Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


ItsLassieTime

ItsLassieTime (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date April 4 2009, 19:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

I am adding these due to topic crossover with the other socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Buttermilk1950 is a new account of someone who says he is 16 (though the writing suggests otherwise), who has focused on Rodeo and related articles, editing in something of a disruptive style. He recently posted a complaint to AN/I about another user, and in the course of the discussion, he appears to have mistakenly posted as User:ItsLassieTime (also a new account), in response to a query directed at Buttermilk. User:MoreThings (another new account) then arrives at the discussion and posts as though the apparent sockpuppet error didn't happen. See here.

ItsLassieTime is now trying to mitigate his error by claiming to be Buttermilk's mother. [1] But he posted about Buttermilk using the word "I." [2] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another post from ItsLassieTime pretending not to know that he posted as Buttermilk1950, and calling User:Josette "filth." [3] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to add a code. No idea which code is correct. Perhaps code F as it doesn't fit into the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)
Evidence submitted by SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19
28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)



Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Evidence submitted by user:MoreThings

SlimVirgin is mistaken about the timings. I posted at 6:31, after Josette posted at 5:54. ItsLassieTime then posted after me, but above me, at 7.03. When I posted "as though the sockpuppet didn't happen", I did so because the sockpuppet hadn't happened. I'd appreciate it SlimVirgin or one of the admins would reformat the page to reflect the chronological order of the postings. --MoreThings (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Evidence submitted by MoreThings.

This is a verbatim copy of a post I've made to the incident board. It lays out events as I saw them. I'm sorry, it's late, I'm tired, and I'm not going to reformat it for the layout here.

For the record, I'd like to lay out the details of this fun-filled evening as seen from my point of view.

  • I post to the thread when it contains exactly 3 posts, none of them by user:ItsLassieTime. This is how the page looked after my post:
  • user:ItsLassieTime now posts—after me but above me—making it look as though my reply came after hers. This is how the board looks now, with my post below hers.
  • In her post, ItsLassieTime has spoken as though she were Buttermilk1950 raising suspicion that she is a sockpuppet.
  • user:Josette sees what has happened and makes a couple of posts raising the alarm.
  • user:SlimVirgin now misreads the thread and assumes that I posted after ItsLassieTime. As my post made no mention of the sockpupet allegations (which were not there when I posted it), she appears to conclude that I was attempting to muddy the waters and cover ItsLassieTime's tracks. She files a CU request: "I've posted a CU request..." and "Perhaps MoreThings also wouldn't mind being checked" [4] and raises a checkuser request naming me and ItsLassieTime as suspected sockpuppets. [5]. In the request the implication is that ItsLassieTime made a mistake, and I came along shortly afterwards to make an obfuscatory post. As described above, my post was made before ItsLassieTime's. I respond to the request pointing out that SlimVirgin is mistaken about the chronology.
  • On the incident board, I respond to Slimvirgin asking for clarification of exactly what a checkuser entails [6]
  • Back on the checkuser board, this causes to user:Baseball Bugs to observe "MoreThings is an intersting angle" and speculate that I might be asking for clarification because I'm worried. [7]
  • Having read WP:checkuser, I confirm that I'm happy to have a checkuser run against me.
  • Baseball bugs makes a reference [8], which I find incomprehensible, to something he claims I have said - "that was MoreThing words". I can make neither head nor tail of his reference.
  • I post asking him for clarification.[9]
  • 11. That's it.

The checkuser on me has come back negative. That result has been posted on the checkuser board, but not here. I have had no contact with any of the admins involved. My questions on the checkuser board are unanswered.

So, good fun guys. I can see why it looked suspicious at first glance. But surely you could take a couple of minutes to check the facts before diving into filing reports and asking for checkusers. And it's not particularly cool of you to carry on conversations about me on the checkuser board, which I was obviously reading, and totally ignore my input and requests for clarification.

Cheers, --MoreThings (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure User:MoreThings posted before the entire sockpuppet incident started: Morethings at 17:31 and User:ItsLassieTime's first post at at 18:03 Kafka Liz (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoreThings is an interesting angle in this. First, you've got this confession [10] that Buttermilk and Lassie use the same PC, so obviously they will have the same IP, and hence no investigation is needed. Meanwhile, on WP:ANI, you've got MoreThings (first entry March 25) asking what a checkuser is about. [11] Worried, perhaps? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with that, we see Lassie begging that the investigation be stopped [12] now that the user has confessed to having the same PC (though not to sockpuppetry - that was MoreThings' words). The only reason I can think of, to ask for the investigation to stop, is that it might uncover more info. Hence, it should continue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball bugs what do you mean by "that was Morething's words"? Which words are you referring to? For the record, this is what the page looked like when I made my post. Half an hour later all hell is let loose. Please tell me which words you are referring to. Regarding the checkuser, I asked for confirmation of what it is, and then I gave the go ahead for it to be used. Those were my only contributions. Thanks. --MoreThings (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Lassie was worried, not MoreThings. Lassie seemed desparate to stop the investigation. And MoreThings made reference to sockpuppets as if it were a given, which sounded odd. That's what that was about. Meanwhile, I see Buttermilk has been indef-blocked, so hopefully dat's dat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a diff to support your assertion that I "made a reference to sockpuppets as if it were a given, which sounded odd". I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. To help you out, I've listed below my entire contribution to the thread which consisted of 3 posts. Where is the comment to which you refer?
1: For me, the best way forward would be to concentrate on the content. Both Montana and Buttermilk clearly care deeply about the article and they're both knowledgeable, committed, energetic editors. They got off on the wrong foot, and they're coming at the article from somewhat different angles, but I don't feel their positions are irreconcilable.
I'd encourage them to put aside all discussion related to personalities and past events, and to start to talk about where they'd like to see the rodeo articles going. Perhaps the balance between Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States could be addressed first, followed by discussion about the content and structure of each article. I'm sure there's common ground to be found, and I'd urge everyone to concentrate on finding it. [13]
2: I'm not entirely sure what a checkuser is/does. As I understand it, it's basically an ip check and you want to verify whether or not I'm Buttermilk1950/ItsLassieTime. If that's the case, please go ahead. If there's more to it than an ip check, please let me know before proceeding.[14]
3: I'm happy to have a checkuser run against me. I'd like to point out that SlimVirgin's request was based on a misreading of the chronology of the postings. I'd also like to ask one of the admins to reformat this page to make the chronology more readily apparent. Please see my reply at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buttermilk1950 for details. [15]
--MoreThings (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please look elsewhere on this page we are on right now, where you say, "When I posted "as though the sockpuppet didn't happen", I did so because the sockpuppet hadn't happened". That phraseology is what sounded odd to me. Now that I understand that this was simply about the statements being out of order in the ANI thread, it doesn't sound so odd. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to the "Evidence Submitted by user:MoreThings" section at the top of this page. I'm dismayed by the extent to which you have misinterpreted that simple passage.
In my previous replies to you, I was under the mistaken impression that you were an admin assigned to investigate this request. As a result of viewing information posted to my talkpage [16], I now understand that nothing could be further from the truth. I trust the clerks to give your interventions here exactly the weight they deserve.--MoreThings (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 and ItsLassieTime are related; Checkuser investigation is continuing. Risker (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red X Unrelated MoreThings does not appear to be related to the other two accounts. Investigation is continuing. Risker (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MoreThings gave away his IP address 81.86.40.39 posting here a little bit ago: [17] That's a U.K. address, which squares with his identifying 17:31 as 6:31 his time (UTC minus 12 plus 1 for summer-time). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Forgot to add signature a few minutes ago.[reply]
Conclusions

Buttermilk1950 blocked indefinitely. J.delanoygabsadds 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Risker's results noted above. I concur that:
 Clerk notes: Buttermilk1950 (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely. ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) blocked for 1 month. Report. Blocked ReverendLogos (talk · contribs), IndianCaverns (talk · contribs), ShaShaJackson (talk · contribs), and EatNoPig (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Clerks please tag as needed. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to added names:

 Clerk notes: Blocked TimmyTruck (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Overjoyed (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked in early 2008. KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date November 9 2009, 06:03 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

The editing history and patterns are extremely similar and editor picked up on some of ItsLassieTime's work on various articles, in particular Thumbelina, which several socks were used to edit at various times. First edits also reflect usual pattern of this editor, in creating their user page and talk page with similar worded notes. They appeared as a new editor a month after ItsLassieTime's ban, displaying intimately familiarity with Wikipedia policies and throwing out DYK, GANs, doing GA reviews, etc within a very sort time frame. GA review comments similar to those ItsLassieTime used when passing articles as well, and user page styled in same manner as the ItsLassieTime's time one was. Considering the user's history, requesting check user to both confirm if this is a sock and search for sleepers, as when ItsLassieTime's socks were discovered they had half a dozen going at once. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it would help, 209.244.189.88 (talk · contribs) is one IP ItsLassieTime used to block evade.[18] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

I would also suggest that User:ChristianBenvenuto be checked too. The users first edits (three minutes after creation) were to add then remove a comment on this request that does not look like it comes from a new user. User:ItsLassieTime has at least once forgotten which account they were logged into and made comments that did not fit the account. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that edit, I was going to make a statement regarding my thoughts on it. I'd thought it was off-topic, and I realized I'm now being accused of being someone's sockpuppet. Which sadly, I am not and I'm going to leave the CheckUser to make sure that I am not. I don't want to be framed of someone's elses misdeeds and problems. I've been around Wikipedia in the past as an unregistered IP and have looked at the Incident and SPI archives in the past. I'm sorry if my quick edit causes interest but I intend no trouble from it.ChristianBenvenuto (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed To check if Benvenuto = Wright. I can say right now that all other previously-blocked socks are  Stale, so an admin would need to look at behavioral evidence to determine a connection with ItsLassieTime. MuZemike 20:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note

Per the evidence provided above, it is my view that Kathyrncelestewright is a sock puppet of banned user ItsLassieTime. Hence, I have taken the following administrative actions.

  1. User:Kathyrncelestewright User:ChristianBenvenuto, and User:HelloDenmark (The latter comes up too often in my detailed trawl through the contribs.) are both indefinitely blocked and tagged as sock puppets of User:ItsLassieTime.
  2. User:ItsLassieTime's 18-month block and ban shall be reset. It is now set to expire on 04:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The following list of articles created by Kathryncelestewright [20] may or may not be eligible for speedy deletion G5 as pages created by a banned user. Keep in mind that an article is not eligible for G5 if another editor has also been significantly involved in the article alongside the banned user. MuZemike 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Until the case is wrapped up, may I request for further explanations on the relation between ChristianBenvenuto who seems to use Michigan IP, and ItsLassieTime who uses Philadelphia based IPs? The geolocation is too far from each other. The checkuser's comment is also unclear whether Kathyrncelestewright is not ItsLassieTime, or ChristianBenvenuto. Kathyrncelestewright's created articles are, as you see, including GA articles, so they have some collaboration or at least copy-editing by other editors. --Caspian blue 04:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's possible that somebody enlisted someone else to come vouch for ILT here. I find it very coincidental that Benvenuto's first edit be on this page. Also, I understood from Brandon's check, as I specified, that there wasn't a relation between Benvenuto or Wright. If my premise is correct, then this would make sense. MuZemike 04:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, none of her GA articles save one had any copy-editing or other editing at all by anyone else, beyond a few fixing bad cats or infobox code. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, keep in mind that CheckUser cannot check on ILT or the other socks blocked back in April or before as all those contribs are stale. MuZemike 04:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that User:ChristianBenvenuto admitted to another account, User:ElvenAmerican, who in turn has been claimed by User:ThemeParker. Sodam Yat (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he also revealed an IP, 216.11.96.2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), through which he revealed the ElvenAmerican account[21] The ThemeParker account revealed another IP, 76.112.232.50 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)),[22] which in turn circles back to CB[23]. Both of these IPs trace to Michigan. To note, though, for ElvenAmerican he did do a rename request on[24], after his one edit with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sodam Yat's new findings, I'm pretty much convinced that this is an attempt at meatpuppetry and that the three accounts Benvenuto, Elven, and Parker are not socks. I'm going to untag Benvenuto and, for right now, I'm just going to lift the autoblock that I placed on him so that Parker is able to edit freely if desired. MuZemike 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date February 27 2010, 16:07 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

Very first edit was to leave random remarks to an FAC I have on The Fox and the Hound, and article this editor "reviewed" for GA and passed with one of its many sock accounts after it was blocked. Second edit was to do a GA review[25] Requesting checkuser due to this editor's tendency to have some half dozen or more socks going at once. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
This account has entered nonsensical commentary on two FACs; the behavioral evidence is convincing, even if the CU data is stale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure the editor is ItsLassieTime, as it doesn't quite fit the M.O. other than focusing on Good Article candidates. It might be a sock of Pioneercourthouse, who's known for creating socks intended to make you think they're someone else's sock. But it appears to be a nonsense-only account and could probably be indef'd just on that basis. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought was ItsLassieTime because of the comments and it being this particular article. However I also remember there was a guy who went around doing a bunch of horrible GA reviews that were just totally nonsensical and eventually the reviews had to be redone.[26] I thought he was blocked, but finally found the old thread and looks like he's still around, though fairly inactive and hasn't touched GA since then. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever it ultimately ends up being, some of their prior edits will definitely need to be checked. As Collectonian noted above, the user has already reviewed a GAN, with the same kind of "advice" presented in the two FACs. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 17:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they can't tie him to ILT. Probably best to indef him, go through and revert all his activities, and in the process see if there is an IP or another user making similar edits just before this latest one was created. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment by Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed and we need a CU to check this ASAP as the previous accounts are almost stale (if they aren't already). –MuZemike 18:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. Even if this isn't ItsLassieTime, this clearly is not a brand new user and definitely is a sock of someone. The infatuation with FAC, GAN and Hans Christian Andersen as well as wikihounding Collectonian is convincing enough for me. –MuZemike 04:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 13 2010, 01:28 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

Same disruptive behavior at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fox and the Hound (novel)/archive1. As such, being another ItsLassieTime is highly likely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk endorsed sleepers etc. Tim Song (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Conclusions

 Clerk note: I'm calling it as a sock of banned user ItsLassieTime and have moved the case appropriately; see the last couple of edits right after Kathyrncelestewright was blocked (see [27]). What we have here is an extreme case of article ownership on the part of the banned user. –MuZemike 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 15 2010, 08:04 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Peppermint Chills

both attack users with same wording for the same article in the last few minutes. Peppermint Chills 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) The Fox and the Hound (novel)Peppermint Chills[reply]

Another user User talk:BlowItAwayPeppermint Chills

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Two more: User:SafetyFirst10, User:TheBoomBoomRoom, which is tagged as a sock of User:ItsLassieTime, so perhaps these cases should be merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlowItOuttaHere, original page history can be found there SpitfireTally-ho! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by -- Spitfiretally-ho!

