Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kylee2006

User:Kylee2006

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Loonymonkey (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * All of the above accounts, including the suspected puppetmaster, are single purpose accounts, having only edited Senate bill 0099 (or added the same information to Obama-related pages) and commented at Articles for deletion/Senate bill 0099. Also, curiously, all three of the accounts were created at various times over a year ago, but have no previous edits before the AfD process began.


 * Response: I can't speak on behalf of Buddyg04 because I don't know who that is, but 130.209.74.218 is my computer's IP address and if I my husband or I were not logged on and contributed I guess it signed it with the IP address. I am married and I do share a computer with my husband.  His wikipedia name is Jbd2956.  I haven't logged on to or used his account, but he and I do share many similar views, so his responses may sound similar to mine.  The other IP address obviously isn't ours, as we only have one computer.  I am living in the UK, which one could easily see by looking up my IP address if he took the time rather than frivolous accusations.  If you look up 75.81.205.154, it's the IP address of someone living in Ohio.  Do a little research, it isn't complicated!  Just because there are people who happen to share opinions and stances that differ from yours doesn't mean someone is being dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * Kylee2006 created the article Senate bill 0099 at 15:30, September 15, 2008. . At  16:53, September 15, 2008 I nominated the article for deletion.  Within the hour, Jbd2956  and 75.81.205.154  responded to this as their very first edits ever.


 * Response: Again, Jbd2956 is my husband. In case you aren't aware, I was notified when you put my article up for deletion because of what seems to be a political stance.  When I saw the notice, I told him and he came over and posted on the board.  As for the other IP address - I think that looking at the location alone should clear that - I don't know who 75.81.205.154 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * Also within the hour, Buddyg04 began edit-warring across multiple Obama-related articles adding the same information (again, these were the first edits by this editor, after having made only two previous edits two years ago! )  This editor then commented twice on the AfD.


 * Response: Once again, I do not know who Buddyg04 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * A couple of hours later, 130.209.74.218 responded to the AfD discussion as the very first edit and then made extensive additions to the article in question.


 * Response: Once again, this is my husband and my IP address. My husband left that response when he wasn't logged in.  Also, my husband's former job was as an editor, so he combed through the article and took out things that could have sounded biased or were not fully supported by the referenced articles.  Again, there is no foul play here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * The editing pattern is evidence enough, but there is also a very similar voice to the comments made by these accounts. Compare this  comment made by Jbd2956 and this  comment made by Kylee2006.  Or compare this  statement by 75.81.205.154 with this  statement by Buddyg04.


 * Response: First of all, these "editing patterns" you speak of aren't enough. And secondly - I didn't accuse you of sock puppeting even though there were people posting on the page who shared your views.  I guess I could have if I'd only known.  Is it unreasonable that there might exist in this world a handful of people with similar view points, and think that this article belongs on wikipedia and accessible to the general public?  The article in question wasn't campaigning for either candidate, but rather discussing the content of a bill and the controversy surrounding it.  Apparently other people out there were clear-headed enough to see that simple and plain fact.  There is a lot of interest in this topic right now, people need to be able to find the actual text of the bill in question, which isn't readily available, so that they can draw informed conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * Comments
 * At the very least, this is clear evidence of meatpuppetry, but the fact that these are all single-pupose accounts whose first edit was to enter this debate (and the stange bit about the accounts being previously established but with no edits) strongly indicates that they are all socks. Also, note that they have all weighed-in as separate people on the AfD discussion which removes any ambiguity about whether the IP's are simply mistakenly logged-out versions of the accounts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: Once again, I do not know any of the other users who posted on the debate, other than jbd2956 (IP 130.209.74.218), who is my husband. However, I didn't ask him to post anything, and I certainly didn't invite others to post in the debate.  This accusation is ludicrous on its face.  I think my husband felt compelled by what he felt was a condescending tone and offensive allegations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)

And by the way, is there a way to accuse someone of internet harrassment? Loonymonkey has not only nominated my article for deletion, but has since apparently been tracking my every move so that he/she could accuse me of something ridiculous and waste my time. Apparently, by his/her own admission, Loonymonkey is also targeting other users and tracking them for no other reason than they had an opinion that differed from his/hers. I looked for myself - all of the articles he's "patrolling" are related to Barack Obama, Biden, Michelle Obama, etc. Why not correct some of the POV statements on the George Bush, Palin, or McCain pages? Is this behavior acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * The accusation is far from ludicrous and viewing your edit history is hardly "tracking your every move." But more to the point, the accusation of sockpuppetry has now been proven true. Just above, there is an admission that one of the IP addresses above is indeed a sock puppet of Kylee2006 (although it posted in the AfD argument as if it were a separate person) and that the account jbd2956 is coming from the same computer and is also a single purpose account simultaneously editing the same article and commenting in the AfD discussion as another person. So that's two verified socks (without even going to checkuser).  The claim that the account is merely a meatpuppet operated by your husband, instead of a true sockpuppet, does not mitigate the circumstances.


