Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chidom


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Chidom

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

--SandyDancer 12:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Report submission by:


 * Evidence

Please see notifications to suspected puppet master and the responsehere.


 * [ALTHOUGH NOTE CHIDOM HAS DECIDED TO CUT AND PASTE THE WHOLE DISCUSSION I LINKED TO HERE BELOW IN ORDER TO OBSCURE THE DEBATE --SandyDancer 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]

The Nicer1 account was created solely to nominate certain articles related to pornography for deletion - this is stated on User:Nicer1. There is also a statement that Nicer1 is "a long-term anonymous Wikipedia user". I suspect this to be untrue and believe the account is a sock for User:Chidom, registered to avoid the scrutiny of the community for his or her actions.

Suspicions were aroused by these edits:


 * were made from the Nicer1 account to Chidom's status indicator.
 * were made from the Chidom account to Nicer1's status indicator.

Chidom has responded to this with:

"Not that it's any of your business (since when is editing another user's status page an indicator of a sock puppet?), the edits are made to create placeholders on each other's watchlists that still show up when the "Hide my edits" option is used."

I found this distinctly unconvincing. Why would two apparently unconnected users be editing each other's status indicators? The only circumstances I can imagine this happening is if the users were accustomed to working together on articles and were in communication - there is no evidence of communication however. I contend that these edits were a slip up on the part of Chidom - he did not intend to edit the status indicator on the other account, doing so absent mindedly, forgetting which username he was currently logged in as. The two accounts have continued to edit each other's "status indicators" since I left the message about this on Chidom's talk page. Whether this is because the explanation given above by Chidom is genuine, or because by continuing to do this Chidom hopes to create that impression despite his earlier slip-up, I cannot say.

I will not speculate as to the motivations of Chidom/Nicer1, but it should be noted that most of the RFDs initiated by this user ended in near unanimous "Keep" votes and many of the articles were clearly not viable candidates for deletion.

Like Nicer1, Chidom's main area of interest also seems to be articles related to pornography (see edit histories - Chidom's contribs and Nicer1's contribs).