 Clerk endorsed, ducks, self-endorse for sleepers, etc SpitfireTally-ho! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You got 'em all. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
17 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Elen of the Roads

On Beatrix Potter and several related articles including Miss Moppet. Cut and paste copyvios and plagiarism. Style very similar to Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is it possible to checkuser this against any other socks of ItsLassieTime? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor, User:MerryMerryMe has just popped up editing in same area, obviously not a new editor as first action is delinking infobox text. Can we check this one against Susanne2009NYC please. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
AnmaFinotera posted in November 2009 that ItsLassieTime had used 209.244.189.88 (talk · contribs), in case that's helpful, though I don't know what she based it on. See her comment here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful, but I can't connect usernames to IP addresses, as that is a violation of the privacy policy. TNXMan 17:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a connection to the new editor I have just added? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tnxman, I meant it could help with a CU, to see whether the current accounts being looked at have used IPs in that range. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you meant - I just wanted be sure everyone understood which information I can and can't reveal. :) TNXMan 18:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any way we can get a block of the underlying IP or IP range here? This is looking likely to turn into a huge copyright mess. We haven't even begun to clean up "her" last copyvios. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

It looks like all the previous socks are  Stale. You'll need to use behavior to draw any connections. It does look like the account is blocked, so I don't know if there's much more to do. TNXMan 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Tnxman307 is right about ILT and sock army as all stale, Susanne2009NYC and MerryMerryMe are  Confirmed to say the least. The underlying range has also been blocked. –MuZemike 18:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12 March 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

User:ItsLassieTime, the creator of a page being proposed for merger, has been banned from Wikipedia as the puppetmaster of over a dozen sockpuppets. New user PrestoPrestoPresto registered 11 March 2011 and has made only three edits, one of which is a remarkably impassioned "Strongly opposed" at the merger discussion. The combination of A) the page creator's sockpuppet history and Wikipedia ban, B) the sudden arrival of this SPA, and C) the particular vociferousness of his post leads me to reasonably suspect that this may be page-creator ItsLassieTime again. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no not again. Language sounds like Susanne2009NYC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - do we still have info from that report?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back through the logs and found some CU data. I compared it to PrestoPrestoPresto and didn't find anything of use. Tiptoety talk 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point to Presto's most recent post, in which this new user professes to have an uncanny familiarity with ItsLassieTime: "Apparently ITL had a backstage spat with an editor and has been permanently banned." [ITL is a combination of] "many users I understand at a teen magnet school for excellence". And how would he know this, unless...? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (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

no Declined – I already did several days ago; I think I may have already blocked the underlying IP and discovered an additional one. –MuZemike 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


21 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Sock confesses to be Jane his wife, which is in turn a sock of ItsLassieTime. See this section for confession. Sock is currently blocked for edit warring. See Talk:Nicole Kidman and this section on my talk page for further discussions. Willking1979 (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than providing a link to an active page, you need to provide a diff to a specific comment in which he admits to being Jane - because I'm not seeing it on the current page. If it was there, he probably deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At User talk:DeadSend4, search for the timestamp mentioned in this post of mine: "04:27 21 April, [he] wrote, "I am Jane his wife. But I'm going to use that account anymore.""--Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
diff. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Now where is a diff that confirms Jane His Wife is a sock of Its Lassie Time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I want to know. I can't find anything. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Willking's page, it says, "There wasn't one." The connection was made based on behavior. But Jane was blocked for contentious editing, not for socking. No question Dead and Jane are the same, as he owned up to it. But the connection to ILT needs to be more solid than it seems right now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

I wouldn't think that we need checkuser here because of the confession that the sock has made. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeadSend4 confessed to being Janehiswife, but I haven't seen any evidence connecting either of those accounts to ItsLassieTime. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for the evidence of the accounts being ItsLassieTime. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at some of the edits, and after cleaning up quite a bit of ILT's work, it doesn't feel duckish to me, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Is there a diff where DeadSend4 says they are ILT? The connection to Janehiswife has been established, so there's nothing new there. TNXMan 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, only the admission that they are Jane His Wife. I have asked Tenebrae to add Jane's name to this current SPI and provide some example behaviorial evidence to more solidly connect Jane with ILT. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I didn't keep records and can't track down the conversation(s) I've had regarding Lassie/Jane in my 49,000-plus edits, having not foreseen any reason to have done so, I cannot prove my suspicions regarding a link. I have apologized to DeadSend4 on his talk page and retracted my assertion, striking out my previous related statements.
DeadSend4's threats, harassment, name-calling and "Nazi"-slinging aside, I'm still curious about this pertinent question: ItsLassieTime or no, DeadSend4 was banned as User:Jane his wife. So why is he being allowed to evade that ban by just registering as a different user? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the proper forum for addressing that question. Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. You're right. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on CheckUser evidence, unless ILT has found a way to be in two different places at the same time, DeadSend4 and ItsLassieTime are Red X Unrelated.

However, the following two accounts are  Confirmed as ItsLassieTime:

That underlying IP has been blocked. –MuZemike 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

26 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

After his sockpuppet User:NYFernValley was banned, this person shows up acting just like him. This account edited one article ever back in November. All current edits are related to an open AFD, which the banned NYFernValley started. They post their defense of this person, seeming very knowledgeable of them, post that two people that the previous editor argued with in the AFD are "ass holes" on someone's user page, and make the same arguements that the banned sock made for deleting the article. Dream Focus 20:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

736StIves (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was confirmed and edited heavily Jack and the Beanstalk. User:Tower4Sitz also edited heavily the same page, and has left me an unpleasant message, [28], so would like to have it confirmed or not soonish. The user hadn't edited since February, but popped up on my page today after I left a message with MuZemike yesterday about them. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

NewHouse4533 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a late addition as per WP:ANI.

Protobaltoslav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might also be worth a look.

218.144.53.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is IP admitted by Protobaltoslav.

(Note that Truthkeeper, the target of ILT's wrath, does not think Prot/218 are socks of ILT.)

←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed the following are matches to each other:

27 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

User:HomeComingQueenl1942 - new user. The only contribs have been to vandalise my FA articles [29]. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC) -- DQ (t) (e) 21:27, 27 May 2011 (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
19 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
Sockmaster account = Piano non troppo
  1. Caused disruption at Featured Article Review process [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
  2. Engaged in, somewhat animated, discussion with FAC delegate, Dana boomer [35] [36]
  3. Appeared to be angry at me for warning the user about disruption at the FAR process [37] [38]
  4. June 2010 - Posts treatise about the FA process to account's userpage [39] [40]
  5. May 2011 - After no edits for one year - posts "retired" to account's userpage [41]
Sock account = 56tyvfg88yju
  1. December 2010 - Very 1st edit is to turn userpage from redlink to bluelink with one-line-post [42]
  2. And same for user talk page [43]
  3. Navigates to FAC in 3rd edit ever to Wikipedia [44]
  4. Note: This is to an FAC candidate of Tbhotch - a user previously in conflict with the sock's master account, Piano non troppo (talk · contribs)
  5. January 2011 - Warned by FAC coordinator, Laser brain, about disruptive behavior at FACs [45]
  6. January 2011 - Comment by NYMFan69-86 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1 [46] = "The user account User:56tyvfg88yju was created less than three weeks ago (December 19th), his (or her) contributions consists merely of creating his (or her) user page and talk page, and opposing the promotion of four FA candidates, one of them being Painted turtle. Just throwing that out there."
  7. January 2011 - Comment by Legolas2186 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Painted turtle/archive1 [47] = "Just for the delegates, User:56tyvfg88yju is an alternate account of disruptive user Piano non troppo."
  8. Note: The sock account made zero edits for four months, from the period between 1 February 2011 and 8 June 2011. [48] [49]
  9. June 2011 - First comment by the sock account after inactivity of four months, is "oppose" at a FAC I nominated, compare with "oppose" at FAC nominated by Tbhotch, above. [50]
  10. Comment: The sock account appears to have been created mainly for the purpose of vindictive retaliation through the manipulation of the FAC process = at multiple editors where the main sockmaster account had prior disputes over one year ago.

Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern with sock account, warnings from FAC coordinators
  1. June 2010 - Piano non troppo (talk · contribs) = warned by Dana boomer [51]
  2. January 2011 - 56tyvfg88yju (talk · contribs) = warned by Laser brain [52]
  3. Likely due to the socking, Laser brain did not realize this was the user's second warning for disruption of the FA process.

