Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wildhartlivie

Wildhartlivie (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date July 1 2009, 23:45 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Viriditas

Wildhartlivie says that LaVidaLoca is his WP:ROOMMATE account[1] and that they share the same IP[2] but use different computers.[3] While this may be true or not, they edit the same articles, revert for each other during edit wars and disputes,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] , defend each other in disputes[15]and use the same or similar but unique language and phrasing in their edit summaries and talk pages. ("w/", "completely", "&", "yet another", "???" ) There are few, if any overlapping edits, and the LaVidaLoca account appears to only edit articles when Wildhartlivie is inactive. Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I was not notified of this but I assume I am also being accused. I do stay with Wildhartlivie sometimes, a lot during the last several months. I don't choose to say why, that is personal. We have shared residences at different times in our lives. When that happens, we share an internet connection, but I don't always edit here from home. I don't know of a policy against two people from the same house working on Wikipedia or having an interest in the same topics. We grew up together, we went to school together. Because of that, we share many interests and other personal life things. One of those things is a great love of movies and actors and we usually think a lot alike. That happens when people remain friends all their lives. I have some of the same articles that she does on my watchlist. Our wake/sleep hours aren't congruent so we are rarely home together and awake when I am staying with her. I won't post personal contact information here to let anyone that wants take advantage of it.

She taught me how to edit on Wikipedia when I became interested. She directs me to policies when I need them and taught me how to use Wiki markup and insert links when it is needed. I don't think there is a lot of similarity in how we write, but I've seen her writing for over 30 years and she's seen mine. As for using w/ and & in edit summaries, Viritidas probably hasn't been a waitress. That's standard shorthand for writing down orders and I see it in a lot of edit summaries by other people. Wildhartlivie and I have both been waitresses during our lives. Saying "completely" is sort of a colloquialism for our group so that might creep in a lot. So is "totally" and sometimes so is "cool". I don't know about "yet another" and that seems like a stretch to me.

I don't see any evidence of being involved in edit wars or disputes or defending one another. I posted a personal attack message at [16] after that person left a an attack at [17]. That wasn't defending anyone in a dispute. It's a personal attack warning. I saw that she had an issue on Jonestown earlier in the morning with a new editor and decided to try and take care of that myself because of the dispute that was going on there with Viritidas. What was going on with the new editor had nothing to do with the dispute with Viriditas so there was no defending her edits. It mostly was about that person changing categories and moving a photo directly underneath the infobox. I admit it that I let it become a little bit of an edit war with the new editor and I'm sorry if that was the situation. If I have done something wrong on Wikipedia it was my doing, noone else's, but I don't see that I did. I am willing to be banned or have my account deleted if I have done something wrong, but there is no collusion or meatpuppet activities taking place. The truth is, this whole thing has made me rethink my interest in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a fun place to edit, not one where people get accused and attacked. It is wrong to try and seek punishment to Wildhartlivie for something that she or I did not do or I did wrong. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Wildhartlivie

I had begun to prepare a long and extensive defense against this accusation, but after having looked into the evidence offered, statements by other regular Wikipedia editors and considering it, I believe a brief examination of what is being construed as sock or meat puppet activity indicates no culpability. The burden of proof rests with the accuser, the accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. I will start by stating that there seems to be an ulterior motive to this filing.

The case has been presented by comments by other Wikipedia editors that this accusation was spurred by the filing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas and the recent dispute on Jonestown. Before this was filed, Viriditas approached me on my talk page and simply left a message saying "You're busted", which was interestingly repeated by the IP post below [18]. Does that mean Viriditas posted that to support his/her contentions? Of course not, but the language used is similar. As was pointed out by Pinkadelica, I've had extensive issues with a persistent and tenditious sock puppet operator and, as I told Viriditas on that talk page, have had to have oversight intervention more than once. I've no doubt that this hit Wikipedia Review and brought the IP comments and I happily disclose to an oversight or bureaucrat the details of that. Regardless, when necessary, I was quite frank and candid about the fact that I know LaVidaLoca personally and explained that to Viriditas [19] but she/he kept trying to back me into making an admission that was and is unfounded, "Fess up now, or I pursue this. The jig is up.", go tell the AN/I board and promise to be a good girl [20] and ...if you want to come clean on this, I'll hold off." Another editor, who I would conclude is not unsupportive of Viriditas or noted the implications of what was going on, even left comments regarding the AN/I and RFCU reports, saying "V, you're probably not helping your cause much here", "V, you really are only hurting your cause here (and on AN/I)", and using the edit summary of "oh dear", said "V... holding an SPI over someone's head is a really, really bad idea. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up; either file an SPI and see what it proves/disproves, or stop making the accusation, as that counts as personal attacks", which was part of the basis of the RFCU filed and upon which I commented. Personal attacks can certainly be insinuations and unfounded accusations, such as this case.

