Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cornerstonepicker/Archive
Cornerstonepicker
- Cornerstonepicker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
23 July 2020
[edit]Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Just over a week ago, I reverted this IP for unexplained content removal at the Flo Milli article for this edit. My reversion. They were previously reverted for removing the same content. The IP user had been warned prior to me reverting them, and I again issued them a warning, as can be seen on their talk page.
The IP seemingly has some sort of bias against Nicki Minaj, as the content they removed at Flo Milli is about Minaj. They have recently continued removing content related to Minaj here. They seem to be a fan of Cardi B, judging by their contributions.
Either way, less than an hour after I reverted the IP, the user Cornerstonepicker removed the same content, claiming (not citing any guideline or rule): "Artistry section must show the artists cited as influences for released work. The article cited says the music she grew up listening to", although the article (which is an XXL bio/interview with the artist) states she was inspired by Minaj after seeing her on TV. Article link.
Cornerstonepicker was insistent on removing the content, after I had restored it, removing it a second time, still claiming "this is not a place for favorite artists", when that's not what the source says at all relating to Minaj. Note that Cornerstonepicker had never before edited the article, as can be seen in the article's revision history: [1].
The user also has a tendency of adding negative content/trivia to Minaj-related articles: [2], [3], [4], [5], and to Minaj's bio as well, [6] [7], and removing content, as recent as yesterday, [8]. Now, I'm by no means saying that the content isn't warranted or that users aren't allowed to add content that leans toward a negative nature - I mean it's inevitable - but the user's editing habits looks suspicious.
The user and the IP have also edited the same articles from time to time, sometimes just a day or mere hours apart, including minor or bigger edits, but I listed some (recent) examples of their edits made in close proximity of each other:
user vs IP;
user vs IP;
user vs IP;
user vs IP;
user vs IP;
user vs IP;
user vs IP.
I'm requesting CheckUser as the user and the IP's edits and editing nature, as shown above, seem closely aligned, but confirmation would be of value, especially in case the Admins reviewing this aren't convinced, although I believe the diffs are of ample evidence. AshMusique (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Comments by other users
[edit]Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Well this is funny. I do edit after logging out and this has been my hobby during these months of quarantine. After all these months I'm returning to my job in two days on Saturday so I'll be way less active, even absolutely out of here like I was in 2019. I'm here to practice my English, since I speak French/Spanish. Although I never revise my IP account since I never even thought about it like this, I do remember doing those edits. I have never supported myself from that IP in any type of discussion, voting, nor reverted an edit that reverted Cornerstonepicker: all the discussions, arguments and reverts I have done is logged into Cornerstonepicker account. Imagine making it seem that I'm another person, that'd be ridiculous and creepy behavior. I don't live alone here since this isn't my home country, so logging in an out to edit isn't my priority nor something I keep keeping an eye on.
Now, my point in the Flo Milli article stands, it's totally fine to move it to "Early Years" as I did, because she never said this is "my main inspiration", what she said is that she watched that other artist on TV and that inspired her to start doing so. Pointless to have it on "Artistry". So I first removed it because I thought it was out of place. When I saw someone reverted it, I logged to Cornerstonepicker and removed with an explanation. I don't think I'm biased, I post all the information I find from a reliable source, regardless of it being positive or negative, and I notice when that information is being purposely omitted. To conclude, if you see those edits, it's basically me lol, my type of citation, my exact wording on Critical Reception, my description of images, the edits after Cornerstonepicker's edits. I'm aware my edits have bothered a lot of gatekeepers on music articles, but I'd never use my IP to support my account, maybe just to edit here and there. For example, I could have used an IP to revert the fans that endlessly kept adding non-notable awards to List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé ignoring my explanations, but I didn't, that'd be weird and a disservice, I did all from Cornerstonepicker as it should be, showing the guidelines and everything, eventually having an Admin supporting my edits. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Check declined by a checkuser. The privacy policy prohibits CheckUsers from publicly connecting user accounts to specific IP addresses. Mz7 (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)- Cornerstonepicker has admitted to using the IP below and I agree that there isn't a severe enough breach of WP:SOCK policy to take admin action at this point. Closing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