-- Cirt (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant points from Sock Policy
  1. "the use of multiple accounts to deceive other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards – sock puppetry – is forbidden."
  2. Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts = "Posing as a neutral commentator: Using an alternative account in a discussion about another account operated by the same person."
  3. "Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages, with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them. If so desired, the user and user talk pages from one account can be redirected to the other. Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics"
  4. "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

-- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock account = AufVeedersane
Comments by other users

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

  • Comment by Legolas2186 — I knew clearly that 56*** was a sockpuppet of Piano non troppo the moment he started commenting at the FAC of Halo (Beyonce Knowles song) that the article cannot pass unless it has recording info, also cited "Hey Jude" as a model article. These are exactly the same comments that Piano non troppo made at the GA discussion of Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song), for which he was reprimanded as he was going on calling other editor's contributions as "unprofessional" and basically "shit". Yes, he is disruptive, trying to emulate the air of someone with strong professional knowledge, but is basically throwing straw in the air by modelling one article and expecting others to follow suit (And in these cases, articles which have vast range of information for the subject matter being old). He was warned time and again not to disrupt the FAC process by abusing editors, commenting nonsense and opposing unrationally. But here he is back again. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  1. Possible use of open proxy(s) ? -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also, does it geolocate to the same area? Possibly using a friend's computer? -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed that

are the same person. I can't guarantee that that's it. Cirt, not an open proxy, and geoloc can't help here either. Amalthea 11:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note I've moved this case to reflect 56tyvfg88yju as the master. And Amalthea has blocked and tagged everyone. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be sure I'd be very surprised if 56tyvfg88yju was actually "the master", but as far as the available CU data goes it's the best I can say. I would suggest that someone has a look at the actual contributions of the accounts and the articles created by them, maybe this could allow for further conclusions. The articles created appear to be of high quality. A candidate I have in mind in that league is Ottava Rima (another wild guess). Amalthea 12:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this case page then be moved to be merged with ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) ? -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All straightened out now I think. Amalthea 17:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The socks are clearly and unambiguously ItsLassieTime. As such, I have deleted all created articles per WP:CSD#G5.

–MuZemike 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Delphine LaLaurie needs to be reviewed again, while Olivia Shakespear can be taken to WP:GAR if need be. –MuZemike 09:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it matters, but TimmyTruck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the real sockmaster. ILT was just the most notorious of its many puppets. I was reminded of this a few minutes ago, when I realized that Delta had deleted all the images posted to an article that Timmy and I had sort-of worked on - the closest we ever came to actually cooperating, though he was a cactus most of the time and was eventually indef'd. That's when he created ILT, among countless others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
04 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


ItsLassieTime has had many socks and has harrassed Truthkeeper88, who works (among other things) on Ernest Hemingway. Here is an odd set of edits by someone who seems to know what they are doing on articles on Hemingway, Stalking, and Harrassment. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:51, 4 July 2011 (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

As far as en.wiki is concerned, seems Red X Unrelated on CU evidence, and the behavioral evidence is rather weak, despite the odd combination of articles edited. However, I sense something is going on at Commons with this user, and it may be desirable to have someone at Commons look into this, based from that I have seen here so far. –MuZemike 04:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Edit summaries and contribs show a pattern of adding POV-pushing on animal rights issues, edit summaries of all three accounts edit heavily if not primarily on animal abuse, one created today solely for further disruption of calf roping. Also check previous POV issues on talk page with a now-banned sock

Montanabw(talk) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

All that trouble? Yeah, my other account is Lapzwans, which after it logged me out I don't remember the password to and who HatAct is I don't know, though I notice you have been deleting cited contributions of him as well on the same page.D4rkersib (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note 2: I'd also mention that Lapzwans had/has an email established, so the Password reset should have been available. The appearance here is that this user was/is using multiple accounts and a logged out IP address to sock, tag-team, and edit war. I'm inclined to block, but not being a regular at SPI - I'll let those more familiar with procedure handle it for the moment. — Ched :  ?  19:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
19 February 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

Comment - This has blown up a little beyond my expectation. My belief is that when a serial sock creates 108 confirmed accounts the inevitable fallout is that there will always be suspicion, rightly or wrongly, that the next account is lurking around the corner. I filed this, transparently, completely on my own initiative, solely based on a writing pattern that appears to be extremely similar to ILT's. Politics are the least of my motives and I'm surprised at the reaction. Regarding the close paraphrasing, if Moonriddengirl would be kind enough to take over when she has time, I'd appreciate that. If people think we should close this, that's fine by me too. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification- per RO's statement about what I'm saying, to reiterate: it's blown up a little beyond my expectation. That's all. Nothing less, nothing more. Re people closing, I meant the people who run these pages, ie. the CUs and functionaries, not the people posting. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm the only person who's ever used the word "oops" in an edit summary? Here's a whole page you using "oops" in edit summaries. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

  • Comment - I don't see a connection here. If you are going to use the word "oops" for example to compare edit summaries that strikes me is a bit bizzare. The rest is just a he said she said argument. I would also recommend an uninvolved admin close this case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ILT has been back since the original sock drawer was busted, the sock Hat Act popped up on my radar a couple years after the first bust, only to be re-blocked, and I would not be in the lease surprised to hear this user is still around. A tendency to copy or closely paraphrase is a key trait, as well as a tendency to grab onto a limited, cherrypicked group of "scholarly" sources as evidence and then digging in and refusing to give ground is part of this user's MO. Add to this a lot of wounded feelings and playing the innocent. A tendency to create an online persona that induces sympathy (usually due to a made-up health issue or tragic life circumstances) and to quite tendentiously attack other users who call this individual on their problematic edits are also characteristic traits. In the limited diffs provided here, this does resemble the style of ILT, though at this point it's reasonable suspicion and I think more examples are needed. Also try Wizardman, if he's still around. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm commenting here because Victoria left a note on my talk, and because Rationalobserver has referred to me as having defended her when she was blocked over a previous suspicion. I don't know enough about ItsLassieTime to make a useful comment. I recently read this version of Irataba when RO asked me to review it, and I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources. I could only see it on snippet view, but the sentence structure (that I could see) looked similar.

