Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CindyLooWho


 * 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. No suspected master sockpuppet. No evidence. Yes, the user may be involved in a lot of Afds, whic are normally suspicious, but there is no evidence presented here. Iola k ana • T  20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CindyLooWho
Evidence This user was created August 20, 2006 and has since then participated in a majority of AfD's with no major namespace edits. See User Contributions here. This appears to be an SPA for the purpose of voting or skewing votes. The user quotes deletion policy as an experienced user.

For ease of checking:


 * ???? Ummm, okay? What can I say? I'm new and yes, most of my contributions have been in regards to AfD discussions. I am very interested in ridding Wikipedia of junk and quasi-vandalism. Of course, I am also interested in keeping good stuff too. Yes, I only have a couple of "regular page" edits. More will come. If you look at my individual comments on AfD's (which cover several different types of topics) and my one or two "regular page" edits, I think you will find some valuable input and I don't think you will find any evidence of single purposeness or trying to skew anything. ???? CindyLooWho 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your comment. You quote policy as if you are not new and within 20 minutes of your account creation.  Also, your second edit was putting an article up for deletion.  These are not normal activities for new users.  --Tbeatty 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol. That's because I am an intelligent person who is definitely not stupid enough to get involved in a discussion of a page's merits without at least reading about Wiki policies first - and then re-reading the specific sections that have to do with an individual AfD nominee before voting/commenting on the request for the page's deletion. I am not a new user of Wikipedia anyway. I have used it for almost a year. I just never bothered to get into the editing side of it until now. This is silly. Are you just harassing me because I disagreed with you on one AfD? CindyLooWho 19:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not harassing you at all. Your edits fit the profile of a sockpuppet.  1) new account 2). only used for voting 3) very familiar with Wikipedia style and rules even though you claim to be new.--Tbeatty 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are totally harassing me. You can say my edits fit a "sockpuppet profile" - but so what? Newsflash: happening to fit some kind of profile is not against the rules. I'll tell you something else - I am going to continue to use the majority of my Wiki time in much the same way, so I am going to continue to fit your profile. Let's get to the core of your accusation. You've made the claim that I am a sockpuppet for the purpose of breaking the following rule: Voting and other shows of support - Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in a discussion at polls and surveys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, or on talk pages. In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for the purpose of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. So you've made the claim - now how about backing it up with some specific proof. Please be my guest and go through every single page I voted on and write down the name of every other user who voted on the same issue. If there is a single other user who happened to vote on even 5% of the same pages I did and voted the same way that I did I'd be totally shocked. Go do the work - and you can apologize to me when you come to the realization that you are filing an empty claim that is 100% based on profiling and 0% based on actual evidence. Christ - if any page qualifies for a speedy delete it's this one. All guesses and speculation and zero cited facts regarding the breaking of any rule. CindyLooWho 00:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Filling out a sockpuppet complaint with your profile is not harassment no matter how many times you say it. --Tbeatty 00:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "fitting a profile" is not against the rules no matter how many times you say it. Three days and still absolutely zero evidence of rule breaking provided. Can't say I'm surprised. CindyLooWho 01:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the profile and how to spot them.

Characteristics of sock puppets
Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Moving from Articles for deletion/9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium (second nomination)


 * Pointing out it's a new account is not a negative thing, but accusing somebody of sockpuppetry without providing evidence is. PizzaMargherita 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse them of being a sockpuppet here and your comment was for the 'New account' comment. I guess you can shift gears if you like.  If you want to talk about Sockpuppetry, you can provide counter evidence on the Sockpuppet page.  --Tbeatty 19:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The burden is on you to prove that CindyLooWho is a sockpuppet. Also may I remind you that many users remain "anonymous" for a long time before creating an account. So far as I know, on WP we do not discriminate users for being anonymous, nor for quoting policies as experienced users. In essence, assume good faith. And stop wasting our time. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 19:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it works this way and that's why I created the Sockpuppet page. This user claims to be "new" if you read it above.  This is a classic sockpuppet profile. --Tbeatty 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Still no evidence. PizzaMargherita 06:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)