 * Comments

Note that Chidom's main area of interest is gay male pornography, while Nicer1's main area of interest is heterosexual pornography. The similarity is not as large as it may at first appear. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note this important sentence from Suspected sock puppets: "1. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. " Is it your contention that placing prod's on uncited articles is abuse? If not, please specify the abuse. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * SandyDancer apparently enjoys calling into question the motives of users that make edits with which s/he disagrees
 * SandyDancer got into a dispute with User:Nicer1; see User talk:Nicer1
 * SandyDancer continuously made accusations or inferences that Nicer1 had ulterior motives for making the nominations
 * SandyDancer chose to ignore the explanations given and continued to assert that SandyDancer had correctly identified the motives
 * SandyDancer is now making accusations that Nicer1 is my sock puppet with no evidence; indeed, quite the contrary, as is stated by SandyDancer: "there is no evidence of communication however"
 * Sandy Dancer has failed to acknowledge the constructive edits made by Nicer1 to articles on pornography or comments on others' edits; doing so would undermine the assertion that Nicer1's motive was a crusade to delete articles on porn
 * See Revision history for Celebrity Skin (magazine)
 * "Just a note to acknowledge how pleased I am about being wrong about someone doing something to improve the article. (More comments below.)—Nicer1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)" Talk:Knave (magazine)
 * Talk:Knave (magazine)
 * Nicer1's reasons for nominating the articles were clearly stated; some others agreed with those reasons and improvements were made to some of the articles
 * The articles in question were completely unsourced and failed to assert any notability or importance
 * Examples
 * Club (magazine)
 * Club International
 * Galaxy Publications
 * Men Only
 * Score (magazine)
 * Voluptuous (magazine)
 * Any article may be nominated by any registered user for deletion
 * Articles for deletion/Asian Babes was nominated by another user who removed the notability tag placed by Nicer1:
 * Arguing with a user's reasoning is acceptable; calling into question their motives on the basis of absolutely no evidence&mdash;but, instead, pure conjecture&mdash;is not
 * I explained to SandyDancer why Nicer1 and I were editing each other's status pages
 * With regard to that explanation, SandyDancer has again ignored the information given by a user, continuing to attach motives where there are none
 * The method we came up with regarding our status pages began on 1 December because that's when we thought of a way to mark our places in our respective watchlists; yet another explanation the SandyDancer has chosen to dismiss
 * In order to edit each other's status page, we have to specifically go to the page and edit it; it is a deliberate edit and could not be done absentmindedly
 * While users may disagree about edits, making accusations and insinuations of the kind that SandyDancer has made is inappropriate
 * Nicer1 and I don't edit the same articles, although we both have an interest in pornography
 * I will echo Nicer1's comment that continuing to make unsupported accusations and inferences and refusing to accept a user's explanations is calling another user a liar; a violation of No personal attacks
 * Nicer 1 is my spouse; that is no one's business
 * As I said on my Talk page; I hope SandyDancer will spend time constructively improving Wikipedia rather than harassing users &mdash; Chidom   talk   19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to throw mud back in the hope it somehow sticks to me? Sheesh! Please read WP:NPA.
 * The issue here is one of suspected sock puppetry. I accept I may be wrong but your ultra-defensive actions suggest to me I am not and you intend to make this unpleasant. I will rise above it.
 * And as for the attempt above to frame my legitimate queries about your motives as uncivil behaviour - you asked for a third opinion, and you got it here.
 * For the record, I was perfectly entitled to question your/whoever's motives when querying the actions of Nicer1 and did so in a civil manner You were engaged in conduct which drew criticism from several users, not just me. I am not uncivil simply because I don't believe something you say. The "assume good faith" principle doesn't stretch that far.
 * I am not harassing anyone, and I do contribute to Wikipedia. Its just that I happened to spot suspicious behaviour, and am totally unconvinced by the "spouse" get out, as is another user who has observed the process. --SandyDancer 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have moved what has been posted on my talk page to this page, between the ===='s" &mdash; Chidom   talk   23:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

======= (begin talk page excerpt)

User:Nicer1

Are you operating this account as well? The reason I ask is that these edits were made from the Nicer1 account to Chidom's status indicator, and these edits  were made from the Chidom account to Nicer1's status indicator.

On User:Nicer1 this statement appeared:


 * I'm a long-term anonymous Wikipedia user who proposed that some articles be deleted using the tag and the tags were removed without following the process; the articles weren't changed at all before removing the tag. The other user also took it upon themselves to remove a speedy delete tag (that I placed subsequent to the  tag being removed). Since anonymous users can't nominate articles at , I created this account in order to do so.

If this account in indeed yours, the statement is untrue. I am particularly concerned about this because of the WP:SOCK policy. The Nicer1 account was set up to block nominate for deletion a number of articles related to pornography. In particular, if this account is yours, it would appear it was set up to avoid scrutiny from other editors. I notice much of the edit history of the Chidom account relates to pornographic articles too.