The evidence presented above does not demonstrate in any way reverting for one another up in edit wars, edit warring at all, avoiding 3RR or defending one another in disputes (which was shown in fact to be a personal attack warning). The diffs above show situations that are in no way any of those.

All of this editing activity was in routine maintenance and vandalism protection, none was relative to any ongoing disputes, edit wars, or defense of someone else in any way. Some of LaVidaLoca's edits noted above occurred just following my eye surgery when I was unable to edit. You would find many, many more frequent instances on articles where two of the editors who replied on this page have reverted to a version of an article that I had last done, or where I had reverted to a version they had made. Pinkadelica and Rossrs and I all have many of the same articles on our watchlists because we frequently work together on actor related articles in conjunction with WP:ACTOR and all keep high profile targets of vandalisms and persistent sock masters (HarveyCarter to name one) watchlists in case they return and make unsourced and contentious additions. We've also worked on articles together. That does not make either of them sock puppets or meat puppets either. I disclosed to at least four Wikipedia editors privately of our friendship some time ago, including Pinkadelica and Rossrs. I would name the other two if they happen to post comments here and confirm that.

LaVidaLoca addressed the other evidence presented above and I don't believe that needs to be revisited, except to note that Viriditas had issues with the same editor upon which LaVidaLoca left the "defensive" personal attack warning [21]. Pinkadelica left diffs and comments about that below. That someone I know in the real world and sometimes stays with me because of my health reasons and issues related to her and my personal lives, sometimes and frequently lately accesses the internet using my connection does not make us either sock puppets or meat puppets. I am unaware that it must be disclosed that I know another Wikipedia editor or for what reason unless it raises a question. When it did, I readily admitted that was the case because there is no malfeasance here. I am positive I actually know quite a number of editors in real life given the sheer number of editors registered on this site who might actually have edited something that I have. That LaVidaLoca's subject interests are similar to mine given our lifelong relationship is something that does not defy explanation or require one. The pattern of editing outlined in the evidence does not support this accusation and I suggest this case be closed as unsupported and unfounded and motivated by other factors. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

I have no knowledge of Wilhartlivie or his room mate, nor is this information directly relevant to IP searching, etc., but it is worth a short mention: undisclosed above is that Viriditas has engaged in a long and extensive Wikihounding campaign against Wildhartlive, myself and Yachtsman1, that is now the subject of an RfCU. I won't go into details, but it includes NUMEROUS false charges and conspiracy theories. Viriditas included several false allegations of "sock puppets" or "meat puppets", such as:

Mosedschurte (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the abuse? I see a few examples of editing the same article over the span of years, but no real pattern of long term abuse that warrants any sort of action from two editors who share the same address. I also noted overlap on June 4, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. between the two editors. Also, please take note of this: [22] and compare with this pointed edit: [23] The "defending" each other allegation involves a sock who was banned, and with whom the initator of this investigation also had differences. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly are acting as sockpuppets. The same articles, the same times, and the same tone. Coincidence? I think not. --64.29.148.60 (talk) 04:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - [24]. This appears to be a one-time edit by this IP address for attack purposes that appears in, of all places, this investigation.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


BUSTED - If they are really roommates, then why do they post to each others talk pages like strangers? Just a few examples:

It is clear that the roommate story is a big lie.

