, a specific reason has to be given for specific parts removed. In addition, Arbor's approach flies in the face of WP:Editing policy which says: "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." In addition, according to WP:PRESERVE: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary." Of course, if the material is negative and unsourced in a BLP, it must be removed immediately, but the material she removed - is positive, ("flattering" in her own words), and in many cases, sourced. See, , , , , , , , ,

To sum up my views:


 * Many of Arobor's edits and statements show a lack of understanding of WP editing and sockpuppetry policy and many of her reversions, made under mistaken belief should themselves be reverted.


 * This SPI case is without basis and should be closed.


 * Arbor should at least consider posting a type of apology, explanation or follow up on the talk pages of the students she accused of sockpuppetry, particularly those she added in a misguided attempt to not single anyone out.

These are just suggestions of course. Normally I don't make them, but it seems there has been no admin to take the lead on resolving this dispute, so I am attempting to fill in the vacuum as a plain old editor who is well acquainted with the facts here. -- Best regards, and happy Thanksgiving to those in the U.S.--KeptSouth (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing case: we have nothing to investigate here, per above discussion. AGK  [&bull; ] 16:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)