Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wilhelmina Will

User:Wilhelmina Will

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Waterboyrocks left vandalism messages on Aleta's talk page, I reported the user and Waterboyrocks was blocked. Here the user admits to being able to change the IP address within 10 seconds. The user constantly reverted edits by Mears man. Waterboyrocksagain has an obvious similar name and vandalized the blocking admin talk page, as well as mine. User was blocked. Boobybooshay left the same "ROFL" vandalization comments on mine and Aleta's talk pages. User was blocked. 123.242.230.161 left antagonizing comments on my talk page. The user constantly reverted edits by Mearsman. 79.72.86.243 leaves this comment on Waterboyrocks' talk page. 123.242.230.161 mentions this on my talk page. User235 replaced my talk page with a graphic porn picture and said he has down syndrome. I reported the user and User235 was blocked, but kept asking to be unblocked by playing dumb. 84.16.230.15 leaves vandalizing comments on mine and Jayron32's talk pages and talks about down syndrome and not feeding the trolls (in a sarcastic manner). The user also comments on Anberlin (this is explained below). Ther user is blocked and on their unblock request they say "block unwarranted, did not harass anyone. Blocked without the first warning, and did not harass ANYONE for that matter." User:Wilhelmina Will comments on the user's page about down syndrome. After I had reported User235, Wilhelmina (who I've never talked to before) began leaving messages about how the user wasn't a sock and talking about the user having down syndrome (this is the main reason I suspect this user...that and the timing of their post on the IP's page...Jayron32 mentions there's something odd going on between Wilhilmenia and this IP), defending the sock in a looong discussion that ran over to WP:AIV (I was reported for removing messages that was left after I politely asked Wilhelmina to stop posting on my page) and WP:ANI (When the block was decline, Wilhelmina reports me here. Wilhelmina continued to leave messages like this (after admins told Wilhelmina on ANI to stop leaving me messages or it would be considered harassment) admitting it was a form of retaliation and attack. 207.218.231.219, 66.240.236.15, 66.240.236.60, 64.15.157.49, 64.15.157.54 and 64.15.157.52 all revert edits on Anberlin. 217.20.127.243 vandalizes Jayron32's talk page, leaves warning on Mears Man's page and reverts on Anberlin. 217.20.127.223 leaves the same vandal message on Jayron32's page, as does 123.242.230.165. Jayron mentions this on ANI.
 * Evidence

Most of these IPs are obviously SOCKS. IMO, Wilhelmina's comments on mine, Jayron32, and other talk pages imply he/she is all about mind games and sarcastic comments (like leaving the down syndrome comment after ALL of this stuff was discussed on ANI, my talk page, her/his talk page, etc. Jayron is suspicious as well, with good reason. Wilhilmenia has now cleared his/her userpage for some unknown reason. On a side note, there was a userbox on his/her userpage (before deletion) that said "The sanity of this user has been disputed." That's a direct quote. Also, Wilhilmina left these messages on TTN's talk page. With phrases such as "Please, TTN, I'm really scared now!" which is similar to the language left on User235's talk page by User235.


 * Comments

Defense: This is a lie! I am not a sockpuppet! I have been consistently on this account I am on, for the last nine months! I have always been a diligent contributor to Wikipedia, never doing something I thought was seriously wrong until I learned in February how important civility is to other users. I have since tried to behave myself when speaking, with this AgnosticPreachersKid ordeal being the only slip-up since then. I've already said to you that I promise to leave you alone; why do you still bug me? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment After posting this case, Wilhelmina left this comment on ANI claiming I'm somehow against women and repeatedly mentions being a female. IMHO, it's a way to cast doubt that she/he could have made the first few usernames mentioned in this case. If it's not that, then it's just an excuse to tell people they're anti-woman. Also, since completely wiping out his/her userpage, Wilhelmina has replaced it with this message and this edit seen below. I don't know if it's too come across as more religious or what. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is all coincidence, I say! ALL coincidence! Oh why did I ever speak to you! I should have known better! I should have seen it ahead of time! Ah, my dear grandmother. What would you have done? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll prove to you all that I speak the truth, in the one way no one except those who don't fear The Lord would ever deny. "Let God strike down all those Wikipedia editors I've ever interacted with, including myself, before April 10th if I am indeed a sockpuppet!" Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cos asking God to strike down people you don't like always works. :rolls eyes: - Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean including all the ones I like. :rolls eyes back: 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelmina Will (talk • contribs)

