Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Erasmus Sydney

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Veronique Cognac (talk | contribs) at 01:49, 12 October 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


The Little Platoon

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon/Archive.

Please note that a case was originally opened under Erasmus Sydney (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon.


09 October 2020

– A user has requested CheckUser, but more information is required before deciding whether to check.

Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to be a relatively organised attempt at sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting on Australian political articles, particularly Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician), by a user who has declared they have a conflict of interest by working for sitting Australian politicians. There are numerous irregular editing and account similarities here, and what appears to be a coordinated effort to fabricate article talk page consensus.

I am willing to elaborate further on those similarities if clerks believe I should do so, I'm just not sure how much I should be describing here. There are very similar editing patterns apparent from the contributions pages of these accounts, and in the talk page comments in the following sections: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Some examples of these edits: 5, 6, 7, and plenty more.

Very unlikely that similarly new and unconnected members would be devoting significant attention to one/few articles in the same ways, on low-attention BLP articles, and make similar edits both in article and talk spaces. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I am happy to defend myself against the accusation made against me, though I am very sad that @Onetwothreeip: has made such an accusation, having already avoided working with me collaboratively on articles we are both interested in. As mentioned, I have been up front and taken myself to the COI and disclosed my connection with a number of subjects. I chose to do that after another editor @Damien Linnane: challenged me (in a nice way). Admins then encouraged me to proceed within the policy bounds. So let me be similarly up front in this matter. Some very heavy cuts were made to the page in question, and, in my view, some valuable content was lost. So I tagged editors who would be interested - everyone I could see who had made and edit recently, and some other editors who I know want to improve wikipedia. As the discussion on the talk page proceeded, I kept pinging the editors who stayed involved. Unsurprisingly, I guess, many of the editors who stayed involved are editors who have helped each other with articles and so on. And yes, some editors above have worked on content on other articles with each other, on each other's talk pages and whatnot. I know that wiki likes work to all exist within the wiki ecosystem so that's what I have tried to do. I welcome the investigation. I am interested in expanding and improving the collection of knowledge on these pages. I want to work productively and collaboratively wherever I can. Admittedly, I am newish at this, and I've learnt a few things along the way, like what represents 3RR and what doesn't, how to do BRD and so on. But I think admins and editors can see that I really do try hard to take criticism constructively, to try to reach consensus and to be respectful wherever I can. And I must say I wonder if that's what's really brought matters to this page. I've tried to bring things to a consensus on a talk page, and one editor is feeling alienated, which is not a nice feeling. If that is something that I have played a part in, I genuinely regret it and would like to find a way to do better.The Little Platoon (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some accounts you notified had already interacted with the article and some had not interacted with the article before they were notified. They all have remarkable similarities, except for myself and Damien Linnane. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* if you say so. I have already openly admitted that "I tagged editors who would be interested - everyone I could see who had made and edit recently, and some other editors who I know." It's true. I did that. I reached out to other editors I know. I did it openly. And I did it on the talk page. I am open about that. Just as I have been open about my working in the Parliament. But I know it is absolutely okay to collaborate with another editor on a topic you are both interested in.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about any conflict of interest or inappropriate canvassing. This is purely about the misuse of multiple accounts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear - I am my own person with my own views and my own opinions on what constitutes good Wikipedia edits as guided by the various policies (which I am still in the process of learning, being new to this and all). Having reviewed the accusation, I can see why Onetwothreeip might think that all of the above users are the same person given that there is some degree of crossover in editing the same articles and a few users have edited each other's drafts (I have done so occasionally after being asked for help and primarily enjoy helping others with grammar fixes and rewording being the linguistics nerd that I am). The Little Platoon did tag a bunch of users to help with the Andrew Hastie article. But is there a rule against asking a bunch of editors who might be interested in editing an article to give their 2 cents? Looking at that article's talk page, everyone seemed to be making independent contributions according to what they thought was best for the article. Maybe it comes across as biased because the people contributing to the conversation were tagged by The Little Platoon? The few users who were commenting on the Political Views section, including me, were able to come to a consensus (which, I will point out, Damien Linnane was a part of and has not been accused of being a sockpuppet). Reading the earlier part of the talk page just before the Request for comment, it looks like things got a bit heated between The Little Platoon and Onetwothreeip which is unfortunate because maybe this wouldn't have devolved into a sockpuppetry investigation if they had communicated more clearly and worked together better. Anyway, maybe the solution would be for Onetwothreeip to tag more editors they think might want to help with the Hastie article if they think The Little Platoon has created a bias in the discussion by tagging editors? More input would be great for the article in question (and any article really). And just to reiterate - I would never agree to add to an article a section being discussed that I deem to be editorialising or written from a biased perspective. My understanding is that Wikipedia encourages editors to expand on articles in helpful ways and I think any contributions that flesh out weak sections of articles in a neutral, no original research, well-referenced etc. way are a positive thing and I have sought to ensure this neutrality in all my edits as much as my ability and experience as a newbie on here allows me to. Rebellious Bird (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any account similarities between Damien