Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WanderingWanda/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Background

If you don't want to read the background, skip to the first section of evidence (my sister's notes).

These editors (plus others) have known about most of this information since March 2021 (and some have been watching the accounts WanderingWanda and SreySros): Crossroads, Herostratus, SMcCandlish, Johnuniq, Montanabw, Beyond My Ken, Cullen328, Doug Weller, JBW, Zaereth, Aircorn, Pyxis Solitary, Figureskatingfan, Anatashala, Springee, and Genericusername57. (I can't remember if Betty Logan was also kept in the loop, but I won't share emails about my sister or other personal stuff with Mr. James Cantor again because, as he didn't respond when I asked him if he shared information, I believe some personal information about her life and death made it to one or two people it shouldn't have through him. Perchance also through someone else.)

I told the editors that since my sister had just passed and people would think that I'm reporting on Wanderer because of a grudge, I knew I shouldn't report this. But now I think it has to be me, particularly since Wanderer has gotten greedy and has decided to start editing their target pages as Wanderer again instead of avoiding scrutiny as SreySros. And particularly after being told a couple of months ago that Wanderer and a few other folks have taken to heart the conspiracy theory from Wikipediocracy that my sister faked her death, and that Wanderer has been looking for the ghost of my sister ever since she passed. Anyone who's seen the deterioration of multiple sex (and other) pages and how hard User:Crossroads has had to work to fill her shoes knows my sister isn't here anymore. If folks want to believe that, since her death, I've socked at a few pages my sister cared about it, then believe that (though your effort would be for naught there too), but leave my deceased sister out of it! The nerve a person must have to question my sister's integrity like this, even after it was revealed all those years ago that I fucked up things for her. I'm the one with the socking history, and Ms. Alison and a couple of other people talked to me and my sister on multiple occasions face-to-face or by other means. We were never the same person. Get over it!

In March, I told the above editors that in late 2020, around the time SreySros came along up to early December, my sister was working on a sock case against SreySros, who she believed to be Wanderer. She concluded Wanderer created SreySros to avoid scrutiny and pick up where they left off as Wanderer, which explains Wanderer only and sparingly popping up to make superficial edits while SreySros does the heavy-duty editing at pages Wanderer would typically edit. It's in her drafts. She also has something in her drafts about Wanderer possibly being Acoma Magic, but with a focus that would make this hard to detect since Acoma Magic was thought to be anti-LGBT. In her notes, it shows similarities, like Acoma and Wanderer being interested in video games, Australian or British topics, and removing scare quotes. I told the editors Acoma Magic also didn't like the same-sex marriage page including "marriage equality" in the introduction, and Wanderer complained about it after my sister's passing. Why not do it when my sister was alive? Her notes say that this sock case on Acoma "indicates why the focus on marriage equality is so significant. It was one of Acoma's sticking points, as is video game editing."

I told the editors that I personally think proving that Wanderer was Acoma might be a long-shot 'cause folks will say that Acoma was anti-LGBT (which my sister's notes show her reanalyzing to investigate how true that was and whether Acoma could have changed). So I'm only reporting on the notes my sister had on Wanderer as SreySros. I'm reporting this because she wouldn't have wanted editor Crossroads dealing with two Wanderers, and she told me he might have to identify SreySros as Wanderer one day 'cause she told him about it.

In March, I added to some of what she had. For instance, I added stuff on SreySros's arrow edit summaries ('cause there was initially only one example). I noticed that Wanderer tries to hide this as SreySros by using an arrow on steroids (=>), but SreySros has also used the regular arrow. I added to SreySros's focus on formatting. I also put in the Mr. James Cantor thing 'cause I saw it in SreySros's contribs and remembered how Wanderer went after Mr. Cantor. Apparently, sister also anticipated that SreySros would use a colorful signature like Wanderer did. So I added the example of SreySros with the colorful sig. Anything you see that's after the point my sister would have been physically strong enough to focus on it or after her passing is what I added in. She put together most of this. I just filled in a little bit (using "this" vs. her use of "here"). She anticipated multiple comparisons, so it's like a layout where all I had to do was fill stuff in.

It appears my sister's plan was to wait and fill in more evidence. I cut the parts that hadn't been filled in and I couldn't find evidence for, but they were shown to others through email. I believe the evidence pulled together so far shows she was right and on the right track. And since this was my sister and she was great at this stuff, I think we can safely side with her on this. If, too, Wanderer's defenders show up here, I think we can safely say they were canvassed or followed User:Crossroads or someone else (or someone notified them on their talk), 'cause I didn't post a notification on Wanderer's talk page and Wanderer hasn't been editing a lot as Wanderer. I pinged them instead.

Requesting a CU for this won't work, folks. This has to be decided on behavioral evidence. See my sister's notes below.

_____

From my sister's (Flyer22's) notes...

SreySros is a sock. SreySros is WanderingWanda. Not a day goes by that I don't look at SreySros and see WanderingWanda. SreySros has tried to disguise themself by changing up their edit summaries a bit and using automatic tools that their WanderingWanda account does not use, but it's not enough to fool me. I don't know how, considering that there are different ways it can be done (for example, through a mobile hotspot, preferably a mobile hotspot with a different computer and/or user agent string if wanting a solid physical disguise), but WanderingWanda has managed to beat the CU tool as SreySros. Crossroads prematurely started that SPI investigation, but I would have waited until I had more evidence. I told him so. SreySros was too confident that a CU would find nothing. And, now, SreySros fooling the CU tool means that catching WanderingWanda as SreySros will need to be based on behavioral evidence alone. If a CU is requested again, SreySros could skate again. Thus far, below is the material I've gathered indicating that SreySros is WanderingWanda: Name setup similarity Notice how the names "WanderingWanda" and "SreySros" deviate with the second portion of the name, but are close enough to be similar and flow in a poetic sort of way? The second portion in both names is also capitalized instead of placed in lowercase. When mocking my brother, WanderingWanda also threw the idea of "ManderingManda" out there. See how it aligns with the other two names in composition and style? WanderingWanda and SreySros both explain something in an edit summary and then say "(see talk page)" or a variation of it, like "(see talk page for discussion)" in that same edit summary. Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here, here, and here. Examples from SreySros: here and here. Notice the parentheses? Yes, some editors write "see talk page", but do many do it in this way? How many do it in this exact way (with the parentheses)? They both uses arrows (-> and =>) or other signifiers in their edit summaries to point to the fact that they are changing something. Examples from WanderingWanada: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. There are many more examples of WanderingWanda doing this. There are also examples where multiple arrows are used, like here by the WanderingWanda account. Examples from SreySros: here, this, this, this, this WanderingWanda and SreySros both have a habit of using parentheses in their edit summaries, sometimes in the middle (and other times at the end) of their edit summaries. Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, here, and here. Examples from SreySros: here, this, this, this, and this. They are both focused on cleaning up Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here and here. Examples from SreySros: here and this. They are both focused on formatting fixes or what they consider to be formatting tweaks (in articles or on talk pages). Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here and here. Examples from SreySros: here, here, this, and this. They both have used a purple and pink or blue and pink signature

Examples from WanderingWanda: here and here.

Examples from SreySros: this.

'''WanderingWanda avoids the discussions that SreySros starts even though these are discussions that WanderingWanda would otherwise be involved in. WanderingWanda also likes to welcome newbies (and supposed newbies) she agrees with (with one example of them welcoming a user who attacked me seen here). And yet...these two haven't interacted at all. It is odd enough to help me conclude that they are the same person.''' The more SreySros edits, the more evidence will unravel. The rest are just diffs I've gathered that will have to sit until matching diffs for SreySros are put beneath those by WanderingWanda.

If anyone says they use different words for replying or copyediting, that's a no. They both say "re" and "ce" as well. I've put that evidence in a different folder. They both use asterisk for emphasis Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here, here, here, and here. Examples from SreySros: this and this. They both use "small correction", "minor correction" or "minor fix" Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here and here. Examples from SreySros: this. They both say "hopefully" in their edit summaries

Examples from WanderingWanda: here, here, here. Examples from SreySros: this.

____

From me (Halo) all on my own...

WW and SS have focused on the James Cantor COI From WW: this From SS: this

On March 25th, Wanderer had SS edit around the same time to seem less suspicious

Wanderer.

SS.