Comment I don’t believe this was pointed out above, but 64.15.157.52 left this comment on my user page after I got my talk page semi-protected to cut down on the attacks from IP’s in relation to the Anberlin article. Among other things, it contains religious overtones, which seems to be a popular theme in many of these user's edits. —Mears man (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it not be that I'm not the only religious person on Wikipedia? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment The same IP left this message. Notice "What good would blocking an IP range do? I can make my IP adress what I want, and when I want with all completely new numbers." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That person was wrong. An IP address will always remain the same. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not true. IPs can be changed somewhat easily, although I personally can't remember how. Even then there's the possibility of using a proxy server and all kinds of junk like that. Lastbetrayal (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' I have to reguarly update my IP, since the older ones after a time stop working. For me it's as simple as unplugging the cord and turning the power completely off. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to add 123.242.230.163 to the list of suspected sockpuppets, but I wasn't sure if I could just add it to the list at the top (I haven't had too much experience dealing with sockpuppets, so please forgive my ignorance). This IP commented on Anberlin's talk page, left a vandalism warning on my talk page, and reverted an edit I had made to Hairspray (2007 film). This seems to follow a similar pattern set by some of the other IP accounts. Additionally, the IP is in the same range as some of the other suspected sockpuppets, furthering my suspicions. —Mears man (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add it to the list. Anyone is free to add additional socks as they pop up.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So anytime there's ever a sock puppet account on Wikipedia, it's mine? Grow up. I'm going to take a wiki-break, for a time, and I suggest the rest of us do the same. There has to be something better to do than act out Alice in Wonderland here. G'day. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He added it because it's a similar IP to the one already listed that vandalized Jayron32's page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good thing you said that just before I caught my flight, so to speak. But I think, from your basis at the top of this page, you've said that one of the socks kept reverting edits by another user? Well look what you did with mine on your talk! How do I know you're not the real sockpuppeteer here, and you've set this up to shift the blame? Can you defend yourself on that? I've got three extra tickets for wiki-breaks, I'll let this whole thing go and give you one of them if you're willing to let the thing drop. It's frankly getting ridiculous, as I believe even Jayron said. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, Jayron said your actions were getting ridiculous, not the sock inquiry as evidenced by his comments on this page. It doesn't matter if you let it go and want me to do the same thing. The case has been filed because of reasonable suspicions by me and others. Accusing me of being a sockpuppeteer is getting desperate, especially since there is absolutely no evidence of me being one or having a reason to be one. You're trying to point fingers because you've been accused. If you're innocent, then there is nothing to worry about and all this will be sorted out during your 'vacation.' Lastly, comparing me to the sock when I reverted your harassment edits (which you were told to stop, but you kept on, much like the other users and IPs listed)) is also desperate. Enjoy your flight? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment At first, I took Wilhelmina at face value. Then, once I started receiving unusual interlaced postings from Wilhelmina and some abusive IPs, it became clear that something was amiss. It should be noted that here: I arrived at the conclusion that shenanigans were going on quite prior to APK's initiation of this SSP report; given that multiple people have heard this quacking going on, something is clearly amiss. I would recommend a checkuser to check this out, given the suspicious nature of these edits... I fully endorse the evidence that APK has provided above. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 16:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop; I have sworn myself to be true. What good comes of sockpuppeting here, anyway? I promised I would let the incident with AgnosticPreachersKid go, and I have for the most part. He however, felt it necessary to soil my good name with this slanderous filth. "Wilhelmina Will" is my actual name, in life, and I've always thought it silly not to use your actual name in your account. Besides, take a look at User:The Chronic and User:Tha Chronic. They were completely different people, and look how similar were their names. Also, look at my contributions, from start to finish. Looking at the contribs of those listed users, much of what they've done to articles on Wikipedia is vandalism. I have never vandalised a single page. I may lose my temper to other users at times, even now, and I may harp on them long past the limit, but vandalism is one shame I can never hold to my history. Plus, at least two of those users has claimed to have had down syndrome, which I do not have. How can a grade A student in school have down syndrome? Cool it, APK. I promised to leave you alone, and requested you do the same, how can I fulfill my end of the bargain if you don't call this whole nonsense off? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "I promised I would let the incident with AgnosticPreachersKid go, and I have for the most part. You forgot to mention those attack pages that were deleted. You know, the ones that mentioned my name. You added my name to that attack page even before I posted this case. I was in the middle of typing all this and all I had to do was follow your contribution history to find out the info stated above. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is well known that a common ploy of disruptive users is to use "good hand" and "bad hand" accounts, whereby they keep one account "clean" will maintaining shenanigans with all of the others. It is also not uncommon for an editor to switch quickly from one account to another to make it seem as though they are two different people, or even to have the "good" account reprimand the "bad" account.  