If you check the all the IP's used for both accounts, I bet more accounts will show up. Then there will be more "we live together but comment on each other talk pages like we do know each other" explanations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.212.19 (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Compare with this: [25]--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's interesting. I see the same or similar but unique language and phrasing in the word "busted" being use twice, and each time presented as a guilty verdict without a good faith assumption. Rossrs (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how anyone could look at the three edits above, and leap to the conclusion that "the roommate story is a big lie". This issue is more serious, and requires something more consequential. The first edit is a welcome message placed on LaVidaLoca's page. It's main function is to provide a link to Wikipedia guidelines, and Wildhartlivie has confirmed she has helped LaVidaLoca with policies. Isn't the template the simplest way of doing this? The second edit is an acknowledgment. That is does not start "thanks old friend" does not prove any attempt to talk "like strangers". In fact the second part of the message is unclear and somewhat vague, and suggests familiarity, rather than an effort to disguise familiarity. The third one is a completely neutral comment that is as brief as it needs to be. Why would it require any kind of familiarity in conveying this piece of information? A bland piece of information doesn't need more than a bland message. It seems tenuous at best. I also feel that the examples ("w/", "completely", "&", "yet another", "???") given are not particularly idiosyncratic. I've used all but "w/" in my own edit summaries over the years, but I'm familiar with "w/" as a fairly common abbreviation. LaVidaLoca mentions it's used by waitresses, and I've never been a waitress, but I have seen it used in a clerical context. It seems to me that if an idiosyncratic language is causing suspicion, that these are not very strong examples. Find a common word that is consistently mispelled or a phrase that's used in an incorrect context, and that would be somewhat more unique. I just don't see suspicion in any of these things as presented.
It seems to be that some who have commented here have done so with their mind's already set and the comments of the two anons who commented before me, seem very set, but also very lacking in anything but a point of view. If you at least consider the possibility that Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca are being truthful, their editing patterns do not appear so suspicious. They've commented that they've been friends for a very long time, so it's natural that they would have a common set of interests, and that their language may even be common. I have friends that would edit the same type of articles as I edit, if they ventured into Wikipedia, so I don't disbelieve that two long standing friends may edit from a similar set of articles. I've been aware of Wildhartlivie for a considerable period of time, longer than I have communicated with her, but I have talked and edited with her for over a year. We have also maintained a private correspondence and I am aware of some of the world in which she lives. The person who edits as LaVidaLoca has often been mentioned or referred to as part of a group of family/friends when we have communicated, and the information that has been disclosed here recently, was disclosed to me some time ago, when there was no real need to provide me with a story, if it was only a story. There are too many small details throughout that indicate to me that there are two different people whose paths cross in the real world on a frequent basis. To a lesser extent I have also communicated with LaVidaLoca. As for their editing pattern well, here's a possibility. Consider that Wildhartlivie has health issues, and that she has a lot of free time. She chooses to spend it editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia is clearly an important interest to her. LaVidaLoca has more of a passing interest, and edits less frequently, and with less depth, but when she edits, it's understandable that she may look at the edits of Wildhartlivie. It's also possible that if she sees Wildhartlivie in some kind of disagreement, that she might step forward. It doesn't seem like an unnatural reaction for a friend, in fact, I think a friend almost certainly look to see what the other friend is working on, and once they've looked they may find it even more difficult not to react. Maybe she's protective, maybe she is used to providing support or maybe she just plain agrees with Wildhartivie. It doesn't follow automatically that they are setting out to work in tandem and to deceive the wider community. I can't offer any proof to support my opinion, but it is not something I take lightly and I base it on what I've observed over a long period of time. I would hope that anyone would at least look at the issue from each side. Assume the two editors are being dishonest and it all looks suspicious, but assume the editors are being truthful and there is very little to establish that there is any kind of intentional misconduct. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, I admit that I am not a neutral editor, as I am also a target in Viriditas' WP:Wikihounding campaign that is the subject of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas. Thus, it probably won't surprise that I generally agree with Rossrs statement that the charges seem "tenuous at best", though I think the evidence firmly backs his/her conclusion. I have no knowledge of the two room mates private lives or computer use patterns, but the first edit is standard welcome message fare, the second if anything makes it seem as if they do in fact know each other and the third is a brief comment that doesn't swing in any direction.
The idea that using the extremely well used English words "completely", "yet another" and question marks somehow denotes "unique language" does not even rise to the level of tenuous at best. The "w/" waitressing language was also explained above, and would be expected with two waitress roomates. I also use it taking notes at work and I have never waited tables. I would like to note that I have edited a series of articles related to the Jonestown incident concurrently with Wildhartlivie (note: sometimes we have been at odds) and it's not like she uses "w/" with particiularly great frequency.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the "evidence" (which is flimsy at best and one of the most obvious examples of fishing I've seen to date), I'd like to disclose that I have worked and interacted with Wildhartlivie (as evidenced by my talk page and edit history) on numerous occasions and that I am not involved in the Jonestown article debacle which has evidently caused all this drama. I've worked with Wildhartlivie on several articles and have communicated with her off-Wiki for the past two years or so. In that time, I learned enough about Wildhartlivie's personal life to know that she and LaVidaLoca are long-time friends and share common interests as most friends do. My knowledge of LaVidaLoca is limited to her work on-Wiki as I've never communicated with her here (if I have, I can't recall) or off-line. Never in the past two years have I suspected that LaVidaLoca and Wildhartlivie were/are the same person. Last time I looked, anyone could warn another user about personal attacks and doing so is hardly defending someone in a dispute. The same editor who opened this SPI also had issues with the very same editor that LaVidaLoca warned and endorsed a RfC that Wildhartlivie opened about that user. I think that's actually a better example of backing someone up in a dispute than a NPA warning. As for the similar edit summaries, big whoop. I know my edit summaries are probably very similar to other editors and I know for a fact that my editing interests probably overlap with a few other editors whom I never met and am not connected to in any way. Even if I didn't know Wildhartlivie and the circumstances surrounding her personal life, I would still think the evidence presented here is weak and circumstantial. Truth be told, the timing of this SPI is suspect considering the editor who opened it has worked with Wildhartlivie before and seemingly never had a problem with her until an RfC regarding their behavior was opened several days ago. I think this case has more to do with retaliation than any real concern over supposed sockpuppetry. As for the IP comments, both comments are from the same IP range as a notoriously annoying sockpuppet that Wildhartlivie got blocked last year. Coincidence? I think not. Pinkadelica♣ 22:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a most ludicrous accusation. The evidence will bear this out. One thing I've learned about sockpoopets is that the multiple-use User has an ego the size of a small planet. I've seen no such behavior on the part of Wildhartlivie. On the contrary, Wildhartlivie's editing has always been in the best interests of this great encyclopedia.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Msg 2 LaVidaLoca: Please do not judge WP by such fun things as this preposterous accusation. Neither you nor Wildhartlivie could possibly be anything but strengthened by all this.
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Having read through the discussion in entirety, I believe that these two users are different people. The supposed "conclusive evidence" provided by the IP means nothing; friends welcome each other on Wikipedia, and occasionally post to their talk pages, so this does not prove they are lying. Nothing further is needed. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the clerk, PeterSymonds in this matter, it is my considered judgment these users are likely distinct people. But being suspicious, I went and checked anyway. Let the record show that technically, there is a strong correlation between the two users. BUT it is one entirely consistent with the explanations offered... that they are editing from the same physical location, and sometimes use the same machine (and sometimes not). As always, this proves that  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust... technical evidence is not the only evidence we should consider. (reminder, a CU run on me and on User:Josette will show similar aspects... but I defy anyone to suggest we are the same person). Is it possible these are socks? Yes. But I adjudge it very unlikely. Corroborate the findings and suggest close. ++Lar: t/c 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report date December 25 2009, 02:49 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]
Evidence submitted by SkagitRiverQueen [edit]

