Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins

Bravedog

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bravedog/Archive.

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

Report date December 6 2009, 19:01 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Ktr101

The user has commented on many AFDs. Usually Bravedog comments, and GaGaOohLaLa comments a little while later. Two examples can be seen here and here. A discussion here is rather interesting because Bravedog starts something, but GaGa continues it as though they might be the same user. Both users also nominate articles for deletion with similar rationale. They also tend to focus around songs and albums for their deletions. This might be normal, but the fact that they both also work in deletion areas for most of their edits strikes me as a bit odd. This might be normal, but I certainly have never encountered this before.

The GaGa was even brought to ANI when it became clear that they knew a lot for a new user on deletions. See here for the example. The issue was resolved, but not after a little quarrel between a few users. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update GaGa is referring to me being "ticked off" that the Lame Horse incident was nominated for deletion. At a discussion here on AN, Bravedog accused me of doing exactly that. He also looked through my page contributions and nominated an article for deletion that you would have a hard time finding unless you knew where to look. I find the talking between userpages also suspicious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Note Both users have stopped editing after they responded on this page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update Gaga and Bravedog have still quit editing. Gaga, the fact that both of "you" stopped at the same time is also a sign of suspicion. There is a logical argument that could be made that at least one editor would continue editing since different people think differently. I've also never seen a vote of "Keep" from these editors, although it is possible that one came out. The overwhelming votes towards deletion show signs of a hidden agenda in that a normal user has a mix of both types of votes. The fact that both "users" communicated in a sudden "Wow, we're being implicated!" discussion is weird, but not necessarily odd. I also don't find it odd that people editing together wouldn't communicate, but people like to reach out, so this is rather suspicious in itself. We aren't twisting your arguments, we're trying to prove our point as you prove ours. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Fences and windows

Both accounts are solely used to nominate articles for deletion, argue for deletion, or remove links after deletion, and they both focus on pop culture. GaGaOohLaLa was immediately suspected of being a sockpuppet as their first action was a deletion nomination, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive580#User:GaGaOohLaLa. GaGaOohLaLa has nominated two articles that Bravedog has also argued to delete, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Lady Gaga song).

User:Daniel Case has noted that "A review of their respective contribs finds that since the GaGaOohLaLa account was created on 11/25, it and Bravedog have never been logged on at the same time. Yet they have contributed to the several of the same AfDs, not all of them having to do with Lady GaGa."[1] Indeed, Bravedog finished a two-day series of edits at 17:47 on 25 November 2009[2] GaGaOohLaLa was created at 20:13, 25 November 2009, and immediately nominated three members of The Saturdays for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy. Bravedog only returned to editing on 23:08 30 November 2009, to !vote for deletion at... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy![3], just over an hour after GaGaOohLaLa commented there.[4] Interestingly, both used the word 'violation' in their comments.

I also suspect that User:Bravedog is itself a long-term 'bad hand' sockpuppet, especially as it nominated Jimmy Wales for deletion in August 2007,[5] then promptly stopped editing for over a year.

Evidence submitted by Daniel Case

(As I compiled and filed, apparently Ktr101 and Fences and Windows were doing so as well. So we may have found some of the same diffs. Apologies)

Bravedog has been intermittently active since registering in August 2006. He primarily has edited in pop-culture topics, specifically music, and has initiated many deletion discussions (twice on Jimmy Wales: here and here).

My attention was drawn to him by his listing Perm Lame Horse club fire (which, I must disclose, I'd been working on myself occasionally, including reviewing some Russian-language sources and adding facts from them) at AfD. In reviewing his contribution history I found a surprising amount of edits with GaGaOohLaLa.

GaGa was created on November 25. The next day the account drew an AN/I from the awfully high amount of deletion noms it was making for a new account. There were some allegations of sockpuppetry there, but it was resolved without anybody being sanctioned.

However, the AN/I filer didn't identify a possible puppeteer. But I found that GaGa and Bravedog have never been online at the same time since the former account was created. Yet they have edited an awful lot of the same pages, including dicey AfDs:

• One of GaGa's first edits was to nominate Una Healy of The Saturdays for deletion. Five days later, Bravedog supported the nomination.

• On December 2, GaGa nominates Speechless (Lady Gaga song) (then on the Main Page in DYK) for deletion. Two and a half hours later, Bravedog casts a support vote.

• Both accounts have edited Template:The Saturdays:[6] and [7] (Note the similarity of the edit summaries)

• They have also both edited Template:Rihanna: [8] and [9] (Here note similar edits as well as similar edit summaries).

I believe I hear some quacking. Since some of these instances tainted votes, and I am not sure if there are other accounts out there, I believe Checkuser would be helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Since this was filed, the two accounts have not stopped the suspicious activity. First is this little "I'm Nobody! Are you/ Nobody too?"-type exchange between the two accounts, which hadn't communicated before, in an apparent attempt to prove they're unrelated:[10], [11], [12], and [13].

Today, December 6, GaGa has also nominated Katy Hudson (album) for deletion. Right on cue, Bravedog votes for deletion (and with a misleading edit summary as well). Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to GaGa: (In Vincent D'Onofrio voice from Law & Order: Criminal Intent): But it's sort of ... funny, that only as it seemed that an SPI was imminent, did you and GaGa communicate for the first time, despite such ... similar interests.(as myself, as ominous droning synthesizer music begins): Saying "You got it!" after "you" commented on "GaGa"'s talk page that you should be expecting a notice about an SPI qualifies as "some sarcastic and nonconstructive comments"? But whatever ... And that old "just an amazing coincidence" defense really won't work, since for two people with similar interests you so assiduously avoided each other. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Bravedog: "I was simply browsing through my history to check the basis of these accusations and decided to have my say. That is not illegal, is it?" If I were accused of sockpuppetry, the last thing I would do would be to vote in support of a deletion that the other accused account had nominated. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

• Er...what can I say? I appear to have the same/a similar taste in music as bravedog and we, therefore, edit some of the same articles and would (understandably) vote in the same AFDs. It appears that somebody was very hacked off that an article they like was nominated for deletion and has therefore tried to make a drama out of something that doesn't exist. User:Daniel Case has also left some sarcastic and nonconstructive comments on my talk page. The comments about me and this user not editing at the same time is also nonsense- a check of both of our contributions this evening shows that we have both been editing continuously at the same time all evening, sometimes during the same minute. There is no substance to these accusations. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• I am as stumped as the other user involved. (S)he says almost everything there is to say really. Regarding the comment about me !voting in the Katy Hudson AFD that the other user started: it was not stated that I commented his talk page regarding these accusations about a minute later. I was simply browsing through my history to check the basis of these accusations and decided to have my say. That is not illegal, is it? Bravedog (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And the phrase "ticked off"? It's very popular - [14] [15]. Bravedog (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's now been stated that, in the 2 weeks in which I've been editing, that it is "unusual" for the 2 of us not to have been in contact because we edit similar articles. I'd argue in the completely opposite direction. It's also been noted as "unusual" that we both stopped editing after commenting here. Um, if your actions were constantly being twisted and used as "evidence" against you every time you hit the edit button, wouldn't you get off the computer? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Please note that Kevin Rutherford has now been using WP:ITSNOTABLE and the fact that this investigation is occurring in order to !vote keep for articles that I have nominated for deletion. I have notified the admins about this behaviour. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

Checkuser request – code letter: C (Vote stacking affecting outcome )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by Fences&Windows 19:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---