Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gothgirlangel1981
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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.
[edit] User:Gothgirlangel1981
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Gothgirlangel1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Steven Hipkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Evidence
User:Gothgirlangel1981 began editing in August 2007. User:Steven Hipkins first appeared only one month ago in Jan 2008. Both self-identify as being from the UK. The edits of both users are almost exclusively in the area of sex and gender identity. The articles edited in common include Boyfriend, Girlfriend, Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) and Phat pants. Even edits to articles that are not obviously gender related are often in fact gender related, such as this one to Phat pants by SH and this one by GG to the same article. In both cases "male" was placed in front of several words. This fascination with gender terms can also be seen in today's editing where both editors insisted the BSA was the largest boy youth organization in America where in fact is the largest, regardless of gender membership. (BSA is in fact partly coed). SH's edits to the BSA article today are here: [1], [2], [3], [4]. GG's edits to the BSA article today are here: [5], [6], [7]. Also today, both kept changing edits to GSUSA from "girls" to "young people" or "young persons" when it is in fact girls-only (see GSUSA's own website). SH's edits on the GSUSA article today here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. GG's edits on GSUSA article today here: [12], [13].
Their language and interests are strikingly similar.
Both users use deceptive edit summaries, claiming things that did not happen. For example, see this edit, where the summary is "Modify Date Stamps, grammar errors", but the diff shows no date stamps being modified and no grammar errors being fixed, it's just insertion of "male" for the most part. An example from GG, where the summary says "removal of irrelevant info - reedited lower section", but the info was relevant and there were no lower section edits. There's also this edit where the summary is "Removed info by vandalistic editor."; but the edit clearly wasn't vandalism.
Edit comparison tool results: here
Also note that when GG stopped editing today at 22:49, SH started up at 22:52, a mere 3 minutes later, when SH had not edited in 24 days. On 30 Jan (the last day where SH edited prior to today), SH stops editing at 15:48 and GG starts at 15:55, only seven minutes later.
We have interests, time of edits never overlapping, deceptive edit summaries, tag team disruptive edit warring on BSA/GSUSA (which SH was warned for), and general location linking them together and violating WP:SOCK. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
Was bored so I looked through this case --and it's looks pretty convincing. Both seem to have some kind of "gender issue". They take turns editing (blocks of editing). Common articles of interest and same POV in those articles. A precipitating event (in the form of a dispute on the part of Gothgirlangel1981 on scouting articles and maybe "Phat pants") provides a "reason" to create a sockpuppet, in order to fake support. Recommend running a CU to confirm, but there seems to be enough evidence without it in the case it comes back as "inconclusive". I would be extremely surprised if it came back "unrelated." R. Baley (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Conclusions
The evidence of sockpuppetry looks very convincing. Indef blocking sock, and 24 hour block for the master. Dreadstar † 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