But doing this is simple. My sister caught socks who would use a hotspot IP (or something else) for one account, their home IP for another, and two different computers (or a tablet or some other device), and maybe a different user agent string, in an attempt to not be detected. Some would use one device for one account and the other device for the other account to edit at the same time. But my sister didn't fall for that. Their behavior gave them away. Wanderer's behavior also gives them away.

They have returned to editing on the same day after an absence

My sister always said that one of the biggest things that implicate socks is when they stop editing on the same day or around the same time and return to editing on the same day or around the same time. I kept an eye on WW doing this. If I waited longer before filing this report, and WW edited more with their WW account, I'm sure many more instances would have materialized.

While WW last edited on April 6th, SS hadn't edited since April 13th. They both returned to editing on April 16, only a few hours apart: SS at 18:41, 16 April 2021‎,, and WW at 22:17, 16 April 2021.

While WW last edited on May 22, SS lasted edited on May 23.. They both returned to editing on May 26th, only two hours apart: WW at 18:45, 26 May 2021, and SS at 20:36, 26 May 2021.

WW and SS both share an interest in the human sexual activity article, which was a central piece to my sister's and WW's ARBCASE

A March 18th post by SS is more proof that this person is Wanderer. Wanderer was dead set on picking out images at the human sexual activity page, and this one dispute was a big pile of dog poo for discussion at WP:ARBCOM. So I ask you folks: How likely is it SS would talk about "a similar line to walk when choosing the photos to put at Human sexual activity, for example."? Should we give this the coincidence dismissal? Methinks not. None of this evidence, taken together, is a coincidence. Why would SS talk about the human sexual activity article there? Transgender ain't no fucking sexual topic. It looks like Wanderer was trying to canvass folks to an article they are dying to edit again.

SS tampers with people's posts on their talk page, like Wanderer is known to do.

SS also has an interest in editing fictional character and video game pages, like Wanderer. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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

The allegation is false; I am not SreySros and have never engaged in sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Blablubbs, thank you for collapsing the background info so that the layout is less overwhelming. It's what I would have done if I'd responded before you. The rest is the evidence, correct. I can't summarize that without losing vital info. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this conclusion. I urge any reviewing admins to give this the careful attention it deserves.

Additionally, as mentioned, I already was 100% convinced that SreySros was not a new editor. The evidence is abundant that they are far too familiar with Wikipedia to be a new user. (Their supposed disclosure on their userpage of being Warpmayer, an account with a single edit, is a red herring.) Their first ever edit was to create a userpage, as socks often do to blend in. Note how similar that is to WanderingWanda's original userpage, being very short and proclaiming newness, as well as how that was likewise almost WanderingWanda's first edit (the only others had been 3 closely related edits nearly 3 years before). SreySros' second edit involved the use of the extremely obscure "ARTICLEPAGENAME" template. Their 3rd-7th edits are all to userspace, even creating a userbox, a difficult and odd thing for a newbie. About an hour later they start making comments like this one, somehow already using a fancy green text template and several policy shortcuts. A day later they have Twinkle installed and even preferences set. Here SreySros refers to Flyer22 Frozen as just "Flyer", indicating suspicious familiarity, since newbies would not know that she was sometimes called "Flyer" for short and that the latter part of the username was less important, "frozen" having replaced "reborn" recently. Especially suspect is this edit from 20 November 2020 signaling awareness of discretionary sanctions in the AP and GG topic areas despite never having been given DS notices of any kind before then. Even just this evidence alone is unexplainable if they are not someone's sock.

The evidence outlined above by Halo explains in detail who the sockmaster is. I also see a motive - WanderingWanda created the SreySros account to evade WP:SCRUTINY, especially Flyer22's scrutiny, whom WanderingWanda strongly disliked to the point of opening the aforementioned arb case (which was under the WW account because that is the account under which most interactions happened). Crossroads -talk- 04:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This report is very long. I and other administrators / CUs here really need a shorter submission so that it's easier to understand what the evidence is here. If you can shorten this or place a summary somewhere so that it's easier to understand all of this. I have not had a chance to look at whether this evidence does or does not point to sockpuppetry due to the size of evidence. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 08:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed the "background" section, which should make it somewhat easier to focus on the concrete evidence. --Blablubbs&#124;talk 08:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Checkuser note: Other checkusers may wish to refer to my post to CU-L with respect to this SPI. Risker (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing without action. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)