Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WeDoSome/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

On March 3 and 4, LauraIngallsEvenWilder made 69 edits at James Gordon Meek. After a BLP/N thread was opened (see), multiple other editors started to revert Laura's edits for violating BLP. Laura then got offended and decided to "leave" Wikipedia on the 4th. On March 21, a new zero-edit account (Checknfax) resumed making BLP-violating edits on the same page for one day, making the accusation that The Rolling Stone had tried to cover up Meek's crimes, before being reverted. Just 2 days later, user Virginia Courtsesan is created and his first edit to Meek's page is to quietly re-insert Checknfax's accusation (reversion of Checknfax's edit, Virginia's re-insertion). Virginia then continued to make BLP-violating edits in that article from March to October, until it got protected recently (see). I'm sure these three are the same person trying to game the system.


 * The primary purpose of all these accounts is to edit Meek's page (see Laura's and Virginia's stats; see Checknfax's contribs). Even when editing unrelated pages, both Laura and Virginia Courtsesan sometimes add irrelevant info about Meek on them (Laura: diff, diff; Virginia: diff, diff, diff).
 * All of them are unfamiliar with BLP policies. Both Laura and Virginia Courtsesan love adding low-quality primary sources to that article (Laura: here they add a FBI complaint, a Twitter post and Meek's personal keybase account as sources, here they fail to get the point when their Daily Mail sources are removed; Virginia: violating BLPPRIMARY with a Homeland Security pdf, re-adding that same Twitter post that Laura did after it had been reverted due to the BLP/N thread, adding a youtube video as source). Also, see Virginia re-adding the same keybase account that Laura did, which had been reverted due to the BLP/N thread, back into the article, this time as an image.
 * After I reverted some of Laura's edits (their edit, their edit) on multiple different pages, Virginia counter-reverted me under the allegation of "harassment" (diff, diff). I think it's weird for an account to feel so personally attacked after someone reverts another account's edits.
 * Also, compare the way the lead of the article looked after Laura's last edit. How it looked after other editors reverted Laura. And how it looked after Virginia's last edit. Both editors added the "from infancy" line (Virginia, laura), both have the same talking point about the FBI having been too slow and waiting years to arrest Meek (Virginia, Laura), both accused Meek of "raping a toddler" (Virginia,  Laura), both accused Meek of grooming minors (Virginia, Laura). Notice how both users awkdardly add images of court documents into the article (Virginia; Laura). Notice that Virginia re-added the picture of Meek's house after it was reverted (Laura adds image, someone reverts it, virginia re-adds). SparklyNights 20:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I agree this does look like sockpuppetry. This quacks although it’s a quiet duck. Good catch. Additionally Laura and Virginia also edit at the same exact time on the weekends. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * VirginiaCourtesan is very to, who has also edited about Meek. The other two accounts are stale but going on behaviour I think all of these are related and so I’m blocking the lot. Closing.   firefly  ( t · c ) 09:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved to the oldest account and tagged. MarioGom (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)