Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WoodstockEarth/Archive

05 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

An article AndreaUKA created is currently being discussed at AfD. The editor was unhappy about the cruft being removed from the article, and Engineer David's first edit to Wikipedia is to go to the AfD essentially reinforce all of the points AndreaUKA made, three minutes after AndreaUKA's edit. For a new editor, Engineer David seems to have an oddly specific knowledge of the history of the article's diffs, as well as suggesting that the article be "tidied-up by its creator", despite nobody in the AfD ever referring to AndreaUKA or anyone else as the article's creator. - SudoGhost 12:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I didn't refer to 'AndreaUKA' either. I have seen a previous version of the article and I referred to it's 'creator'. I presume it had one. What's the mystery in my being aware of points that are reproduced on the same page as my comments? Aren't you being a little over-sensitive, after your cheery 'welcome' elsewhere? Engineer David (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I meant to notify you of the discussion in addition to the welcome. However, how did you find your way here, if you weren't notified of it in any way, but AndreaUKA was? - SudoGhost 14:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The 'AndreaUKA' talk page is linked from the page I was on, and the 'sockpuppet' link is at the top of that. What an odd community this is! I don't think I'll be staying very long. Engineer David (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, I've just read the article about sockpuppetry (I had no idea what it is). You think either I have multiple accounts or that Engineer David and I are the same person? Or both, perhaps? That's quite amusing, actually. Regarding the Bennett article, I love the girl's work, yes, but not to the extent that I'd pretend to be someone else to promote it :) At the end of the day I'm not that bothered if the article is deleted (it's now a complete mess anyway), it's just a shame about the hours I put into it.

As for multiple accounts, that's easily solved - check out my IP address. AndreaUKA (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's quite flattering to be the object of all this cloak and dagger stuff. Does somebody invite us all into the drawing room at the end and explain who the murderer was and how the crime was committed? If anybody's interested, I am the editor of a small magazine called Gold Dust which has printed a great deal of Eleanor's work – we're very impressed with it – and I looked her up on Wikipedia a few days ago, more or less to check if her track record was really as good as it seemed. There was an interesting and informative article, with lots of links to things she had done and places that she had been published. I returned to it today and found only the tattered remains of the article and a great punch-up in progress about it. Being Irish, I thought I should create an account and join in. So, who wants to take their jacket off and come round the back? Engineer David (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All the instances where AndreaUKA deleted the comments of other editors on ANI or on their talk page occurred a couple of minutes before or after edits made by Engineer David. First refactoring by AndreaUKA 11:49, the account David Engineer was created 11:46 according to my watchlist. First ANI refactoring 12:20, First edit by Engineer David 12:23, Second ANI refactoring 12:37, Second edit by Engineer David 12:35, Refactoring on Talk:AndreaUKA 13:27, Third edit by Engineer David 13:35. Could the cache problems possibly be caused by the user tampering with two accounts at the same time? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It states quite clearly on my UserPage, that I am in the Netherlands, which is an hour ahead of UK time. I assume comments etc are posted using GMT? It never occurred to me to check but, if that's the case, could this not have a bearing on your timing issues, Saddhiyama? In other words, the posts by me and Engineer David were not posted (almost simultaneously. Just a thought. AndreaUKA (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses. I didn't alter/delete any comments by anyone! And what are you implying with 'Could the cache problems possibly be caused by the user tampering with two accounts at the same time?', Saddhiyama? Or don't I warrant a response now? This is my case, y'know :) As I said, simple solution - check the IP's, no need to get any more knickers in a twist for nothing :)AndreaUKA (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The ANI comment step on is not a new thing, and it's happened to and by lots of established editors.