    There have been a few issues with RO, including apparent gunning for certain people, leading to previous suspicions that RO was GabeMc (here) or Jazzerino (here). It would be good if it could be sorted out somehow. Pinging some people who have commented in case they have ideas: Mike V, Kww, Dennis Brown, Dan56, Radiopathy. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that not everyone is perfect, if Rational has been accused of being 4 different people the thing I see them all having in common is questionable behavior. Rational cant be 4 different people, I think what is happening is that editors are mistaking her actions as being sockish. If this continues I can see more would be sock accusations come forward. Sometimes a duck is a duck and sometimes it's just not - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing any evidence of anything, but just so you know, the first sock-puppet accusation came after I thanked an editor for warning Radiopathy about marking non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Moments later, the editor I thanked accused me of being Radiopathy. So that's how the sockpuppet accusations started, just two weeks after I registered this account. Radiopathy later accused me of being GabeMC, and Dan56 also accused me of being Jazzerrino. So I've been accused of being the same person who accused me of being someone else. This is a retaliation witch hunt, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm commenting here because I was pinged to the discussions, based on my past experience with the sockmaster at FAC. The best observor and detector of ILT socks is VictoriaEarle, and considering the amount of damage done by ILT socks in the past, Victoria's observations should be taken seriously. My own observation is that the conversation at Talk:Irataba does ring ITL bells. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at more edits now, RO created the account on August 31, within the first month was editing project pages with a specific focus on plagiarism and paraphrasing project pages, and this first edit within a month to FAC is quite atypical of any new FAC reviewer-- in fact, it is atypical for experienced FAC reviewers. This is an editor who appears to know FAC better than frequent FAC reviewers, on their first post. And going after Victoria like this is typical of ILT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what passes for evidence here, but I would like to point out that the Editor Interaction Analyzer shows that I haven't edited even one page that ILT edited. So why would I be a sock of ILT but not show any interest in any of the same pages? What sense does that make? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She is also trying to pin you to one of ILT's socks as evidence, which in my view unfairly widens the scope of articles that possibly could have been edited. In other words, its a long shot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I don't follow. My point is that I have never edited the same page as ILT, which I would think is rare for sock accounts, but what do I know? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Im saying that she is trying to compare your edits to not only ILT but all of the accounts she used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. But she's only listed ILT, 56tyvfg88yju, and Susanne2009NYC, and if you click on those names you'll see that the same holds true for them. I.e., I haven't edited a single page that these three accounts edited. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well, normally socks have an agenda and see nothing here. I am not saying Victoria is acting in bad faith but her evidence is nothing solid and if wrong which I suspect she is the result is hurting another editor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have defended Rationalobserver in the past, but I see nothing on this page to explain this discussion she started on another editor's talk page - You were right, and I was wrong - in reaction to this SPI. I've suggested that she take a day off. No one likes to be charged with puppetry (I know I didn't like it), but the reaction here is shocking. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment2: ILT edited literally thousands of articles and different topics under different personas. There was little overlap between each alter-ego. So "not editing any artile ILT edited" is meaningless. It's the behavior that counts. And I will note that the personas ILT, HatAct and Buttermilk1950 shared an interest in topics related to the old west, broadly speaking, (I know because I was cleaning up those articles for the CCI) and so edits to a topic related to Native Americans do present some additional behavioral evidence. Montanabw(talk) 01:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing concrete though that establishes a truth behind it. Why would a sock account be promoting good articles and other than being accused of socking having no disruptive edits? @User:Victoriaearle, the last confirmed account that was blocked for socking linked to ILT was User:Lapzwans back in September 2012. RO's first edit was in August 2014 almost a full two years later. Have any IP's been blocked since 2012 related to ILT? 2009 - 2012 seems to be the period of sock activity, anything after that could be compared to Rational's edits, if any match up at the same time stamp then there would be no way that Rational was socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Posting on Victoriaearle's talkpage is a sign.[73] Sock User:DoverWheels posted there saying, "ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism" as part of a long post about "Suzanne" getting a GA and and FA, talking about "revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. ... Essentially, to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process."[74] Rationalobserver used a similar process in revising Irataba after there were complaints. Rationalobserver also has an interest in plagiarism, using How to Paraphrase Without Plagiarizing as a citation in editing WP:Close paraphrasing.[75] She also edited WP:Plagiarism[76] and started an RFC [77] on the talkpage. EChastain (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting because Rationionalobserver's behavior struck me as very odd. I first noticed her when she tried to get DS sanction against FA editor Eric Corbett[78] and noticed when she hassled other FA editors. She is a new account as of 31 August, and said somewhere that she had edited for a few weeks under her real name, then stopped and started a new account under a different name. So she's not an experienced editor, according to her, but in looking at her edits, it doesn't make sense. And she's preoccupied with close paraphrasing and plagiarism.
Adds criticism of close paraphrasing of featured article candidate by Dan56 on 27 September[79]
Seeks guidance from Moonriddengirl in dispute with Dan56[80] 2 October 2014.
Rationalobserver adds critique to article she thinks is by Victoriaearle.[81] Says point of Victoriaearle's concerns is to shame her.[82] These are just examples. EChastain (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: can anyone offer a single, solitary diff showing a direct relationship to Rationalobserver and any other account? Just one, please. If you can't do this, then I must conclude that this is a vicious witchhunt based on nothing but paranoid delusions. If that is the case, then I recommend that the clerks and CU's warn and discipline the editors who have brought this case against her. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all I have been seeing as well, editors trying to pin Rational's edits to one of ILT's sock accounts. I would close this as stale as there has been no evidence brought forward that ILT has been active since 2012. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of whatever faults she may have, I've been watching Rationalobserver very closely for a few weeks, and IMO, she's focused on building an encyclopedia more than most editors. If there are problems with her edits, then address them on the talk page. If she refuses to fix the problems or seems incompetent or incapable of change, then apply WP:ROPE. However, the frenzied rush to judgment here has me concerned. Take her to task on her work here and now, not on what some other account might have done. We have no good evidence linking her to these accounts, so deal only with her current behavior. As far as I can tell, she is functioning well within normal operating parameters. Lightbreather's comment is also very unhelpful, as she is clearly biased in regards to EC. I really hope Victoriaearle has good evidence here because if she doesn't, I suggest the admins take a look at some of her previous accusations on ANI (under her former account name) that turned out to be bogus and drama-inducing across the board. Viriditas (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True it isn't unusual, and supplying arbcom confidentially with the former account name (and having an arb drop by here and confirm its veracity without identifying the account) would be a big step in the right direction for exoneration. There is plenty of evidence above for a whole host of disruptive accounts and similar editing patterns. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inactive Admin Note - I don't have a lot to offer in solution (or time) here, but I have done a great deal of digging, beginning a long time ago. I've even tried to engage, as I'm not pedantic about socking, just always looking for a solution. That exchange on her talk page was rather revealing itself. Being a former SPI clerk and active admin that worked sockpuppet cases daily for a couple of years, I am convinced we have multiple dots, I just don't know which to connect. But that they exist, I'm certain, and have said so previously. We have blocked as "unknown master" for less, but here, politics seems to be the obstacle rather than doubt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, you are so wrong. I am not a puppet, and I only have this one active account. You guys blindly follow the duck test, but any intelligent person knows that there are lots of birds that look pretty much like a duck, but aren't. I learned lots about this place as an IP and by watching. You think you can tell what a person should know by their edits, but I learn just as much by observing, which I've done here off and on for years. There is no evidence because I am not socking nor have I ever, nor do I see the point. You have no proof of anything, so your advice is to block without evidence or reason based on "gut" feelings. But what exactly am I disrupting? And if I am a sock what purpose am I serving? Victoria thinks I am ILT, who apparently once stalked her, but I never forced any interactions with Victoria; she initiated our conflict. Have any of these ILT socks ever written an article, and is it really proof that I am ILT because a biased person thinks there are close paraphrases in my articles? No neutral parties have looked at the close paraphrasing accusations, so at this point there is zero proof of any wrongdoing. This is essentially a trial by my detractors, and I have no defense team. If, as HJ Mitchell has said, blocks are meant to protect the project, what good would blocking me do? If I am not a sock, you are punishing an innocent person, but if I was ILT, wouldn't I just make a new account anyway? Why would I defend this one if it's really my 109th account, as Victoria claims? None of this makes any sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that the only connection that Victoria has drawn between me and ILT is the issue of close paraphrasing. But as of now she is the only one who thinks there is a problem with close paraphrasing in my work. It's a conflict that she is both the accuser and the judge of paraphrasing, which is subjective. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationalobserver, Victoria isn't alone. SlimVirgin says above: "I recently read this version of Irataba when RO asked me to review it, and I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources.[83] EChastain (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't alone in what? That's like saying, "You write words, with vowels and letters, just like another editor!" Are you kidding? Looking for and finding close paraphrasing during a review is the most common thing editors find. Do you expect people to believe that's evidence she's a sock? You must be kidding. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver. Per your comment above: "But as of now she is the only one who thinks there is a problem with close paraphrasing in my work." I repeat: SlimVirgin says above: "I recently read this version of Irataba when RO asked me to review it, and I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources.[84] EChastain (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's pretty vague, I wondered whether there was close paraphrasing of one of the sources. Was there? Is there now? Anyway, is it really that unusual to find a couple of close paraphrases in an editor's second article? Did you notice that the Copyright Clerk disagreed with Victoria's characterization of my article? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, Rationalobserver, you've changed everything between then and now, including the wording and the citations.[85] EChastain (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken. Look here. These are the concerns Victoria expressed, and I didn't change anything until the Copyright Clerk disagreed with her characterization, stating: "while there is possibly some over-close paraphrasing in that section which could be improved, it does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation. And in several cases listed above, I would dispute that the paraphrasing is overly close. Blanking it with the copyright violation template was excessive in my view." There is no copyvio issue and there are no other connections between me and ILT. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver, that's not true. Look at the article history. You changed wording, citations, references, etc. EChastain (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that, as I said before, these aren't nearly as problematic as Victoria claims. Here's what the copyright clerk said: "while there is possibly some over-close paraphrasing in that section which could be improved, it does not remotely rise to the level of a copyright violation. And in several cases listed above, I would dispute that the paraphrasing is overly close. Blanking it with the copyright violation template was excessive in my view. At most {{Close paraphrasing}} should have been added to the section so that the material could be re-worked where necessary." So my work, which was the second article I ever wrote, isn't problematic in the first place, which undermines this entire witch hunt. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2 My biggest concern is Rationalobserver's interations with Victoriaearle. She says to Victoriaearle, after she reverted Victoria's edits on Talk:Irataba and was reverted: "You're pulling out all the stops here. That sock must have really rattled your cage."[86] Rationalobserver posts to Victoriaearle's talkpage[87] "Why do I get the feeling that your newfound interest in me has do do with this? a reference to Rationalobserver's edits to Charles Dickens. Rationalobserver posts to Victoriaearle: "Victoria, would you object to my taking a look at your writing for close paraphrasing?[88] after Knowledgekid suggests that she "just let it go". After posting a number of "Source integrity issues" on Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) that Rationalobserver thinks is by Victoriaearle she pings four FAC editors, saying: "I wanted you to see how well Victoria represent sources in "her" FACs."[89] After being told that FAC was another editor's, and given the suggestion: "If this is personal (as that last comment suggests) can we please keep it to someone's talk page? [90], Rationalobserver answers, "Victoria was a co-nom though. Don't you see "any" of these as problematic?[91] Rationalobserver says (above): "I never forced any interactions with Victoria; she initiated our conflict." (Elsewhere she blames SlimVirgin, saying "Don't bother, KK87. This all happened because of Sarah, so she'll obviously not do anything to correct the situation." [92]) EChastain (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of those comments were snippy, but I had just gotten accused of being ILT and my work confronted, so I was upset. All I meant was that I not once interacted with Victoria before she started confronting my work as her first edits of the day. I said it was SlimVirgin's fault because she refused to follow-up at Irataba regarding an issue with Waters that I fixed in two days time. Had she followed up I would never have commented about it at her talk page, and Victoria would never have "gotten an eerie feeling" I was ILT. I think Victoria has PTSD from being harassed by ILT, and now she sees them everywhere, even two years after the last sock was caught. You obviously have it out for me regardless of this thread, and you still haven't provided a link to confirm accusations you levied against me a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, there aren't any copyvios in my articles, so where is the connection? There is no overlap in interest and no similar behavior regarding copyvios, as Victoria claims. This report is complete bullshit, and I get the feeling you know that but don't care as long as I get blocked. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no-one is expecting an involved person to, but I think it needs some more uninvolved people to actually look at this, which hasn't happened apart from Dennis Brown above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who was pinged, including Dennis, is uninvolved. SlimVirgin pinged them precisely because they are involved, and their reaction to this report was predictably negative towards me. Did she ping anyone I am on good terms with, or only people I've had conflicts with? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What dispute have you had with Dennis? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, see here and here. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of having had any disputes with RO; I was pinged because of my tenure at FAC involving ILT et al and their FAs. I did have interaction with ILT socks, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I said that SlimVirgin pinged several people I have had conflicts with, but you were pinged by Victoria, right? Rationalobserver (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalobserver, you also pinged SandyGeorgia, as documented above.[93] with edit summary: ‎Source integrity issues: ping SandyGeorgia, et al. I don't think you're reading the evidence or taking this seriously. You're posting on many editor's pages so perhaps you're too busy, but you're not paying attention to the evidence here or responding to talk page comments about what you've posted on those talk pages, except for arguing and then unwatching. Your comments aren't thoughtful. EChastain (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you're continuing to post on Victoriaearle's talk, even today.[94] EChastain (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't implied that I am not welcome there, but I think you are tolling me so I won't be responding to any more comments from you. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment3 on similarity of a sock and Rationalobserver: interest in music, songs/albums

A ItsLassieTime sock contributed to a FAC in May 2010. User:SoniaSyle added a comment to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)/archive1 that shows a knowledge of music.[95] and doing GA reviews[96] - failed because of vocal range key issues. SoniaSyle was a GA reviewer. See Talk:Cry (Michael Jackson song)/GA1 failed on 30 May 2010. Passed by another editor on the same day. SoniaSyle nominated Lilyan Tashman for GA in 2010 but it was failed. See Talk:Lilyan Tashman/GA1. Note: these sock edits are hard to find because some or all of the edit history is missing. Rationalobserver began posting on Dan56 FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xx (album)/archive1 on 26 September and continuing with long complaints until 21 October, jumping into comments by others. Provides a long critique under "comments from Rationalobserver", and "Dan56 and close paraphrasing", focusing on "WP:PLAG#Avoiding plagiarism. There Rationalobserver claims she is "a musician of 35 years, and plays "guitar, bass, drums, keyboards, a little saxophone, and sometimes when I'm a little tipsy, the didgeridoo.". So Rationalobserver is also interested music e.g. in albums/song, like SoniaSyle. Rationalobserver has begun reviewing GAs; last one is passing Knowledgekid87's article for GA.[97] EChastain (talk) 23:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence linking the accounts. She's a musician, so what? Do you know how common that is? Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha how perfect; nice try at deflection. [personal attack deleted] Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So your Venn diagram of suspicion includes all people that like music and have participated in GAs? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is looking more link at ANI case than an SPI case. I'm not able to adjudicate the issue (and WP:INVOLVED isn't the reason), but most of this is fluff, and I would assume if a clerk stumbled across this, he would agree that the bickering should stop, and someone experienced should simply investigate the case, which might take a week or two. The "he said, she said" stuff is preventing a fair examination and clogging up the page. This isn't a public debate, it is supposed to be a formal investigatory board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see no behavioral evidence that links Rationalobserver to ItsLassieTime's socks. The linguistic differences between Rationalobserver and the ItsLassieTime's socks are striking. Just one example: ItsLassieTime's socks shout with caps a lot whereas I haven't found an instance in which Rationalobserver has shouted with caps. There are many others subtle linguistic differences and they can't be faked. Time to close and move on. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
linguistic differences can be similar ot not similar, but dismissing the argument because of they being "strikingly different" is naieve, given that your evidence is limed and are text based, and that both are highly articulate and skilled at expressing [petutantly] themselves. Youve read fiction books before, right? I challenge your claim that certain characterists "cant be faked". Well, name them. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you've got the burden of proof reversed. You have limited evidence, evidence that is clearly insignificant and cherry picked to make it look like there is a relationship between the users when one doesn't actually exist. In such a case, we dismiss the argument because it lacks good evidence. That's not naiveté, it's best practice. It's not our fault if your evidence is poor. If there's really a problem at work here, WP:ROPE will take care of it. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above. Ceoil (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One can easily counter challenge you to find some hard evidence against Rational, of which nobody has done so far. Should someone accuse you of socking next because you share the same editing interests with a banned sock? Going down the list of all of the banned sock accounts Wikipedia has I am sure there will be at least one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find logic in what you just said but just cant. Um, fine launch an SPI gainst me, or something? Nice company you keep Viriditas, as usual. Ceoil (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no concrete evidence and never has been, I don't know how you can connect someone to being a sock through such weak evidence. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk note: I'm going to close this. I don't see any credible evidence here at all that Rationalobserver is a sock of ItsLassieTime. The behavioural evidence presented here is, IMO, not nearly enough to establish a connection between these two accounts. If people think RO or any other user has been violating any of our policies, that should be taken up in the appropriate places — not here, unless sockpuppetry is involved (which, as I said, it doesn't seem to be in this case). I also find it noteworthy that ILT has had no confirmed socks since September 2012; I'm not inclined to accept that RO or any other currently active user is a sock of ILT without extremely convincing behavioural similarities that are nowhere to be seen here. And even if RO is suspiciously precocious, and people think on that basis that RO must be a sock of someone (and not simply a user who had an earlier account but chose to abandon it and start over with a new username), that still doesn't matter here unless there is strong evidence that RO is a sock of ItsLassieTime (which, once again, I simply do not see). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Arbcom received disclosure of the prior account. NativeForeigner Talk 10:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
06 April 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


The thing that initially made me wonder: SeeSpot Run has been edit warring to remove File:Goldilocks Batten 1890.jpg from The Story of the Three Bears. I notice that this image was uploaded by ItsLassieTime; it's possible they want to remove this image so that we don't notice who the uploader was.

