Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carriearchdale/Archive


Carriearchdale

Carriearchdale (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11 July 2014
Suspected sockpuppets


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility

To provide background, Carriearchdale was recently blocked for continuous harassment of Daniellagreen and a wide variety of other editors to a less extreme point. Throughout her enthusiastic yet highly troubled stay here at wikipedia, she was taken to ANI by other editors a variety of times and has taken other editors to ANI, like Daniella (seen here, [1], she would take things to ANI for senseless and unfounded reasons that eventually got her WP:BOOMERGANG for her continuous unfounded accusations. She even dared taking the issue right to Jimbo Wales' talk page, seen here: [2]


She has - or had, rather - a consistent behaviour of consistently taking things to ANI that were insensible and irrelevant, as you will see below.

In all of these cases, the entire community at ANI has dismissed them as just so - rubbish, except, notably, for one user - Bob the goodwin.

The prime reason I suspect these two of sock puppetry is for their continuous support of each other whenever another found themselves under criticism or taking something to ANI which (to be frank), no editor other than Carriearchdale would take seriously. These two do not necessarily have similar article interests, but that says nothing to the possibility of them being the same person: Carriearchdale was smart enough to somehow gain reviewer rights only a month after her first edit, [3], meaning she is likely intelligent enough to disguise her sock.

Admittedly, Carrie does seem to be far more incompetent in terms of grammatical skills, but if she was attempting to partake in trolling, this could be explainable. The accounts were also either created or became active again at roughly the same time. However, as odd and nonsensical as Carrie is, her contributions can actually tend to be intellectual, she has successfully contributed to 21 different wikis, and is fluent in many languages, so I have no doubt that she could also have an extensive knowledge of medical practice. Her conduct used to be slightly more civilized as she first started, similar to how Bob the goodwin first behaved, seen here: [4] She didn't use to behave in the manner that got her banned, which means she could easily be Bob or any other number of people that act slightly more civil.

All instances of Carrie and Bob the goodwin nonsensically acting as sock puppets by repeatedly supporting each other in every instance of an ANI or other conflict

  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7] (both Carriearchdale and Bob the goodwin seemed to have carried an odd grudge against user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, as they both made ANI reports about him consecutively. Carrie's nonsensical ANI report is here: [8]

Other instances of similarities

  • Both Carriearchdale and Bob the goodwin became active around New Year's 2014 - [9], [10] (although Carrie's account did exist since 2007, it had no contributions till 2014)

Bob has recently become inactive, but with the risk of whomever is possibly behind these two accounts continuing their harassment spree on another innocent contributor , I think proper investigation is required. If these two are not the same user, they obviously have some sort of predetermined bias in support of each other. Since Carriearchdale is likely a "Grade A troll", a check user may reveal any other accounts she prepared either way, as she is just the type of person to do so, based on how adamant she is. I may well be wrong, but given the circumstances, I think the evidence is here for a check user. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I am not entirely familiar with how blocking works on wikipedia, so if any possible issues were taken care of already when Carrie was indefinitely banned, I apologize and would thus withdraw my investigation. If not, it stands. FlipandFlopped ツ 14:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note - It's late and I've allowed myself to become engulfed in further understanding this request based on what Bob the goodwin has said. Bob the goodwin has outlined a version of events in which, if true, is a very, very easy situation to misunderstand, especially to a talk page stalker who is more familiar with the side of Carriarchdale recently displayed in the last month. Repeatedly taking the side of an editor in incidents all over wikipedia due to sympathy or being in a very similar situation raises a major red flag at SPI, and is obviously not from an NPOV. If Bob is telling the truth, then I apologize for putting him through the SPI, but I would still ask of reviewing clerk or check user to take the previous evidence I provided into account when accepting or declining FlipandFlopped ツ 06:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Response - after hearing from Bob the Goodwin, OhanaUnited, and Occultzone, I accept that an instance of meat puppetry is quite possibly what has occurred here rather than an instance of sock puppetry. My suspiciousness of Bob the Goodwin is far from over with, however, especially after reading some of his essay about his troubles on wikipedia possibly being attributed to paid editing and how wikipedia systematically accepts it (a topic Carrie practically obsessed over during his wikibreak)


Since Bob the Goodwin seems to have clarified that he is disinterested in the project anyway, I won't really pursue this investigation further. I'll leave it up to you or any others as what should be done. If Bob the Goodwin resumes editing, and I find it necessary to take this back to SPI or any other appropriate platform after observing more similar/worrying behaviour, then I will, but for now, I have decided to let this investigation be. FlipandFlopped ツ 01:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

More of Meatpuppetry, issue shall be discussed with Bob the goodwin. You've already notified, I can wait.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've got enough evidence about meatpuppetry, but I am not sure what bob the goodwin will do now, Carriearchdale has made no significant contribution to any wikipage so I don't know any page that will prompt her to edit or even request a unblock. Carriearchdale would make a few edits if she is operating another account. SPI got backlog, you can still wait for more evidence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am no longer active in Wikipedia. I have a lot of hate in my heart about the experience at Wikipedia, and I liked and supported Carrie, and felt like she was being maligned. I cannot imagine how I would be accused of either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry, as either requires disquising identity or intent. I am Bob Goodwin, you can email me at [email protected], or you can see some public writing that I have done to expose the bad acting in Wikipedia. Because this was put together politely, I will not go on a rant, which I really want to do because of all the anger I still hold. I tried to make friends on Wikipedia, and it all swung back at me as playing in the sand box badly. I made ANI's against people too, but if you look at the ANI's I was pointing out abusive behavior. I now realize that abusive behavior is tolerated, but being an unsuccessful contributor is not. Look in my sand box. You will see an enormous amount of effort that I was putting into taking highly referenced, neutral and quality work into Wikipedia. I failed because of the abusive environment, a sense of ownership by the incumbents and probably worst of all a complete unwillingness to be abused quietly. I wrote a published article about the bad experiences at Wikipedia. You will also see them under the byline bob Goodwin. I am an engineer at Microsoft, and I thought Carrie was right, and the abusers were wrong. But my opinion does not count, but it is neither Sock Puppetry or Meat puppetry if the opinion is genuine, and no deception was made. I am the only person I know who will not even hide their actual name. I do have some emails from the person behind Carrie, and I can find her identity if you want, but all I remember is she got a graduate degree from Stanford in Writing and runs a couple of small businesses and charities. I also know she lives in a rural county about an hour or two from where I live.

I think looking at my history, sand box and dialog, you will find that I tried to make friends, and that I gave up on all the assholes in Wikipedia. Send me an email if you want and I will tell you anything else you want.

Thanks for being polite in your accusations, otherwise all the hate in my heart for Wikipedia would have exploded.

BobBob the goodwin (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over your notes above. I think calling my Wolfowitz ANI an odd grudge requires that you start with the assumption that I was a sock/meat. If you retract that assumption, I think you will find incredibly abusive behavior on his part against me, and in one case where I made a mistake, I apologized to him. But that does not detract from the point that he was/is completely abusive, did not follow the rules of Wikipedia, and deserved to have me start an ANI against him. I was careful and detailed and fair in all of my ANIs, but concluded that nobody cared about the rules, and thus I could be of no help to Wikipedia unless I was willing to be silently abused, which is not compatible with my personality. Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These summaries have logic? I won't decide, but I can understand that Bob the goodwin may have supported Carriearchdale in good faith, but now he doesn't seem to be supporting her, at least he didn't commented on ANI or her own talk page for last 1 month. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will say it again. I liked Carrie. I really don't want to spend the time to look into the story that has everyone so worked up, but if I did, I might still think she had points. I am a rational person, so if she was getting in the way of the project I would not see that as a good thing, but I am not sure I am so thrilled with the implied threat that if I spoke up for her, that would mean that I was a bad guy too. But in a way, I am not much value to Wikipedia, because I couldn't contribute much without attracting buzz saws, so the implied threat has little to do with me be honest in my opinions, and has more to do with the aggressive community being at homeostasis.Bob the goodwin (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I perused a lot of the stuff on Carrie. She definitely got on the wrong side of the crowd, but my sense is that the project didn't care if she was right, and mostly didn't want a trouble maker. It feels like the project is just fine with hidden paid editors, and there are probably a ton of them out there, but the project has very little supervision, and does not want anyone taking up oxygen by complaining. That is probably why I failed as well, as I was horrified at the aggressive games that undermined scholarship. I tried to make a case against her as I read the stuff, but it mostly came down to the idea that people wanted her gone, people pulled the plug because there was too much ink. I would mentor Carrie to be different in life, but I think you've all done her a favor by giving her a life again. Wikipedia publishes what the most aggressive person wants. There's a lot of money to be made if you can control the truth. The mob spilled over in their anger, and went after me? Why does so much anger float in this place? I hope I am wrong. I am done being mad, and want friends and not enemies. Go make good edits, and help the project. I can't. Bob the goodwin (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OhanaUnited, we agreed and Flipandflopped has basically withdrawn the investigation after hearing from Bob the goodwin that he is not going to join Carriearchdale's notes. I wonder if he is even going to edit wikipedia as much as he did before. But like I said before, this page will still remain or it can be recreated only if there is any evidence of meatpuppetry or sock. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: I echo what User:OccultZone said. It looks like meatpuppet more than sockpuppet. Carrie uses edit summary extensively while Bob rarely uses it. To me, that suggests they're two individuals. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Delisted as it was withdrawn OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • OhanaUnited, if you are clerking again, please move yourself back to active. We could certainly use the help. :-)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

19 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

  • Desibee55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Shyam Hewitt (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Carlieson (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Steveapalmer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)


  • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
  • Editor interaction utility
  • Shyam Hewitt and Desibee55 are both WP:SPA and have both seemingly engaged in undisclosed paid editing on different articles: Richard B. Herman and Alex Becker.
  • Shyam Hewitt and Desibee55 have both used images uploaded to Wikipedia that were released from the same flickr account. The flickr account has only three images and whose seeming purpose is only to provide images for Wikipedia articles. One of the images clearly has a copyright watermark suggesting that they've been falsely flagged as being able to be released under a CC license.
  • Desibee55 and Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant both edited the article Richard B. Herman
  • Carriearchdale has been banned by the community. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant was tied to this account.

There was enough behavioural evidence to tie Desibee55 and Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (and therefore Carriearchdale) together but I'm requesting a CU for specifically Shyam Hewitt since the evidence occurs off site. Mkdwtalk 21:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Carlieson to the list after this SPA created an article about the individual in the last photo from the flickr account. Mkdwtalk 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other:
  • Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant is Red X Unrelated to the above accounts.
  • Based on the location that Carriearchdale was supposedly editing from, the confirmed accounts are Red X Unrelated to Carriearchdale.
  • I've blocked all the unblocked confirmed accounts without tags.  Clerk assistance requested: Please create another SPI with the confirmed accounts, the oldest being the master, and tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, okay what a mess. Thanks for looking into all these accounts Bbb23. Sunilseth15 appears to be the oldest registered account. I've placed a notice at ANI to request a CBAN and authorization to nuke the new articles created by this sock farm. Mkdwtalk 15:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanjagenije: If you have time would you mind creating another SPI for the confirmed accounts? The ANI has ended and there's a few admins now doing the cleanup. We're still looking into other potential stale accounts but it would be great if we could start tagging them as we go under the appropriate master. Thanks! Mkdwtalk 19:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mkdw: Steveapalmer is  Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I thought we were still within the 3 months. There's enough behavioural here for  Looks like a duck to me so I will proceed along that route. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Carriearchdale/Archive&oldid=1076201903"