As far as a new user "obviously" being a sock I don't find it particularly suspicious a new user's first edit to an Afd -- we put Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry .. on the top of an article being considered for deletion and start the Afd page with the blurb ''However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others... '' (emphasis mine) So why is it such a shock if a new editor shows up at Afd? NE Ent 15:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC) rephrased NE Ent 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, nobody here suggested at any point that the user was "obviously" a sock; you're the only one to use that wording, so I don't know why you're putting it in quotations, let alone using that wording at all. The only thing that was suggested is that there is a pattern of editing here that is often associated with sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry; whether that pattern means anything or not is yet to be seen, and is being presented here for the perusal of administrators who specifically deal with this sort of thing.  Second, nobody suggested in any way that the opinion was not welcome, nor was it suggested that good faith was not assumed. - SudoGhost 15:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (rephrased prior comment). I'm not seeing the pattern, or certainly not enough of a pattern to file an SPI; while in theory it's a neutral act it's usually going to be perceived by the involved editors as a hostile one. NE Ent 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it has happened to a lot of editors, including myself. But I have never seen it happen so systematically, and not only at ANI, but across several venues in several consecutive edits, and combined with the timing of the edits of both editors it does smell like WP:DUCK. And I think that SudoGhost has made a pretty good case why there is reason to suspense AGF in this particular case. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Er...pardon me for interrupting the party, but could someone please tell me exactly what it is that I'm accused of? AndreaUKA (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Maintaining two (or more) accounts simultaneously. Saddhiyama suggested that maintaining two accounts might interfere with your computer's cache, which was causing the changes to other people's comments. –  Richard  BB  16:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, yes, Thanks. Well, as I've mentioned several times before, a quick IP check would save a lot of people getting unnecessarily hot and bothered. But am I not also accused of deliberately deleting other editor's comments? I must say it's all very confusing... AndreaUKA (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To an extent, though that's not what this discussion is about. Given that many, many other people have suffered from their comments inadvertently deleting other people's, it's very possible that the same thing has happened to you. –  Richard  BB  16:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's not about that, what is the discussion about? I am certainly not Engineering David, and I doubt very much that he is me, nor that he'd want to be :) Again (why do you ignore this?)surely an IP check would put you all out of your suffering. I certainly have not 'roped' anyone in, but surely it's within the bounds of possibility that people with similar interests will come together on an article? That doesn't automatically mean they know each other. After 8 years (give or take) of editing on WIKIPEDIA I find this all very strange... Will I get an apology when I'm proved innocent? :)AndreaUKA (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is wholly about sockpuppet accusations. Firstly, an admin needs to decide if this case warrants a checkuser. If they decide that it's suspicious enough, they'll do the test. I'm sure it'll be resolved soon. As for an apology: you'll have to ask SudoGhost about that, as he's the one who accused you. –  Richard  BB  17:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, where is the relevant admin? This could be resolved in no time! Thanks, Richard, and I'll be sure to ask him :) AndreaUKA (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Will it help you all to calm down if I give you the web address of Gold Dust magazine, where you'll find a lot of Eleanor Bennett's photographs used as cover illustrations for editions of the magazine and also some of the anthologies and collections we have published. Here it is: http://www.golddustmagazine.co.uk/ That is the full extent of my knowledge of or relationship to Eleanor. I'm not her grandfather (a bit old to have fathered her), nor her kindly old uncle, neither am I holding her prisoner in my cellar and feeding her smoked mackerel and oven-chips. I am just someone who thinks her work is pretty good. I can only apologise that neither I nor my magazine are at all 'notable'. Incidentally, could you please let me know whether I am a 'sockpuppet' or a 'meatpuppet', as I think that kind of thing would look good on my CV. Engineer David (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting you are associated with the article's subject, the concern is that there is some connection between you and AndreaUKA, either as the same individual or as someone who was brought to the discussion by AndreaUKA. You said that Gold Dust magazine was "your magazine"; there seems to be a connection between Gold Dust magazine and UKA Press, the company that AndreaUKA is apparently associated with.  I'm not saying this couldn't just be a coincidence, but given the coincidence of the timing of your comments three minutes after AndreaUKA's comment, and the similarity of your comment in essence repeating AndreaUKA's points, there's enough coincidence that I felt it warranted this discussion, that's all. - SudoGhost 16:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just about to make the same points about the relationship that SudoGhost highlighted. Experienced editors see a fair amount of vote-stacking/canvassing/meatpuppetry at AfDs, and that relationship plus the sequence of events almost always raises suspicion, rightly or wrongly. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @AndreaUKA, what people are concerned about is that David Engineer may have been canvassed by someone (I'm assuming they think it's you) to participate in the AfD. See WP:MEAT as well.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 18:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that now - thanks. It wasn't me, though. I assume he just saw the discussion and, being a fan of Bennett's work, simply waded in, as is surely permitted. (Are you a fan of Frank Zappa? :)) AndreaUKA (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding all this most interesting. What if AndreaUKA were my conjoined twin (but posing as female)? How would that affect the validity either of what she has to say or what I have to say? Some earlier commenter (SudoGhost, I think) pointed out very forcefully that this isn't a majority vote but an attempt to establish the suitability of an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. Attacking AndreaUKA or me, or making allegations about our knowing one another (and there can be few writers in the United Kingdom who haven't heard of UKAuthors.com or its founder Andrea Lowne) seems to me to be the tiniest bit off the point. Have any of you heard of an 'ad hominem argument'? You could look it up in Wikipedia. Engineer David (talk)188.222.95.167 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you forget to log in? (See Special:EmailUser/Oversight if you did and want your ip address removed from the visible record.) NE Ent 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I did a little IP searching of my own with and the above IP, with the name that comes up being a decidedly male name. Of course IPs can sometimes be hard to get exact with the free checking, so it's possible that it's incorrect. A search did bring up a few Davids that have worked for UKA Press, but that doesn't necessarily mean that EngineerDavid is that David either. My point in posting this is that it's entirely possible that Andrea and David are two different people. This doesn't mean that this might not be a case of meatpuppetry, but I did want to state that the limited search I performed did not suggest that they were the same person. Of course if he had come here because he was specifically asked to by Andrea, there's nothing entirely wrong with that either as long as he were to make his points based on notability guidelines and avoids personal attacks. Nor would it be against the rules for David to edit if he worked for UKA Press in any context. It wouldn't even matter if he was Andrea's conjoined twin, although that would certainly be a first for Wikipedia. The only issue with that situation tends to arise when people try to how they discovered the page or affiliation or outright lie about either thing. No, I'm not saying that you are David, just stating this as a generalization. David, I think that if you were to have stated your point in the AfD for Bennet a little more diplomatically than accusing people of "bruised egoes and bad manners" (no matter who you were referring to), you probably wouldn't have raised that much of a suspicion as far as sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry goes. The reason as to why most of the sources in the previous incarnations of the Bennett article were largely unusable came from them being considered to be unusable and unreliable sources per Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS. I don't mean to sound condescending, just saying that when you come into an AfD with limited to no experience with Wikipedia editing or current standards for notability, it's easy to see notability where there might not be any and to see sources as usable when they are not. It's suspicious timing, I guess, and you've got to understand guys that this is so common that reactions like this are pretty standard. Many people create sockpuppets or try to get fans, family, or coworkers to come to an AfD to sway what they think is a vote, only to eventually discover that AfDs are not decided on votes but on the strength of an argument. I've seen AfDs closed where many people voiced keep arguments and only one person said delete. The article was ultimately deleted because the keep arguments couldn't stand up to the logic of the deletion argument. In any case, that's my two cents in this. Suspicious doesn't always mean that the suspicions are accurate. I'll just close with saying that if by chance there is some meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry going on and it is uncovered, it'll could end with one or both becoming banned.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If the name you found was Jamie McGee, you should bear in mind that he is the Network Design Engineer for Telefonica O2 (UK) and ALL of his company's (and some of its subsidiaries') IPs are allocated to him by RIPE. Keri (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My dear girl, without contacting a users ISP and requesting their home address, which will only be given out if the police and a crime are involved, the best you can do using IP trackers is the vague area. My IP, for example, shows PURMEREND, NOORD-HOLLAND, but I'm in Amsterdam. Here, check it yourself...195.240.192.3 (yes, that is my IP) And that's about as close as you can get without police intervention. I run a website with more than 5000 members, I make it my business to know a bit about IP's. Then this :My point in posting this is that it's entirely possible that Andrea and David are two different people. Really? Funny, I've been telling you that all along. Incidentally, 'Andrea' is a male name, too :) I doubt, at my age, I'd lose much sleep if I was banned. either, although I do find it quite bizarre that you're talking about banning a WIKI editor who's created more than a dozen articles and edited hundreds more over the past 8 years (yes, me). My God, you lot are quite amusing...AndreaUKA (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrea, I think you might be missing a distinction about puppetry in general. Sockpuppets are the same person using (or abusing) multiple accounts.  