Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary/Archive

13 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

There is currently a contentious dispute at WP:ANI. Within this discussion, there is consideration of sanctions against Tutelary, at WP:ANI. In brief, there is community concern about possible meatpuppetry amongst multiple editors to deceive the community about editor identities while inserting misogynist WP:BLP violations into articles, and also about off-Wiki organized efforts to oppose such editors via doxxing. At WP:ANI, it is pointed out that the Doxelary account was indefinitely blocked after making this single edit:, expressing support for Tutelary. Tutelary, in turn, welcomed the Doxelary account after that edit:. There are two likely possibilities. One is that Doxelary is a sock, which if true would significantly alter the discussion about Tutelary, in that it would constitute serious evidence of disruptive conduct. The other is that Doxelary is a Joe job type impostor, which would also significantly affect the discussion, by tending to exonerate Tutelary. A checkuser could determine which of these possibilities is the more probable, and multiple editors at WP:ANI have stated that such a check would be helpful to the discussion there. -- Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Doxelary does appear to be someone who has been on Wikipedia and is also clearly someone with a grudge against Wikipediocracy. There are not shortage of such individuals in this situation. As such a CU would be warranted. It is also of note that this situation has been widely publicized on Reddit, 4chan, and Twitter (in large part because of Zoe Quinn briefly tweeting the WO piece), so there are any number of individuals who could have been drawn into this that have a potential history with this site. I do not see anything to suggest the above account is actually Tutelary. No logical reason is given for why Tutelary would raise these concerns with Jimbo using a sock account when Tutelary's account is not blocked and the editor is not banned from Jimbo's page.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You've given a good rationale for what I called the Joe job possibility (although I also think it could be a Wikipediocracy type trying to make Tutelary look bad), but irrational stuff happens, so I wouldn't rule out simple socking either, not by a long shot, and that's what the checkuser could resolve. By the way, the ANI discussion is just going on and on, so I think that a checkuser result would really help in getting it to close, one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition other admin agreed that a a SPI here would be warrented. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am saying that it need not be a joe job at all. The person posting at Jimbo's talk was clearly not attempting to pass as Tutelary. You could easily see the name as an "I am Spartacus"-style show of camaraderie.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course he/she was not attempting to pass as Tutelary, if you were to make another account and hide it would you do things to expose yourself? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My response regarded the notion of a "joe job", which implies the individual was impersonating Tutelary. Using a name that obviously references Tutelary and not trying to pass one's self off as Tutelary does not seem like a "joe job" to me.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * placing this on hold without an explanation isn't going to make this go away. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend that it would go away, there was a check in the CU log I wanted to ask about first. I've asked and it doesn't help the case so I've changed it back to CURequest. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It reads to me like someone who knows Tutelary, either on or offline but i suspect only online, who wanted to comment on what had happened. Could it be Tutelary? Maybe but I wouldn't strongly suspect it. Tutelary would have had nothing to lost by posting herself SPACKlick (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have only one Wikipedia account and did not post the message on Jimbo's talk page. Me 'welcoming' the newcomer was a result of me 1. Hoping to promote a single edit account to edit more 2. Get rid of the two double red links--for some reason, it bothers me to see it so I welcome them to get rid of it by creating their talk page and 3. Wikipedia has an editor gap and welcoming editors...even with a template may have an effect on them to have them stay or at least them a bit more faith in what Wikipedia has to offer in terms of editing/as a whole. No logical reason is given for why Tutelary would raise these concerns with Jimbo using a sock account when Tutelary's account is not blocked and the editor is not banned from Jimbo's page. You took the words right out of my mouth. If I wanted to leave a message on Jimbo's talk page (which I've thought to do sometimes as it really is tempting to get the co-founder of Wikipedia's thoughts on some things) I would do it myself. Additionally, why would it be in my interest to draw even more vitriol to myself within an absolutely homophonic name an obvious sock when I'm encountering a witch-hunt-ey proposal on WP:ANI? It wouldn't. I think The Devil's Advocate's thoughts that it was somebody from 4chan/reddit/twitter who saw the blaze and wanted to see if the co founder of Wikipedia knew is a rather likely solution. In any case, I only regret that I didn't respond to this SPI sooner so this could've been cleared up on day 1. Tutelary (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Tutelary, I understand what you are saying, and I understood it when I opened this request. Given the wide range of speculation at ANI, I think that any number of scenarios are possible, and most of them involve the other account not being you. Please do not regard my opening of this request as an accusation. Rather, it is an attempt to find facts, in place of speculation.


 * To the checkusers, the community is raising a pretty wide-ranging number of speculative scenarios at ANI, and I've noticed some experienced administrators say that they think that the actual sockmaster is one of "the usual suspects", without clarification. I know about the cautions about checkuser not being fairy dust and so forth, but if that reference to usual suspects means something to you that it does not mean to me, perhaps that will be helpful to you. And if not, not. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See another SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Kaletony. CheckUser confimed that Kaletony was User:Doxelary II, and possible bordering on likely that Kaletony is Doxelary too. Kaletony mostly attacked people who supported Tutelary. Indeed, I think it makes sense that Doxelary was a "false-flag". The first sentence Doxelary wrote was a link to the Wikipediocracy like he/she just wanted attention for the article, not for the "injustice of doxxing". --Pudeo' 18:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pudeo, thank you very, very much for that information! And get a load of this: (compare with : good hand, bad hand). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Looking into it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Back to CURequest, see comment above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Kaletony/Archive CheckUser gives no link to anyone else. Closing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 06:26, 20 September 2014‎ (UTC)