That Wilhelmina Will account has not vandalised means little; the compelling evidence here is the unusual "knowledge" that Wilhelmina Will has over the actions of the IP addresses in question.  The pattern of edits shows that Wilhelmina "knows" what the IPs/socks do before anyone else, and rushes to their "defense", often apropos of nothing... That unusual pattern of edits clearly shows something fishy here, and is, as yet, unexplained.  Perhaps checkuser seems warrented at this point?!?--Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well excuse me for trying to be kind to other users. When I interact with another user, or after I edit an article, I always add it to my watchlist. My watchlist is something I look at a lot, and therefore I often notice these things happen as they happen. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record, Wilhelmina Will has been a respected user on the Land Before Time Wiki for a while  now, and I haven't seen evidence of sockpuppetry or anything. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentWhether or not WW is a respected user on that Wiki, his/her actions on this site point in the other direction. Harassment (and a previous block for it), nonsense comments on ANI and this page, etc. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation: So AgnosticPreachersKid is mainly suspecting me because of what I said about the user he reported. Look, I have reported vandalizers on AIV before, and as I said, if I edit something, I put it on my watchlist. This was one of those cases. I then noticed this happen, and I often like to read reports; don't ask me why. Then I noticed he said this user was a sockpuppet, and I read his example. It didn't seem to me like the user was admitting to sockpuppetry, and I told him this. He then said I was defending the guy, and on no basis did he say that. After this went on for a while, he told me not to post to him again. I just wanted to say before the discussion closed that I was not "defending" him; I merely don't like it when people blame others for the wrong things. I investigated the users contribs, and I saw that he had performed a lot of vandalism, and I thought this was the right reason to block him. I do not want vandalistic editors free to roam Wikipedia, and I said this. APK has every right to do as he wishes to his userpages, of course, but when he removed that comment, I felt he didn't consider my opinions important, and I felt insulted, so I reported him. I don't even remember all that happened after that, except that other users started saying nasty things about my userpage, so I removed all but the one thing I hold close to heart; the images of France. Now this has happened, and I am saying what I've said. This was all a misunderstanding. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment You guys are nuts.  Wilhelmina is a nosy, irritating, immature and offensive busybody of an editor with a penchant for harassing other editors and damaging South Park articles in a misguided attempt to elevate her beloved South Park Wiki above Wikipedia, but she's no sockpuppet of any of the IP's listed above.  I've examined their diffs and they're nothing like her editing or commenting style.  They may be socks of each other, but WW doesn't fit in there anywhere.  This entire report stinks of payback for her offense of sticking her nose into something she had no business with, and for her continuing to push APK beyond a tolerable level on his user page.  I'm no fan of Wilhelmina Will, and perhaps I have no place sticking my own nose into this, but this attempt to sanction her is misguided at best and anathema at worst.  Take your own advice, guys, and do what you've told her repeatedly to do: let it drop.  You're shooting at the wrong target. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ever heard of WP:NPA? We're nuts and WW is all the things you mentioned? If she's not a SOCK, then yes, we'll let it drop and the real SOCK will be discovered. Until the case is settled, I'd take your own advice as well and don't stick your nose into this. Thanks. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Yes, she violates WP:NPA, and when she does she should be blocked.  Yes, she's all those things, and when she is she should be blocked.  But no, she's not a sock and this report is a mistake, as anyone with a bit of common sense who peruses the diffs will see.  And this case, like all such, is open for comments from any editor.  I don't like Wilhelmina Will, but even though I've had problems with her I've never tried to retaliate by accusing her of being something she's not, like you are doing.  -- Captain Infinity (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Um, I was pointing out your personal attacks in your previous comment. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. -- Captain Infinity (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why has an RFCU not been filed? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably because this isn't a real sockpuppet situation, but just elaborate retaliatory harassment. --Captain Infinity (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, seriously. Mind your own business. I haven't filed it because I didn't know that was the next step. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Speaking of NPA, mentioning the 'side note' of WW's userbox ("The sanity of this user has been disputed") and the clearing of her UserPage in the evidence seems rather unprofessional and gives credence with Captain Infinity's conclusions -- that this report is purely retaliatory. As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with this case and should be disregarded. Why was it even bought up? --Is this fact...? 19:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think my mentioning of the userbox was an attack, then that's your prerogative. But you're mistaken. More than one user found WW's actions suspicious and you didn't witness what all took place that day, so I'm not sure why you're even commenting here. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply Don't try to dismiss me like that. Wikipedia was designed for anyone to edit -- including me. You assume that I didn't read it from the sidelines. I could have. Whether I went through the details or not is not relevant to you right now.