You will note I left a question about this on User talk:Nicer1 at 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC). It goes without saying that I am very sorry to have bothered you with this if I have this wrong, and trust you will be understanding. --SandyDancer 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Nicer1 is not a sock puppet; there is no evidence (the two of us posting to the same AfD, for example) to support your assumption, which is incorrect.
 * The statement made on Nicer1's user page is true.
 * Not that it's any of your business (since when is editing another user's status page an indicator of a sock puppet?), the edits are made to create placeholders on each other's watchlists that still show up when the "Hide my edits" option is used. &mdash; Chidom   talk   08:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can maintain that editing another user's status indicator - for whatever reason - doesn't suggest the accounts are maintained by the same person? What other reason could there be? Why would Chidom and Nicer1 - who have no history of collaboration and have no posted on each other's talk pages - be cooperating in this way, if separate users? Couple with this the similarity in your areas of interest.
 * I'm afraid I find your explanations unconvincing and I will take the matter further. Your lack of civility does you no credit. --SandyDancer 10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Show me where I've been uncivil; it isn't any of your business. You're once again leaping to conclusions that are unsupported by any evidence.
 * Nicer1 is my spouse, ok? That's still none of your business, nor is it anyone else's. We avoid chiming in on the same disucssions, etc., so as to avoid any appearance of sock puppetry.
 * As for your reference, neither one of us has made any effort to "confuse or deceive editors". Both our edit histories are clear; you still refuse to accept that there have been no ulterior motives involved here.
 * You now seem to be the one on a mission. Please spend your time constructively improving Wikipedia rather than harassing users. &mdash; Chidom   talk   17:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone reading the exchange will see the incivility.
 * I have no interest in harassing anyone, but to be honest I think the actions you/whoever have carried out using the Nicer1 account have been disruptive - nominating a load of articles that clearly shouldn't be deleted for example. The results of RFDs speak for themselves, and I am not the only user to object.--SandyDancer 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to characterise a legit sockpuppet enquiry as a personal attack. It ain't. Calm down. This isn't a personal dispute between us. You've had you say, I've had mine. The fact I don't feel convinced by your explanations does not equate to a personal attack and I have never, ever called you a liar - you keep trying to twist things to make out I have. By your logic, no-one could ever be sanctioned on WP because all they'd have to do is say "it wasn't me" and if anyone didn't believe them, that would be a personal attack. --SandyDancer 01:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet discussion

Why have you taken it upon yourself to add the pre-discussion of the issue - which is already linked to - to the article? My concern is that you are trying to falsely characterise the whole thing as a personal dispute in the hope others just pass it over - I am removing it again from that page. You are not entitled to dictate the terms of the discussion about your alleged sock puppet activities. --SandyDancer 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate for you to remove any of my comments or quotes from the discussion. Please see my info box above:
 * "Please note that I may quote your comments or move them to other pages at my discretion"
 * (This was present when you first added material to this page. first post and corrected post with  tags.)
 * Regardless, you are removing my response to your evidence in this matter; please do not edit my response again. &mdash; Chidom   talk   14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I am not removing your comments. I have not removed your response to my evidence - that response remains in its entirety. I am trying to stop you from obscuring the matter at hand by cutting and pasting a huge chunk of discussion from your talk page on the page about the sockpuppetry case. Why do you believe it is right to do so? You are, after all, deleting and moving my comments in the process. I did not consent to you doing so. --SandyDancer 14:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please also stop discussing this matter here; you opened the Suspected sock puppets/Chidom matter; any further comments should be made there. These comments have also been moved there. &mdash; Chidom   talk   14:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

======= (end talk page excerpt) The information from my talk page has been deleted from this page twice by SandyDancer. I have advised on my talk page, and will repeat here:
 * "It is not appropriate for you to remove any of my comments or quotes from the discussion....
 * "Regardless, you are removing my response to your evidence in this matter; please do not edit my response again."

I have copied further discussion from that page here, and will continue to do so if necessary. SandyDancer cannot open a Suspected sock puppet matter and make comments "behind the scenes" that relate to the matter. All the information in the copied posts is related to SandyDancer's initial questions regarding the sock puppet, my responses, and SandyDancer's subsequent decision to open this matter&mdash;all information that is germane to this matter. I have also adjusted the formatting of this section to faciliate separating comments; apparently AnonEmouse's comment above wasn't seen because of the earlier formatting.


 * You are deliberately trying to obscure the point here by piling in loads and loads of repetitive text. All of our discussion is - and always has been - conveniently linked above at the top of the article. I will say it straight - you are acting in bad faith. Your behaviour is very tiresome, but clearly very effective. What it does is make the whole thing look like some crazy argument, and ensures it is passed over who just think it is two users having a row. Well that isn't the case, but I am tired of arguing with you. Well done. --SandyDancer 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you assign motives incorrectly; I am not trying to obscure anything. Firstly, copying and pasting the information that is linked to is a matter of convenience for readers; secondly, the discussion of this matter belongs here, not on my talk page.

