Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Strikeout Sister

Strikeout Sister

• Strikeout Sister (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• D: (possible vote stacking)

• Supporting evidence: This user recently voted on a request for adminship, with a controversial viewpoint. I ended up discussing the vote with this user here, but it soon turned into an argument, and in the end the user reported me to the admin noticeboard for alleged personal attacks. The thread has since developed, and it is agreed I did not make any personal attacks. Strikeout Sister then announced he or she has "no wish to stay here" and subsequently blanked his or her userpage and talk page.

I decided to look into the history of this user following this bizarre behaviour. I expected to see a longer history, but this user registered on 5th August, just less than 3 weeks ago. Their fourth edit was installing Twinkle, and used edit summaries etc from the start. Basically I think this user is a sockpuppet of someone. Perhaps a bad hand account, but I find the pattern of edits highly suspicious. Hardly any editors find RfA so fast in their wiki-career, nor do they know of noticeboards, policies as fast as this user. The fact they installed Twinkle on their fourth edit was the icing on the cake for me. There's no way a brand new editor would know about Twinkle on their first day. Majorly ^talk 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Defense I never expected that being the spouse of an experienced (and helpful) WP editor would cause me problems like this. So for the record: yes, of course a brand new editor wouldn't install Twinkle. Not without help, anyway. Vote stacking? Never. Sock puppet? Not. Fed up with WP after just 3 weeks? Very much so. I'm being shot down with false accusations and that's something I really don't like. I am allowed to feel that way, am I? Goodbye, thanks.    SIS  10:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You do understand how your actions may have looked suspicious to someone who didn't know. Majorly ^talk 14:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 Clerk note: should we delist it? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Delisting may be premature. I think it is not unreasonable to ask User:Strikeout Sister whether or not her edits or !votes ever intersected with those of her "spouse."   user:j    (aka justen)   16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of a disconnect here. Yes, the spouse explanation is plausible, but socks often come up with plausible explanations for their instant expertise, which is why we don't block for that alone. But it raises suspicion, as Majorly noted. Again, Strikeout_Sister's claims of incivility, though not technically correct, are understandable. Except for that spouse. I'd think he or she would have explained that Majorly's alleged incivility was merely strong argument, and that if she is going to get involved in contentious process here, she should expect worse than that. I would never recommend to my spouse getting involved here, other than as an occasional editor. I certainly wouldn't teach her about AN/I, RfA, etc., right away, without warning her about the environment.--Abd (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have recommended people join Wikipedia, for the reason why we're here: to write articles. I think it's very odd that a spouse would recommend vandal fighting and making controversial RfA votes. Majorly ^talk 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Did your driving instructor tell you WHERE to drive? No, he told you HOW to drive. Where you go after that is your own business. Same here. And if you thought my behaviour was suspicious, I have (or rather, had) a Talk page. You could have asked before accusing me of sockpuppetry. (By the way, ever seen a vandal-fighting sock puppet with rollback rights?) Final note, as I already stated, we've never stacked votes or rigged the system otherwise. We care(d) about WP. Bloody hell, does my edit history looks like a vandal's? Have I ever been warned or blocked? Any article I disrupted? No, no, and no. All I did was say in an RfA that I don't believe a 14 year-old should be an admin, and now I have to defend myself against (in my opinion) ridiculous accusations. I knew nasty things can/will happen on WP but I didn't expect them to come from admins. WP:AGF. Thanks.    SIS  22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she's a fast study, but this just doesn't sound like such a new editor, even if coached, unless she's being told what to say. Puzzlement, though, isn't evidence. Maybe she just got it all in a flash, naturally. However, as to the question, sock puppets don't exist just to vandalize. They also exist to bolster views about where Wikipedia should go. Yes, I bet there are vandals with roll-back rights, i.e., editors who have roll-back rights who also have a "bad hand account," or who vandalize with IP edits. No, Strikeout_Sister, you've never been warned or blocked, as far as we know. But you are sounding a bit like some who have. Does that mean you are a sock? No, but it does mean that I can understand Majorly's suspicion, it makes me suspicious, too. I don't know about checkuser policy if there isn't a specific puppet master alleged, I'd thought that we didn't do that, but it seems, as well, that I've seen examples where it's been done. Strikeout_Sister, you had a right to express that opinion about 14-year-olds, but it was, in fact, a prejudiced comment, as Majorly pointed out. You have prejudged the ability of 14-year-olds to handle the responsibilities of an administrator. That's the definition of prejudice. Does that mean we should allow it? No, maybe the prejudice has a reasonable basis. I don't think so, but that's just my personal opinion. And it's all dicta here. A checkuser either takes this or doesn't, but I advised Strikeout_Sister, elsewhere, to fully disclose her relationship with her husband's account (if not publicly, then privately, perhaps with a checkuser or some trusted administrator), and I do think that checkuser could clear the air. Suspicion can breed incivility, and we already have too much of that.--Abd (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Majorly - I would say that you probably should have asked somebody else to look at this and see what they thought, rather than bringing this here yourself. It may not be contrary to policy, but there are more graceful and tactful things to do than bringing a case originating from a dispute with a user who opposed an RFA you co-nominated, whatever has happened at AN. I generally have respect for your edits, but equally would respectfully suggest that you should withdraw this request and avoid interacting with this user for now, if at all possible. If a request needs to be brought, let somebody else do it. Brilliantine (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with interacting with Majorly in future, providing it's civil, so as far as I'm concerned there's no reason for him to avoid it. I'm not going to attack him. I've had my say at WP:AN and (fortunately) more and more editors/admins are now beginning to defend me and my RfA vote. That's reassuring and makes me think that WP is maybe not as bad a snakepit as it looked 24 hours ago.    SIS  01:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) It is regrettable that you have had to deal with much greater scrutiny than most editors would normally encounter in their first few weeks of editing. In defense of those who have raised questions, you did express some opinions very quickly and very strongly, which can raise eyebrows if you've only been editing for an extremely short period of time. In your defense, you have made a good faith (if understandably distressed) effort to address that criticism. I hope you will consider giving the project a second chance: Wikipedia can be tough sometimes (trust me, I know), but the satisfaction of contributing to the project can be a great thing. It looks like you may well stick around, and I hope that's the case. As to this checkuser, I'm thinking it should probably be delisted. Majorly, are you considering withdrawing it at this point? Take care, all,   user:j    (aka justen)   01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The only allegation of disruption against Strikeout Sister is vote stacking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93. This is tantamount to accusing one of the other opposing editors of operating a sockpuppet account, is it not? If there aren't two accounts run by the same person voting oppose in the RfA, vote stacking is not taking place. But where is the evidence that it is? All I see above is evidence that Strikeout Sister has had an account before. There shouldn't be an RFCU opened without anything pointing to actual disruption caused by sockpuppetry. Darkspots (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Darkspots. There may be reason to suspect that Strikeout Sister is not a new editor on Wikipedia, but the fact remains, no sufficient evidence has been provided to indicate possible votestacking by two (or more) accounts. Fishing, anyone? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)