 * Also, please read WP:OWN.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that is my IP address, but my husband was posting and not logged in. It wasn't for any sort of end.  He probably didnt realize he wasnt signed in.  I've fully admitted it's my IP address and that my husband did post from it.  If you'd simply look up sockpuppet on wikipedia, you'd see it says, "A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet."  I assume you are capable of deciphering the defintion.  I denied "speaking through my husband" and will continue to deny doing so.  He has his own opinions and his own voice.  He is allowed to post on Wikipedia the same as you.  I didn't tell him to post anything, and I certainly didnt tell him what to post.  This is ridiculous!  You've proven nothing because there's nothing here to prove.  I looked up my IP address and said that the activity done on the computer when it wasn't signed in was my husband.  I'm not hiding anything, pretending to be other people or whatever else you are going to attempt to accuse me of.  It would seem that you need a hobby sir.


 * I don't need anymore of your condescending words. You are creating a hostile environment on wikipedia and this is your first warning from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs)


 * And by the way, I noticed you stopped calling him a sockpuppet and are now calling him a meatpuppet, so here's another definition for you: "Meatpuppet, a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it, similar to a sock puppet." And here's another chance for me to tell you just how wrong you are, yet again.  First of all, my husband isn't a "new user".  He didn't sign up a couple days ago just so he could post something on my behalf.  He was not "invited to an internet discussion."  In fact, all I told him was that the article I had written was been marked for deletion and that was the extent of it.  He was ticked off because he believes, as I do, that the article is well documented, unbiased, and noteworthy - thus, not something that merits being deleted  (which is probably similar to what his first post said).  He already had a wikipedia account and decided to post his opinion, in his own words, on the talk page.  He voiced his opinion and he is entitled to do so.  Just because we share a computer, doesn't mean we share a brain.  We aren't one person.  And again, in case you didn't get it the first 5 times, jbd2956 was not "a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it."  And if that definition doesn't fit - then the term doesn't fit.  There are no puppets here - just 2 people really annoyed with continual harrassment and accusations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way to know whether your story is true so there isn't anyway to know if that account is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. I'll take you at your word (though you have completely avoided assuming any good faith with me) that this is your husband and not you editing under that account from the same computer.  But for the purposes of Wikipedia it doesn't matter.  Please see WP:SHARE where it states
 * "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as the "three-revert rule" as if they were a single account. If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics."
 * I noted above that the accounts were all registered some time ago, but the fact remains that Jbd2956 had no edit history at all before this matter.  You have admitted communicating to him about the AfD, and then his very first edit was to weigh in on the debate (without disclosing that connection).  That is the very definition of meatpuppetry.


 * Further, from that same computer, several comments were made to the AfD from the logged-out IP. It is one thing to mistakenly log out, but several comments were left on the AfD as if this were a unique individual "agreeing" with the previous comments.  If this all really is an honest mistake, then you should strike those comments and disclose on the AfD discussion that you are editing together towards the same interests.  To do anything less is to violate some of the core rules of Wikipedia. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: QUOTE: "Further, from that same computer, several comments were made to the AfD from the logged-out IP."  If by several comments, you mean two, then sure, there were two unsigned comments from our computer - both written by my husband.  I assume he didn't realize he wasn't signed in or didn't realize it mattered.  But I suppose you'd have to ask him, as I am apparently not allowed to discuss my opinions with him or ask him to post anything on here...you know that whole puppet thing...


 * QUOTE: "You have admitted communicating to him about the AfD, and then his very first edit was to weigh in on the debate (without disclosing that connection). That is the very definition of meatpuppetry"  My husband originally got his wikipedia account so he could write an article about his band, which was promptly deleted.  At least that's what he tells me.  So he has some edit history before this matter.  Although regardless, it seems silly to say that someone can't choose to post their first edit on a topic that has been given recent exposure in the news simply because he and I share a point of view.  Again, the definition of a meatpuppet is, "a new user invited to an internet discussion solely to influence it."  Let me reiterate once more that jbd2956 (1) is NOT a new user, (2) was not invited to an internet discussion, but merely informed of the existence of a discussion, (3) made statements in the discussion based on his opinions - not to regurgitate my opinions.  We are married and do share a computer, but like most married people, we remain two separate people, with two separate brains, 2 separate points of view, and we both have a right to voice those points of view.  We are not ONE person, so I will refuse to accept your argument that we ought to post as ONE person or admit to being ONE person.  He can post whatever he chooses, in this case, he chose to post that Senate Bill 0099 deserves to remain on wikipedia.  We certainly don't always agree, but as I have said before, we do share many of the same beliefs - yet amazingly enough, we are two separate people.  I never once said, "hey this guy's trying to take down the article I wrote, come tell him not to" or anything like that.