Linnane and the accounts I listed. The similarities I found confirmed for me that these accounts are most likely a sockpuppetry attempt, but could potentially be individuals who are connected to each other outside Wikipedia as well, or some combination. The similarities are certainly far more than simply editing the same articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I’m not a sockpuppet. Sure, I know some Wikipedians outside of Wikipedia who sometimes ask for help to improve their writing. I wasn’t aware that you have to proclaim from the rooftops every single person you know who uses Wikipedia because that sounds like a great way to have my identity revealed. As I’m sure you can understand, I’ve met enough weirdos online that I would very much not like that to happen on this site, thanks. Again, I have never and never will help out someone I know to promote a biased view of a subject. All my edits are made in accordance to what I think is best, as informed by Wikipedia guidelines. Nobody has ever told me what to write. As I have shown time and time again, on talk pages and articles, I have publicly disagreed with some of the users in question when I thought a section was not neutral enough and sought to make it more neutral and have assisted in correcting it to be so and helped improve draft articles to try to expand Wikipedia and make it a more grammar-mistake-free place. It would be a real shame to not be able to continue doing that. If I have done something wrong then, more experienced editors, please tell me and I will endeavour to fix it. I’m still pretty new to all of this and would appreciate some understanding and patience. Rebellious Bird (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rebellious Bird, why do you feel the need to point out that I was never accused of being a sockpuppet? I've been editing Wikipedia for 12 years in countless different topic areas, I'm ranked in the top 1,500 editors by edit count and I edit using my real name. No I'm not trying to brag, my point is why would I throw away a reputation linked to my real identity that I've been building for that long, just to create alternate accounts that didn't initially agree with me over a topic I've never taken an interest in editing before I was asked to join in the conversation? Quite frankly, baseless finger-pointing is making you look more suspicious. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: Sorry you were dragged into this. I wasn't intending to accuse you of being a sockpuppet (because, as you say, you are clearly a well-established editor) - although now I realise the wording wasn't clear. I was merely pointing out that you were involved in the consensus that was reached. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia protocol of what is relevant information in these investigations so forgive me if that wasn't something I should have brought up. Anyway, whether or not I look suspicious doesn't take away from the fact that this is my only account on Wikipedia and has always been my only account. I have never edited Wikipedia as any of the accounts listed below or as any another user. Rebellious Bird (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: Thanks for your attention to this. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you have confirmed that those accounts are sockpuppets, and you would like further evidence for other accounts? It looks one of the suspected accounts has admitted that they know each other off-wiki. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: I never considered that The Little Platoon is maintaining sockpuppet accounts, nor do I have strong reason to believe he is now, but I must say there's an uncanny similarity between the four new accounts listed above, and I strongly welcome checking those accounts at the very least. Like Onetwothreeip, I also don't understand what you're saying here. Can you please confirm whether the above accounts are sock-puppets of each-other or not? And if so, what are you going to do about it? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still quite new to being a Wikipedia editor. After being encouraged to engage with this online resource, by some of the accounts listed in the investigation, I was still a bit lost as to how to develop my wiki editing skills. Wikipedia can actually be quite an intimidating beast to handle in your early editing stages. As such I was eager to contribute when @The Little Platoon: tagged me in a talk page so I could experience and participate in a BRD situation, while also refining an article of personal interest. I am not quite sure what evidence I can contribute to this discussion, other then the sentiment that collaboration doesn't necessarily equal collusion. I hope everyone can see that the the edits I made to the pages at hand take on feedback from all parties involved in the talk page discussion. Controllingchaos (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that things have come to this. I suppose you could call us a 'group of editors' in that we sometimes collaborate by asking each other online or offline to contribute independently, though we are fundamentally opposed to any form of collusion, so we have never told anyone what to write. We decided to join Wikipedia around the same same, seeking to contribute to this rich information source by improving existing pages but primarily by creating pages on notable topics/people that didn't yet exist. You can see that we have individually written and published pages on topics ranging from fashion, to linguistics and even religion. We each have different areas of knowledge, come from a large age range, variety of political views and clearly have very distinct writing styles. I want to stress that we have never told each other what to write and that we independently form our varied opinions. Please let me know if as an editor I have done anything wrong. I am increasingly familiarising myself with Wikipedia policy, and I greatly respect the this platform. As someone who deeply values truth, I have only ever sought to positively contribute to this ever-evolving information source. Veronique Cognac (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  In progress,  Confirmed:
Erasmus Sydney is  Stale. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed I'm not comfortable checking any more of these without stronger based evidence given most of the diffs provided were for the group I just revealed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onetwothreeip and Damien Linnane: I am saying that the four accounts are sockpuppets of each other. I don't routinely issue blocks for several reasons, including the seperation of my hats of CheckUser and sysop, but someone else will take care of them. What I'm asking for the more information for is to run checks on BorderTensions, Welsh Hamlet & The Little Platoon. You were right that a sock group does exist with those four, so since you are alleging that the others are socks too, they are unlikely to be part of this group that I very easily discovered in CU. Therefore to run further checks I need evidence, and there were zero diffs in the original investigation to go off of. CheckUser can't just be run because you would like to know, there has to be evidence of a possibility that they are connected. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Erasmus_Sydney&oldid=983068424"