Investigation shows there's some significant article overlap between ItsLassieTime and SeeSpot Run. Both have edited the following articles (this might not sound like a lot of overlap, but keep in mind that SeeSpot Run has only edited 17 different articles so far):

I wonder if a check-user could have a look for sleeper accounts as well, as this is a person with a history of prolific socking. Thanks. Diannaa (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to notify Spot, so I did so for you. The WP:DUCK appears to be strong here, but bear in mind that Lassie is a prolific Wikipedia troll from all the way back in 2009. --DawnDusk (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying the user is optional, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases#Important notes. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, but this user has been a decent editor for half a year. No reason not to. He deserves that courtesy. --DawnDusk (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a bit of topic overlap: it's a common interest in three completely unrelated subjects: the Old West, ballet, and fairy tales. This strikes me as highly unlikely to happen by coincidence. Digging around, I found some more similarities:

  • similar user page design, with a list of GAs and future projects: User:ItsLassieTime; User:SeeSpot Run. Sock accounts also had similar user page designs (User:Kathyrncelestewright and User:Buttermilk1950 for example)
  • Both users have undertaken multiple good article nominations. Several long-term sock accounts also did multiple GA nominations and/or reviews (Kathyrncelestewright, Buttermilk1950, and Susanne2009NYC for example). SeeSpot Run and sock Kathyrncelestewright have both participated in the FA process.
  • Both users have zero automated edits. Socks such as Susanne2009NYC, Kathyrncelestewright, LaSylphide also have zero automated edits.
  • Both users open threads at ANI about editors they see as problematic (for example, this thread and this thread initiated by SeeSpot Run; this thread by Buttermilk1950 and this thread by Susanne2009NYC). -- Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish you would reconsider the request for check-user, as this sockmaster has in the past used as many as six accounts concurrently, and it seems pointless to block only one if there are sleepers out there. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think CU data is stale. We'll have to look at the behavioral evidence.

SeeSpot Run said "wp doesn't make such lists"[107]
ItsLassieTime said "WP doesn't do taglines.." [108]
Buttermilk1950 wrote "Pleae leave a message"[119] as first edit to the UTP. SeeSpotRun wrote "Leave a message!"[120]
Work on FAC.[127], [128]
Comments by other users

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

  • Vanjagenije, I will freely admit that you have much more experience at SPI related things than I do; however, it does seem that there is some pretty substantial behavioral evidence posted above. — Ched :  ?  11:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined ItsLassieTime and all his previous socks are very stale. There is nothing to compare with, and fish CheckUser is not for fishing. The only way to prove SeeSpot Run is the sock of ItsLassieTime is through behavioral investigation, be we need more evidence. Diannaa, we need some stronger evidence. Just having similar interest, and editing similar articles is not very strong evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a checkuser anyway. There is only one other user to be found, with no enwiki edits -- account home is on Simple, only a few edits, all related to Michael Jackson and his chimp. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with Diannaa and Ched, and disagree with Vanjagenije: the evidence is much more than merely "Just having similar interest, and editing similar articles". OccultZone has also provided further evidence, making the case clear beyond reasonable doubt, so I shall block the account. I also disagree with DawnDusk: in a case of this kind there are very good reasons for not informing the sockpuppeteer. I am sure that DawnDusk's action was done in good faith, but I think it was mistaken. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

03 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


I am a private eye working incognito to nab User:ItsLassieTime. Check the Old West, goldilocks and Jack and the Beanstalk edit histories. Marf Lassie (talk) 15:48, 3 February 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

I don't know anything about this master, but the filer was as suspicious as the listed puppet. ItsLarsonTime and Marf Lassie are  Confirmed to each other. I blocked ItsLarsonTime without a tag. Another administrator blocked Marf Lassie before I could get to it. I leave it to a clerk to decide whether tagging the two accounts is reasonable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

self confessed sock. CU requested to look for sleepers Nthep (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also

identical behaviour - replacing content with "It's Lassie Time". Alll three blocked for quacking. Nthep (talk) 17:22, 4 February 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:
IPSLassie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
SockTalkBlock (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RickOutOfBaltimore (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
LassieNoticeboard (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
DoubleFront (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ItsLaxitiveTime (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Marf Lassie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ItsLarsonTime (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
ItsLackeyTime (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 18:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Related articles, vandalism and page blanking.  Looks like a duck to me (I am using an alt account, the vandal is from my school) Diff: Maine State Route 24 Laredo Maine (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Laredo Maine (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is an admitted sock. On second thought, however, this may be an attempt to discredit See Pioneer Run (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ([143]).GABHello! 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I inadvertently created a 2nd SPI here: [144], due to the capitalization of the name. Could the two be combined? RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RickinBaltimore: I history-merged the two. But your original comments ("I think this is a duck quacking ...") are now lost in the current version. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added Laredo Maine to list of possible socks due to highly suspicious behavior: See contribs. GABHello! 22:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


03 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

This appears to be the same pattern, making a wild claim on ANI, along with other users pages about ANOTHER account being a sock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by other users

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

I added a new user User:ItsLackeyTime who just vandalized the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about another? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


False Claims at an SPI against me Lemmysland (talk) 15:48, 22 February 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:

24 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

User blanking full pages, see American Frontier, making wholesale changes to Maine state road pages, see Maine State Route 24 RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:46, 24 February 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

25 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

See this edit. It may be an imitator, and I don't know if ILT was ever known to do this, but the user mentioned as the "most recent SPI identified" was blocked as a vandalism-only account, not as a sock. So they may be giving this one away. The mentioned account and listed account have, however, edited Maine State Route 24, as a previous sock has. GABHello! 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now blocked. GABHello! 21:39, 25 February 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

21 March 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Vandalizing Maine State Route 89, username, SPI vandalism -- all iconic traits of this LTA: [145][146]. GABHello! 19:24, 21 March 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:
RatedLassie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RatedLion (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RatedElogi (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RatedBeals (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
CoughSkin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
RatedSoft (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Marf parker 207 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Mike V • Talk 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21 June 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Per this edit, matches the MO shown in the LTA report. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:39, 21 June 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

05 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Editor is primarily editing Maine highway related articles, including blanking sections. The last several blanking edits to those same articles were reverted and blocked socks of the sockmaster. Immediately went to ANI when they were given warnings, blanks talk page. Behaviors match patterns listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime, including using a children's book as name. Diff #1 (Blanking), Diff #2 (Blanking), Diff #3 (Talk page blanking), Diff #4 (ANI, claiming harassment -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 5 October 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

19 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


From Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime, matching behaviors: Immediately created user page and talk page. First two articles edited were previously edited by or created by other Lassie socks (User:Lemmysland). Immediately edited Maine related articles, removing content from Interstate 295 that the last two Lassie socks have removed. Began a strange campaign to hat reference sections, which does not seem to be a habitual behavior, but upon being reverted, began edit warring with two other editors and went to ANI, which is a typical habit. Another habit shown was blanking user talk page warnings. Pinging @C.Fred and The1337gamer who have been reverting. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 19 October 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

22 August 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

following more vandalism. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 15:55, 22 August 2017 (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

This case is being reviewed by Sro23 as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

29 December 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Compare: [147], [148], [149], [150]

Article edits: [151] [152]

Blocked as a duck. Filing for documentation. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ManShacks. GABgab 01:42, 4 January 2018 (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

03 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Note characteristic preoccupation with the state of Maine, especially Brunswick. [153] [154] [155] [156]. Certainly fits the bill at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. Sro23 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2018 (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

08 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


See below.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2018 (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

21 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


The master was involved in a content dispute at Colonial Spanish Horse. A new account (now blocked as a sock) was created and the only edits not in their own user space are 3RR warnings to the opposition in the edit war and to make a 3RR complaint and an ANI complaint. (Diffs: [157], [158] & [159]) Note: Following the negative result at ANI, one further edit was made before the account was blocked.

