Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iloveandrea/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Iloveandrea

Iloveandrea (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
05 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Iloveandrea was blocked to enforce ArbCom sanctions on Israel-Palestine topics on May 20. NotOnIsraPal commenced editing on May 22. His user page implies that he is editing with the permission and/or knowledge of administrator Dennis Brown, but I have confirmed that no such permission was given. On the Heinrich Himmler talk page, NotOnIsraPal says he added information to the Albert Speer article sourced to Adam Tooze's book, but NotOnIsraPal has never edited the Speer article. The edits were made by Iloveandrea: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=Iloveandrea&page=Albert+Speer&server=enwiki&max=500. -- Dianna (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested Checkuser. Other behavioral evidence, including listing me as a contact[1], strongly supports Dianna's evidence. I have had a fair amount of conversations with the Master at ANI and my talk page. May not be the oldest Master. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
09 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


I think its pretty obvious as soon the last sock was blocked they returned to edit the same articles that he edited in past.If it really needed I can send additional evidence by mail per WP:BEANS Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
24 August 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Pretty much obvious sock.

  • The IP is from GB.And Iloveandrea indicated on his page that he is too from GB.
  • Editing similar articles:Israeli/Palestinian topics,Syrian uprising,Other war conflicts,Mau Mau article.

I know that CU don't connect between IP and user accounts but I asking to check for sleepers. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I don't think its him as behaviorally his edits are not the same.So I like to withdraw my case--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
14 November 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same obscure articles [2]:

11 Stephen Marglin 2/10 [1, 2]

12 Greek government-debt crisis 6/10 [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8]

13 Cuban missile crisis 2/10 [1, 4]

14 David Rudisha 2/10 [1, 5]

15 Foreign and Commonwealth Office migrated archives

If there are really need of more evidence it could be mailed by mail but I think their style is very recognizable.Also I think user:Zrdragon12 was operated by the same user they edit the same topics same articles and have similar POV. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Additional information needed - Doing a full comparison to all the known socks [3] doesn't show enough intersects for it to be a shoe in. Technical behavior is moderately similar but not so uncommon. Before I decline outright, are there any actual diffs that you can provide, because the existing evidence, one or two popular articles, can be explained by coincidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - CU not needed. I was skeptical, in part because the tools were showing no links for some reason, but looking at the links emailed, but more importantly looking the technical styles and communication methods allow me to just duck block here. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11 November 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Banned User:Iloveandrea has a long history of sockpuppetry. One of their socks, User:ColaXtra, had a combative relationship with me. Based on my past experience with ColaXtra, I am convinced that User:LudicrousTripe is in fact the latest Iloveandrea sockpuppet. First of all, for someone who supposedly joined Wikipedia earlier this year, it's obvious that even LudicrousTripe's earliest edits show knowledge of Wikipedia policy and avoid common beginner's mistakes (as User:Shrike noticed). I've suspected LudicrousTripe ever since I first saw their edits on Vietnam War: Both ColaXtra and LudicrousTripe left similar messages seeking User:Midnightblueowl's help regarding Cambodia. What really gave LudicrousTripe away was a recent dispute between the two of us at WP:RSN, in which they demonstrated far greater familiarity with me than you would expect if we recently met: "Your tone is, as usual....unnecessarily combative. Quite disappointing....it makes any interaction with you extremely unpleasant....Dealing with this clearly and deeply unhappy individual is just so unenjoyable, I am minded to let him just get on and do what he wants with the article....I am not going to make any further posts here." Compare that to ColaXtra's remarks: "I deleted my additions because I was utterly sick of his appalling attitude and wanted to wash my hands of him and my involvement in the article," "Do I reply to this person, and so put up with their sneering mockery and aggression, or do I just leave it?....Why should I have to engage with such an editor?" I think even a casual comparison of LudicrousTripe's and ColaXtra's edits reveals a remarkably consistent writing style, as well as the same outspoken Chomskyite political rhetoric. They have many pages in common beyond their conversations with Midnightblueowl, including The Holocaust, Cuba, Noam Chomsky, Tony Blair, Richard Posner, ect; they even go to some of the same users for advice. Note that both Iloveandrea and LudicrousTripe have made considerable edits to Greek government-debt crisis. Additional examples:

I've barely scratched the surface when it comes to commonalities; I feel as though I could go on indefinitely. Briefly glancing at Iloveandrea's edits makes me even more sure, and I haven't looked into any of their other socks. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Andrea's great. I don't have a combative relationship with you this time; I reverted one of your edits and have thanked you for others you have made to Vietnam War article. I got a sit-out issued to me from the arb comm via e-mail (check with them if you like) saying don't edit for six months to show you can stick to Wikipedia rules; that I have done. I've not asked them if I could come back, but I think my constructive editing up till now (see the donkey work I put in for Fluorine, that was not fun...) is proof enough that I am involving myself constructively, and so on. I've got two barnstars and a page full of thank yous. I wasn't explicitly asked to stay away from Israel–Palestine in the arb comm e-mail, but since I've come back, save for I think a small edit the other day to Arafat's article (something I read in the news), I've not touched the topic since it was one that primarily being banned last time.

This is exactly what I wanted to avoid, namely being hassled by individuals like TheTimesAreAChanging again. I've done a lot of hard work on various articles (see my userpage); I've obeyed any requests from admins (see my talk page) and others to knock it off if I'm doing something they don't like (which has never involved vandalising articles); and so on. If you want to judge me by my past account, go ahead. This account so far, after months of sitting out as I was asked to do, speaks for itself in my view. Well, even if arb comm take a dim view of me not getting their explicit OK to come back after months of sitting out, I would vanish again now anyway. Either that or just not edit any article where TheTimesAreAChanging hangs about. I really just don't enjoy having to deal with people like him. I'm not going to post here again, and don't post again on my talk, TheTimesAreAChanging. LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous did huge work on Fluorine. I can tell he doesn't like to kowtow (but that's not bad). And he is a good egg inside. And trying not to get spun up with the conflicts endemic to this forum. I vote mercy. -TCO 64.134.103.150 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original block in May 2012 was to enforce an arbitration decision, so the instructions at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Arbitration enforcement blocks say that we either need an okay from Arbcom or a clear consensus in a community discussion at ANI or AN. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strike what I said--give the dude a break. FWIW, I researched the "arbcom angle". Here's the AE (not arbcom decision) where the dude got permabanned: [14]. The guy was in a little controversy, and had a "bad talk page" (meaning he protested his blocks!). Read the thread: Ludi-Andrea makes calm analytical comments, but still gets flushed.

In addition to good article work, the fellow was kind in interactions on his talk page. I like him. -TCO 64.134.103.150 (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned though that Mark might get in trouble for making a unilateral decision here, so we need to follow the procedure of WP:Standard offer. That's what Anthony suggested needed to be done when he responded on behalf of Arbcom to an unblock request in November 2012. I will contact the user and see if he wants me to open a thread at WP:AN. Though it looks like he may have vanished again, as there's been no edits since the 12th. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay he has agreed to give this a try, so I have opened a thread at WP:AN – Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Iloveandrea. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Striking per Diannaa's point, I hadn't realized it was an arb block, my mistake. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iloveandrea/Archive&oldid=1142567252"