Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Strikeout Sister
| request links: main • edit • links • history • watch Filed: 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC) |
- 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.
SIS10:51, 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 in WP:AN, 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.
SIS22:20, 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 in WP:AN, 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)