 * QUOTE: "If this all really is an honest mistake, then you should strike those comments and disclose on the AfD discussion that you are editing together towards the same interests." If you can even call this "a mistake", then it certainly would be an honest one - though I wholeheartedly disagree with you.  We are not editing together.  I don't sit down and ask him to look over my shoulder to help me write things and vise versa.  He edited the article because he found out it was up for deletion.  He repsonded on the board because he thinks that the article deserves to remain posted on wikipedia.  He has said these things himself.  We are not "editing together".  While we share opinions on this matter, we are two separate people, with two separate accounts.  It's a good thing the American Government doesn't share your views on sharing opinions or else people married to spouses with similar views on politics wouldn't be able to vote because they'd be viewed as one person.  That is moronic.  I will not strike his comments because he can freely make them.  I will, however, ask him to retroactively sign those comments if it would appease you.  Although, maybe you should ask him - I'd hate to be a meatpuppet by inviting him to a conversation.  --Kylee2006 (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello there, LooneyMonkey. My name is Josh, aka jbd2956.  Kylee2006 is my wife.  Yes, we share a computer, and yes, we share many of the same views (married people generally do).  However, I can think for myself, and I did think for myself when I posted here.  Several days ago, we heard all the controversy about this particlar bill in the news.  My wife then decided to research the bill herself rather than just believe whatever the media says.  She tends to be cynical like that.  After a lengthy search, she found the bill, and she decided that it would be very helpful and informative to provide easy access to this information for everyone.  Wikipedia is a good place to do that.  In fact, it is probably the best place to do that.  It is supposed to provide people with easy access to accurate, noteworthy information.

I have looked through your posting history, and it seems to me that you have nothing better to do than search through Wikipedia pages and object to any information that you personally don't like. Yes, some of your edits were necessary; however, many of them showed your own personal bias in support of Barack Obama and his campaign.

Let me be clear. I voted for George W. Bush twice. I am not happy with the way his presidency has gone the past couple of years, and I know he he merely human and makes mistakes (some of them bigger than others). There are many pages on Wikipedia that say very damaging things about President Bush. I don't like these things, but I also don't troll around deleting information that sounds harmful to him (esecially when it's true). If things are true, then they are true. Nothing can change that.

In conclusion, please stop harassing my wife and I. She was merely trying to provide some factual information to the public. And when the facts she presented were attacked, I decided that I needed to defend the truth. I chose to post MYSELF. I am an adult, and I make my own decisions. Yes, I forgot to log in when I posted at one point. Sue me. My wife has already fully disclosed both of our usernames and our IP address, so we are not hiding anything or trying to deceive anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not harrassing anyone. I nominated the article for deletion (for multiple reasons, previously explained) and then noticed some very suspicious patterns of editing by the "multiple" editors weighing in to defend. I suspected that they weren't so "multiple" after all, but were coming from a single source.  The edit history strongly supported this, so I opened this case.  By your own admission, I was correct. At least three of the editors listed above were all coming from the same place, without having disclosed it.  There isn't much more to say on that by me.  I'm not going to go back and forth on this, particularly now that the personal attacks are beginning to fly.  I'll leave this to a more-experienced administrator to sort out.    --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Additionally, such people [two or more users dwell or work together, thereby sharing a computer or an internet connection], who often closely know one another and have face-to-face contact may share common interests and writing styles, and may even teach each other about Wikipedia and its techniques and inform each other about its ongoings." This is explained in the article about sockpuppets.  My wife and I fit this description.  We have fully disclosed the fact that we live together and share an IP address.  We have disclosed who we are and explained both usernames.  We are not hiding anything.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I had no idea that one Loon could manifest so much sway over a user-friendly atmosphere like Wikipedia. I use wikipedia almost daily to learn new things about my world.  Two years ago I edited a couple of pages (mostly for grammar), but otherwise my pleasure is from learning, not broadcasting.  However, I felt compelled to add facts to the page about Illinois Senate bill 0099, because it desperately needed more than commentary quotes.  The "editing war" that Loon speaks of actually involved no editing whatsoever.  I added a paragraph of facts about Senate bill 0099 and the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: K-12th Grade, and s/he deleted it.  I re-posted the facts, and s/he deleted them.  Imagine asking a friend to edit your paragrpah and he returns a blank sheet of paper to you.  More of a censorship than an edit, I dare say.

Clearly, Loon knows the Wiki system, initiating all the Wiki-bureaucracy imaginable. Unfortunately, I must go about my life and leave Wiki-domination to the likes of Loon. I'm saddened to realize that everything I learn on Wiki from here on out may have been Wiki-dominated by some other loon who deleted the very facts I clicked to learn. Buddyg04 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, an obvious case of sockpuppetry and possible meatpuppetry. In addition, these are SPAs that should be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing.  If anyone wants to run a checkuser, great, but they've admitted to editing off the same computer.  Vote-stacking an Afd, multiple 3RR violations to insert clearly inappropriate POV material, and at the moment returning to edit war over the same articles.  Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef. blocks are punitive. No need to block indefinitely; however, vote-stacking in an AfD is uncool.  Maybe a block with a definite expiry is in order?  Bwrs (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

✅ Kylee2006 = Jbd2956 = 130.209.74.218
 * Conclusions

✅ Buddyg04 = 75.81.205.154 and unrelated to the others

My wife edits wiki so I sympathize here. I'll take your word for wife/husband accounts. However, there was definite meatpuppteting going on here. To avoid this, disclose your relationship on your user pages and don't always parrot each other. Considering that and that editing has ceased, no action taken. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)