The question posed above by User:AnonEMouse, seems to have been overlooked; I'll copy it here for convenience: &mdash; Chidom   talk   00:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note this important sentence from Suspected sock puppets: "1. An alternate account that is not used for abuse does not warrant a complaint. " Is it your contention that placing prod's on uncited articles is abuse? If not, please specify the abuse. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Chidom - If Nicer1 truly isn't an alternate account of yours, why would you be so keen to focus on this question?


 * If Nicer1 is your sock, then you set the account up purely to escape the inevitable criticism you'd get for nominating a load of clearly notable articles for deletion. That is abuse in my book. Furthermore if Nicer1 is your sock, you posted a deliberately misleading statement on the user page designed to further obscure what was going on. That is abuse in my book.


 * You like moving other people's comments around, don't you? You aren't meant to do that. --SandyDancer 12:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I "focused on the question" because you hadn't answered it. In order for you to begin a Suspected sock puppet action, you must have believed that Nicer1 was an alternate account of mine. Believing that, you would also need to believe that the account had been used for abuse. You have explained that you did believe that, and what you believed that abuse to be. That's all the question asked you to explain.

Even if you believed the Nicer1 account to be an alternate account for me (which is untrue to start with), this action should never have commenced to begin with. You have chosen not to believe the evidence given to prove that Nicer1 is not my sock. I will contest your allegation of "abuse", as there was none.

Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy Background, "Anyone except a blocked user is welcome to participate in nominating articles for deletion or discussion of existing nominations."

Nominating articles isn't abuse.

Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion Articles Criteria no. 7, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject."

It doesn't say that the subject of the article isn't important, it says the article doesn't say that it is. The articles did not assert their importance and so met this criteria. They could have been nominated for Speedy Deletion; instead, they were Proposed for Deletion (prod). Nicer1 has already explained that this was done to give editors time to improve the articles rather than the articles disappearing instantly via Speedy Deletion.

Your objection to the nominations has been that the magazines are important. They may well be, that's not the issue. The articles need to state that the magazines are important and include information as to why they are.

Wikipedia:Criteria for Speedy Deletion Non-criteria "Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article 'does not assert the importance or significance of its subject'. If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum."

So, nominating an article for Speedy Deletion that says it is important is inappropriate; a different process (prod, afd) must be used. It was never claimed that the subject of the article was non-notable, only that the article didn't specify that it was; so there was no allegation that the articles were "obviously non-notable". Nicer1 tried to err on the side of the articles being improved by using prod instead of deletebecause.

Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Wikipedia:Verifiability Burden of evidence goes on: "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

There were either no sources cited in these articles or the source listed was a link to the magazine's website. A company website is not a third-party source. What the policy says is that someone other than the company has to have written about it; if the company isn't important enough for that to be true, it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

Nicer1 withdrew the Articles for Deletion nominations of three of the magazines and added the unsourced template instead. He also expanded the Galaxy Publications article and provided sources; how was that abuse?

You have not referred to anything in Wikipedia's policy or guidelines that characterizes Nicer1's actions as abuse. In short, nominating these articles was well within Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not abuse.

As for "moving" comments, there is a difference between "cut and paste" and "copy and paste". I have only copied comments to make it easier to follow the discussion in chronological order; I have not deleted the information. I'm not aware of anything that prohibits copying information, only deleting information. &mdash; Chidom   talk   18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikilawyering at its best.
 * If nominating those articles for deletion was as justifiable as you say it was, why didn't you do so from your own account? Why did you set up a new account and pretend it wasn't you? --SandyDancer 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

As I wrote above, no disruption means no foul. It is not against policy for two users to share a computer. We can encourage them to declare this publically (prominent example: User:Tim Starling, Wikipedia developer), but we can not require it (example: User:Angela, former Wikipedia board member, founder of Wikia). Note these two have also edited each others' user pages quite often, but have not, as far as I am aware been accused of skulduggery because of it. Closing case for lack of any other admin seeming likely to do it. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)