 * You said that 'more than one' person found WW suspicious. What other users, specifically? All that all adds up to hearsay.


 * Besides, there are about 107 users with this userbox. Should we all suspect them of Wiki-trolling? And why is it any of our business what another user does with his or her userpage? How does blanking one's own page automatically constitute as Sockpuppetry?


 * As for her motive, there's no great mystery involved. In the page's history, Will said herself that it was because "Other Wikipedians don't like it." Apparently, the same attitude that I'm addressing now is what caused her to eliminate the page in the first place. --Is this fact...? 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to argue. If you want an example of another user, read Jayron32's comments above. I'm not sure what your agenda is on this page, but you weren't an involved party and I don't know why you're choosing to argue about this. The case was filed (for reasons stated above) and a checkuser was performed. Let the issue drop. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no hidden agenda nor am I wanting an argument. I'm here to point out that mentioning how a user decorates her page is rather weakening to the case in general. If you toss that kind of dirt you'll start to lose ground. --Is this fact...? 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your "opinion." Bye-bye.  APK  yada yada  09:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Hey AgnosticPreachersKid, It appears that all users involved, including you, were not following WP:AGF guidelines: "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives.". If you suspect someone is a sock puppeteer, get the facts first through a checkuser at WP:RfCU. If an admin agrees with you, he'll give you the confirmation you need. Otherwise, all you are doing in here is helping overload the RSP system. Jrod2 (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RFCU result was "Inconclusive No technical evidence connects Wilhelmina Will, who is on a well-behaved residential IP, with the rest of these editors. They are clearly related, but have been editing from a mix of confirmed open proxies and possible proxies." The named socks in this case have already been blocked, so they're a moot point. As the IPs are proxies, nothing left to do here. If more solid behavioral evidence arises, file a new case. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions