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

14 August 2014

Suspected sockpuppets

• heicth ( 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

The most staunch anti-Shugden, anti-NKT editor on wikipedia (heicth) edited between 2 March 2014 and 19 June 2014. In this period Heicth was very active and edited regularly. Suddenly (s)he stopped using this account to edit on 19 June 2014 possibly because of his aggressive editing which led to him being scrutinized by other editors.

Victoriagrayson started edited articles relating to Dorje Shugden on 31 May. From that date onwards (s)he has been very active and edited regularly pages to do with Dorje Shugden.

Victoriagrayson edits the articles in the same way as heicth

1. On 18 May 2014 Heitch carried out a massive deletion of material from the Western Shugden Society article (-34,129) Edit summary: "Undoing massive replacement of academic references with self-published Shugden blogs and websites."

On 15 June 2014 victoria grasyon, (on his / her first edit on the Dorje Shugden controversy page) also carried out a massive deletion (-9,262)‎ You do not carry out such a massive deletion on a niche article until you have some previous experience with editing it (such as Heicth) has Edit summary: self-published material and questionable material. see talk page.

2. Eagerness to report other editors. Heicth 22 March 2014 (i)

Victoriagrayson continues in a similar vein on 5 June 2014 with reporting rather than discussing

3. Other editors getting frustrated with these two accounts in a similar way.

User:Joshua_Jonathan had the following advice for victoriagrayson on 10 August 2014 (in his edit summary) on the DS controversy article "Reverted 7 edits by VictoriaGrayson: Please stop your mass-revertions. I'm getting fed-up with working on this article, and seeing my edits disappear again and again"

User John Carter in his edit summary on 28 May 2014 'Undid revision 610540877 by Heicth (talk) - Heicth, for the second time, please discuss and receive consensus for such wholesale changes to the article before making them, thank you'

4. Strong language:

Heicth "Extremely ridiculous Shugden editor" 31 May 2014

Victoriagrayson "How is saying "The protesting is merely to promote Shugden" offensive? That's ridiculous."

I have suspected for a while that victoriagrayson and heicth are the same person, but choose only to report it now because victoriagrayson is reporting me! What I think is happening here is that Heicth and victoriagrayson are sharing the same account. Heicth makes most of the anti-Shugden edits from victoriagrayson's account, whilst victoriagrayson makes comments from time to time on articles outside Heicth's field of interest (e.g. Caste System in India). This has the effect of giving the appearance that this editor is one person with varied interests, when in fact they are two people as described above. Heicth is misusing victoriagrayson's account. Please check the IP's for where Heitch was editing from and where victoriagrayson is editing from. Should be interesting! Thank you :) Kjangdom ( talk) 23:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

• Comment I think WP:KETTLE applies here. There is a lot of drama and POV-pushing problems at the articles on the Shugden‎ and NKT articles in general, and Kjangdom is definitely on the other side. Please note the eruption on my talk page here. No comment on whether anyone is a sockpuppet, but my thinking is that a large WP:TROUT needs to be applied here to the filer. Montanabw ^(talk) 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• Without commenting as to the validity of the report, I do note that this SPI was raised in retaliation for this one per Kjangdom/ Audrey37's comment above "choose only to report it now because victoriagrayson is reporting me!".-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

 Clerk endorsed. It pains me to endorse this CU. I've spent far too much time looking at the edits of the two accounts, as well as looking at numerous discussions involving other accounts, and, frankly, I'm not sure I trust any of these editors. It seems fairly obvious there are opposing factions and that each of those factions accuses accounts on the other side to be socks. Sometimes they're right, too, which is partly why I'm endorsing the CU. Victoria and Heicth are part of one faction, and that may be all there is to it, but I also seem them editing in precisely the same manner on an issue or backing each other up indirectly. This is a weak endorse, and if a CU is accepted, nothing in the outcome would surprise me.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• The best I can say in this case is that the CU results are  Inconclusive. heicth was editing from a couple of heavily-abused web hosting ranges, i.e. open proxies, but the rest of the technical details match VictoriaGrayson, who is not trying to hide her location. ​— DoRD ( talk)​ 22:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Given the results of the CU and all the circumstances leading up to this report, I'm taking no action. Bbb23 ( talk) 22:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply