Cherylbarksdale (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Cherylbarksdale (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ndbriggs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 64.118.217.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.123.168.188 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 69.114.105.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 198.105.46.41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I have a suspicion that Cherylbarksdale is engaged in either Sockpuppetry, Meatpuppetry or both. The user began editing on Wikipedia by trying to add a link which was deemed to be self promotion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_genital_mutilation&action=history). Following rejection of this content the IP address 64.118.217.166 also tried to add the same link to the Female Genital Mutilation page (see above link). Following rejection of this content, Cherylbarksdale created a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_Against_Female_Genital_Mutilation&action=history) based around the same content. I proposed deletion for this page, at which point IP address 64.118.217.166 rejected the deletion and began editing the page (see above link). I then notified both Cherylbarksdale and IP 64.118.217.166 that I was sending the page to AfD and that I suspected these two users were the same person and informed the user that they should only comment on that AfD from one account. IP 64.118.217.166 then indicated to me that they were not Cherylbarksdale but that they had "been informed" of my actions and then chose to get involved (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:64.118.217.166&diff=478324950&oldid=478324792). Shortly after this user account Ndbriggs was created and commented in support of Cherylbarksdale not having sockpuppets on her talk page, Ndbriggs also gave Cherylbarksdale a barnstar for creating the article I nominated for AfD (Conversation at Cherylbarksdale's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cherylbarksdale#Campaign_Against_Female_Genital_Mutilation_2, Editing history of Ndbriggs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ndbriggs, the only edits this user has made is supportive comments on Cherylbarksdale's page). Once Cherylbarksdale was aware of the AfD she commented on keeping the article on the AfD page. Proceeding her comment, the IP address 74.123.168.188 commented in support of keeping the article with a long paragraph that did not cite policy and told me that I could not disprove Cherylbarksdales claims without taking a trip to Africa like the user did, the user did not sign their comment and only began editing around the same time Cherylbarksdale did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.123.168.188). Following Cherylbarksdale's comments in support IP address 69.114.105.51 likewise commented in support of keeping the article and did not sign their comment, this user's only edits were to the AfD page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.114.105.51). Link to the AfD page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campaign_Against_Female_Genital_Mutilation. As before, I am not sure whether this is wholesale Sockpuppetry or not, but given that one of these IP addresess stated that they "were informed" and that the others only began editing, and in support of Cherylbarksdale for the AfD I am suspicious. Cherylbarksdale has also tried to discredit me on the AfD page once I had informed her of my belief of sockpuppetry. Vietminh (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Is it against wiki policy to alert people knowledgeable on the subject to defend the article from being deleted? Please advise. The users claims are partially correct. I did alert people in my medical educational community who are knowledgeable in the field about what Vietminh did in terms of nominating the article for deletion. But I did that in good faith and also called for the general wiki community to weigh in on the deletion request. Some of these people may have never edited wiki so it is possible to be their first posting. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think this users attacks on me constitutes vandalism. This is a biased user as their history shows they have heavily edited information on female genital mutilation. In fact their very first contribution was on the wiki FGM page! Cherylbarksdale (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is against Wikipedia policy to recruit like minded people either in or outside of Wikipedia in an attempt to influence a decision to your benefit (please see WP:MEAT for a full explanation of how and why the actions you took are against policy). I attempted to address this with you and the people in your medical/educational community which I believed to be sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but I was met with a negative response from all in question. I therefore referred this matter here for investigation. Also, I have not vandalized you (see:WP:VANDALISM for what vandalism is), and the actions I have taken are not an attack on you, but an attempt to find out the truth of what is going on here. I assumed good faith, got a negative response, and therefore referred this matter here as a last resort. Vietminh (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have commented on the Cherylbarksdale's page and offered to close this investigation if they formally acknowledge the violation of policy here. The user's comments make it clear that they were not aware of the relevant policy and were acting in good faith, the investigation is therefore unnecessary. The only thing that needs to be ascertained is whether the user understands how what they did violates policy.Vietminh (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: First, Ndbriggs has made exactly zero edits in mainspace, so I don't see much justification for a block there in terms of abuse of multiple accounts. I think what we're seeing here is coordinated meatpuppetry. In terms of the AFD, mark all the IPs with ((spa)). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]