Attention has been drawn to TheDogHound (now also blocked) which has performed the same reports against the same opponent and even accused the opponent of Meatpuppetry. (Diffs: [160], [161] & [162]).

The sock master is still active and without sanction. ForSPI (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — ForSPI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not sure how to affects things but there is now a suggestion that these are all socks of ItsLassieTime. ForSPI (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Whatever.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So hang on a moment. Indeffed for what exactly? You got to WP:SPI to raise a case. But as an IP address editor, you cannot. The instructions there tell you to "Log in or create an account to start [the investigation]". You follow the instructions and then everyone is accusing you of being a sock of (presumably) the very person you are creating the report against. How does that work then? ForSPI (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some minor detective work suggests that this ItsLassieTime sock farm is based in Kansas in the US (fits with the mainly American related articles edited). I (and my IP address, 148.252.129.201 which I have made no attempt to disguise) are located firmly in the UK, several thousand miles away (though the location is a couple of hundred miles out). ForSPI (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

This case is being reviewed by Sir Sputnik as part of the clerk training process. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference, and pose any questions or concerns either on their Talk page or on this page if more appropriate.

05 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Using AIV/AN to report a user who provided info against user in a previous investigation, CU needed to check both for this and sleepers. Name similar to previous socks too Nightfury 14:58, 5 February 2018 (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

17 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


I realize that this is very stale, but there are known socks of ILT such as User:PrestoPrestoPresto that were active at this time. I can't provide difs because 1) they would potentially out someone and 2) they've been rev deleted. However, it is important to establish a pattern of outing for ILT, due to recent events and the fact that other editors are being blamed for actions that should probably be attributed to ILT. If an admin would like for me to privately explain my rationale for believing Crazyhorselady is ILT, feel free to email me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (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

19 July 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Is this a confession? Adam9007 (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2018 (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

31 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Anyone working SPI knows this one, see the LTA. Also, they hit one article I edited in the last 24 hours or so Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 31 August 2018 (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

16 October 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

Per User:Ansh666's comment on this ANI thread. SemiHypercube ✎ 01:12, 16 October 2018 (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

 Confirmed to Architect 134 (talk · contribs · count). Adjusting block. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05 March 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Created immediately after ban; both are SPAs accusing others of supposed Serbian nationalism. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 01:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for Albright888 (talk · contribs): #1010346348, #1010346666, #1010347042, #1010347489.
Diffs for The picture of the day is naked (talk · contribs): #1010348192, #1010348449, #1010348675. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 01:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn as The picture of the day is naked (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Un-withdrawn as I HATE SERBIANS (talk · contribs) is now active! Twassman | Talk | Contribs 01:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:Additional accounts:

— csc-1 02:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks! Feel free to just add these accounts to the list above, if you'd like. — Twassman | Talk | Contribs 02:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merged this with the above list — csc-1 02:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

All  Confirmed (and maybe some more in relation to that list, see my lock log) to ItsLassieTime on loginwiki, some data on cuwiki. —Thanks for the fish! talk•contribs 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 August 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same modus operandi as RandNetter96 (talk · contribs) (confirmed sock) and Drill it (talk · contribs) (suspected sock, globally locked) - quick fire use of anti-vandalism tools with little to no communication or accountability.  Looks like a duck to me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Could you explain how that user is a sock of ItsLassieTime? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DarkMatterMan4500, Because RandNetter96 was blocked as one, Drill it was globally locked by a steward with no prompting, and all three accounts have the same behaviour. Rapid-fire use of anti-vandalism tools, refusing to respond to multiple "shouldn't you have assumed good faith" messages, and adding very short ANI threads with very little context for minor incidents. This matches the behaviour mentioned in the LTA case : "In 2017 and 2018 a pattern of making mass reverts, templating users, and (as usual) reporting users to ANI was observed", citing Sakaimover (talk · contribs) and Architect 134 (talk · contribs) as examples. Essentially, I have spent some time explaining to these accounts why they should assume more good faith and what they can do to improve, only to ultimately find they have been blocked as a sock having bitten a number of newbies in the process. I hope I'm wrong with this one, but I don't want to go through all that discussion again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, yes. I see what you're talking about now. I've been looking at the Long-term abuse case against ItsLassieTime, and one of them states "In 2017 and 2018 a pattern of making mass reverts, templating users, and (as usual) reporting users to ANI was observed". DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

When Ritchie blocked Drill it, he tagged the account as a suspected puppet of this master. I don't know if any check was run then or since to provide technical corroboration of Ritchie's belief. I believe the previous confirmed socks of ItsLassieTime are stale. However, the suspected puppet here is not, and neither is Drill it. I am therefore requesting a CU for confirmation and to see if any other prolific editors like Rdp (75K edits!) have slipped through the cracks. Personally, I don't think it's a duck.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passerby  Clerk note: Architect 134 and Sakaimover are from a distinct case which is unrelated to ItsLassieTime. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Check declined by a checkuser. Lack of evidence beyond "this person is doing a thing someone else did" and a veteran admin saying "I don't think it's a duck" does not make me feel like going on a fishing expedition. Ducks can be blocked without a CU check. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I'm not sure what to say here. I thought that Drill it was disruptive and a suspicious editor; I did from the beginning. However, much as I appreciated Ritchie's block, I had trouble with his determination that Drill it was a sock of ILT. As far as Bsadowski1's "unprompted" global lock of Drill it with the notation of "long-term abuse", I (we) have no way of knowing what Bsadowski1 meant by that; nor do I see it as a violation of anyone's privacy if that were clarified. My main reason for requesting a CU was because I didn't see enough evidence to block Rdp behaviorally, and I was concerned that they would be. Unlike Drill it, from the limited number of edits I've seen Rdp make, their editing has been constructive (75K edits are hard to review). Anyway, I'm not expecting, or even asking you to, change your mind about the decline. I'm just using the decline as a trigger for expressing my views more clearly (hopefully) on the issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


I think this is ItsLassieTime. This user came to me and a lot of other users' attention, as they were mass reverting edits at a very fast rate and hitting the rate limit. They also templated users, as seen here. This matches up with the LTA page: "In 2017 and 2018 a pattern of making mass reverts, templating users, and (as usual) reporting users to ANI was observed" wizzito | say hello! 12:51, 25 December 2021 (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

26 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

From this interaction timeline, you can clearly see some overlap with Jonathon Phelps rapidly reverting edits, consistent with this long-term abuse page on the master, ItsLassieTime. The reported account is blocked, but I'm reporting this for the record, and see if we can flush out a few more sleepers if that's possible. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, one more thing: From that same interaction timeline, you can also see that Aroha Parish has blindly warned other users for vandalism, when it should be quite clear that the user who even gave them these types of warnings have also vandalized via mass rapid reverts themselves. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 26 December 2021 (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

10 August 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdcomix&diff=prev&oldid=1239649071 Requesting CU for sleepers Jdcomix (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2024 (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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive&oldid=1239685211"