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.

User:Lucy-marie[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Lucy-marie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Jjamesj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

Iridescent18:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Long term pattern of apparent abuse, which has just come to light today following multiple posts by User:Jjamesj on assorted transport-related talk pages. On reviewing Jjamesj's history, this account's sole contributions for the last 11 months (with the two exceptions of an edit to Nessun Dorma and the creation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makoto Sakamoto) have been to edit articles also edited by Lucy-marie on the same or previous day, to agree with Lucy-marie on talk pages, and to vote with Lucy-marie on XfDs.

Not all instances listed as the (alleged) sock account has over 50 edits, but all display the same pattern.

  1. [1] User:Jjamesj defending User:Lucy-marie as the sole editor in favour of Lucy-marie's viewpoint during discussion on WP:UKT (2007-09-20);
  2. [2] and [3] Jjamesj arguing in support of Lucymarie on Talk:East Coastway Line (2007-09-20);
  3. [4], [5] on Crossrail (2007-09-10);
  4. [6] [7] tag-teaming on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Fisher (2007-06-19);
  5. [8] [9] simultaneous edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Hannah Foster;
  6. [10] [11] tag-teaming on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Williams (murder victim);
  7. [12] [13] tag-teaming on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Danielle Jones;
  8. [14] [15] tag-team reverting on British National Party (19/20 April 2007 - many other edits this day by both accounts to this page);
  9. [16] [17] simultaneous edits to Talk:Murder of John Monckton;
  10. [18] [19] simultaneous edits to Cricket World Cup;
  11. [20] [21] simultaneous edits to Talk:Yearbook;
  12. [22] [23] edits to Person, three days apart;
  13. [24] [25] accounts revert each others' minor edits on Noel Edmonds
  14. Also deleted edits [26], [27] & [28]; Jjamesj proposes merge-and-redirect on Michael Little; merge then carried out by Lucy-marie (page has since been deleted as a redirect to a nonexistent page);
  15. Deleted talkpage conversations [29], [30], [31] — all consist of Jjamesj proposing a page for merge-and-delete, and Lucy-marie supporting.
    (Sample talkpage conversation, from Talk:Michael Little - all follow a similar line):
    Strongly recommend merging of the two article. This is because the two articles are stubs and are likely to lack notability on their own so merging creates the notability for the murder.--Jjamesj 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with merge on above stated reasons.--Lucy-marie 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous other occasions not listed; I believe the edit patterns are so similar to be beyond coincidence, and to be to such a wide range of topics that there's no realistic possibility that these are two people with similar interests — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a second look through the history and found what appears to be a smoking gun in the now-deleted history of User talk:Jjamesj; [32], [33] - User:Lucy-marie deletes a level 4 warning from User talk:Jjamesj — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is coincidental nonsense I am not a frequent editor of wikipedia and today I happened to be looking up trains. I saw the discussion and weighed in on so of the alleged tag teaming could you explain what on earth you mean. I think this is an attempt to slander me and I take it personally that coming to defend another editor and having been on the same talk pages as another editor implicitly make me a sock puppet I find it offensive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamesj (talk • contribs)

Just to clarify - while it's perfectly legitimate to have multiple user accounts on Wikipedia (I have one and so do many other editors), it is not acceptable to "tag-team" - that is, to use the accounts to appear to support each other in debates, or to circumvent the three revert rule, both of which these accounts appear to have done. Were the railway edits the only coincidential edits, I'd assume you had a shared interest in trains & think no more about it; I do not believe, however, that it is possible for two independent users to simultaneously take an interest (generally on the same day) in - among other things - units of measurements used on the British railway network, five murder victims, hard-right politics, cricket and a mid-1990s light-entertainment TV host — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The allegation here is very serious, but the evidence is extremely strong. I am especially impressed by diffs number 14 and 15, where the substance of the revert is the same and the tone and style of the edit summaries are also similar. There is just too much evidence to dismiss it as a coincidence. Shalom Hello 02:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a case of sockpuppetry, but there could room for error, so I say take it over to WP:RFCU. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Here is some more evidence [[34]],[35] of this users poor behaviour and unlwillingness to accept a consensus. It is this unwillingness to go along with a consensus, but to argue a point to the end. I know this is not evidence of sock-puppettry in itself, but this users total reluctance to back-down from an argument and accept a consensus must be a strong factor in their use of a sock-puppet. I suppose you could say that this is supporting evidence of this users poor attitude and desire to win every argument, by whatever means possible (fair and foul). Canterberry 12:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

The evidence here is very strong. I've indefinitely blocked User:Jjamesj as a sockpuppet and disruptive editor, and in any case he appears to have left Wikipedia, having had his userpage and user talk page deleted. I'd like to hear from User:Lucy-marie before taking any action there; I've asked her to comment here. In the absence of a response, I'm inclined to issue a short block. MastCell Talk 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a convincing explanation, and in light of the compelling evidence presented above, I'm going to close this as  Confirmed sockpuppetry. User:Lucy-marie has been blocked for 72 hours. MastCell Talk 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More