Not all sockpuppets are illegitimate. However most puppetry abuse is done via !voting (seemingly the issue at the matter here) or to evade scrutiny.  Many editors here, and I count myself one of them, find it very suspicious when a new editor's very first contribution is to an AfD.  The suspicion is that one of the editors has created a sockpuppet to "stack the vote" as it were.  Unsophisticated editors are usually caught by an SPI investigtion.  Sophisticated editors can sock without getting caught by the SPI.  However sockpuppet or not, in this instance I'll wager that most here probably now suspect that David Engineer has been asked by someone to !vote at this AfD.  The fact that a new editor's very first edit is to an AfD of such a minor article without being asked to do so is extremely unlikely.  That is why there is a cloud of suspicion of meatpuppetry hanging over David Engineer.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Andrea, for the record, you have been editing here (on and off) for 6 years (not 8). You have edited 83 articles (not "hundreds"), and you have created exactly 11 articles of which 6 are about the publishing company you run or one of its authors . I highly doubt that either you or Engineer David will be banned for this (which at worst could be construed as unfamiliarity with how seriously canvassing at AfDs is taken here), but many far more prolific and experienced editors of very high quality content have been banned for sockpuppetry in the past. Voceditenore (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, a mere technicality my dear Voceditenore - what's a year or two between friends? I'm sorry, but I really can't take the whole thing seriously - it's just too silly for words :) AndreaUKA (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Poor Mr Engineer, I imagine he's quaking in his size 15s (and yes, that is a guess - I don't actually know his shoe size).AndreaUKA (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Comment: Andrea, someone saying "I'm not a sockpuppet" doesn't always hold weight with sockpuppet investigations. It's exceedingly common for sockpuppets to come on and lie, so in many cases claims of being separate people will hold little weight until the checkuser comes in and verifies this. I've witnessed several investigations where someone lied because they didn't think they'd get caught, only for a check to confirm that it was a case of sock and/or meat. I'm not saying either of you are doing this, just that it's more common than you'd think. Despite you being nothing but rude and nasty to me, I'm trying to defend you. I could just sit here and say "yup, suspicious, burn the witch", but I'm actually trying to be fair and assume good faith as far as sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is concerned.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment That's okay, Tokyo, I'm sure you're a lovely gal (and I wasn't aware of being 'rude and nasty' to you), it's just more than your jobsworth :). I actually have some sympathy, as I discourage multiple accounts on my site too, although I must say I'd never resort to pack-animal, bullying tactics as you lot have done with me and the elusive Mr David. Nature of the beast,eh? A nasty animal, is man. Have you checked out my IP yet (see above)? Mine, as I said, is 195.240.192.3, registered in the Netherlands. I see Mr Engineer's IP is 188.222.95.167, which is registered London, UK. Strange, that. Better rope in that Checkuser chappie, eh? AndreaUKA (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. I tried to help you. I won't make that mistake in the future. So far I've tried to help rescue an article and explain to others that you two probably aren't the same person, but all I've gotten in return is condescension and rudeness from yourself. I tried, but you clearly just want to pick a fight with me and accuse me of encouraging bullying. Good luck with that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's true, though. I have been ganged up on and bullied. Good job I'm thick-skinned:) Can't see where the 'condescension and rudeness' comes in in the above, but there ya go. I certainly did not say you encourage bullying! On an aside, I'd like to thank you for removing the ridiculous 'deletion' template from Kevin Brownlow which, incidentally, is not an article I created. However, you certainly went up in my estimation there, so kudos for that. By the way, I've just read a short story of yours. It's actually quite passable. You should join UKAuthors if you want to improve your writing, we even have a fan-fiction category, as well as quite a few US and Canadian members to make you feel at home. AndreaUKA (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Dennis. There will, however, be little need to re-open the case. Please see here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndreaUKA#Points_to_ponder_perhaps.2C_Sudo. Best, Andrea — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaUKA (talk • contribs) 11:12, 8 December 2012‎

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * At this stage, this investigation has become a great big drama fest, which is why it is generally considered best to not notify, as the investigation will be based on the evidence, not opinions. With that in mind, I see unusual activity, but not unusual enough to justify a CU or take action.  I'm closing this discussion without action, and without prejudice to raise the issue if more convincing evidence appears. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)