While I realize that accusing an established user of sockpuppetry is looked dimly upon, I suspect that MisterSoup is actually Wikipedia editor Wildhartlivie. MisterSoup's very first edit today was on my talk page. He/she then posted the following: [26]. I replied with the following:[27] in the December 2009 section of the talk page. MisterSoup then appeared again on my talk page with [28]. MisterSoup then made several edits that were deemed disruptive, including violating 3RR. MisterSoup was then blocked for one week. My belief that MisterSoup is actually Wildhartlivie is based on the following: Wildhartlivie has been frustrated that I have not answered a question where he/she has demanded an answer in a currently active issue involving me at [29]. Interestingly, during the time that MisterSoup was posting today (see user contribs: [30]), Wildhartlivie made no edits, as evidenced here: [31]. After MisterSoup was blocked, Wildhartlivie started editing again. The article Wildhartlivie and I first conflicted in was Ted Bundy (and article Wildhartlivie feels very strongly about) - this is the article MisterSoup referenced on my talk page. All of the edits MisterSoup subsequently made were to articles involving celebrities - these are the exact type of articles Wildhartlivie most frequently edits. When looking at MisterSoup's edits today after I discovered his/her "contribution" to my talk page, I immediately noticed that for someone with a new account, MisterSoup seemed awfully familiar with how to edit Wikipedia - including how to insert references (something it usually takes newbies a while to master). I hope that I am wrong - even though I might be charged with wrongfully accusing an established editor of sockpuppetry. Believe me, I take no joy in making this complaint. With all of that in mind, because I take editing in Wikipedia seriously and harassment involving hate-speech and intolerance surrounding sexual orientation even more seriously, I feel that I cannot let my suspicions go idle. Thank you for looking into this matter. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added User:B. Fairbairn because of the following comments that were placed on my talk page in the same section where MisterSoup's comments were later placed. Diffs here: [32];[33];[34]. To which I responded: [35] and then B. Fairbairn responded: [36].

Comments by accused parties    [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Wildhartlivie

This is a specious, paranoid and vindictive sock case filed by someone who is pissed that I commented at her MfD filing (please feel free to look at the MfD to see how she had lobbied to have my comments disregarded) because she was pressed for an answer which she refused to provide. Regardless of her "suspicions", I freely request a checkuser because I personally know this is completely a delusional filing based on paranoid thinking. I don't even feel a need to post evidence to the contrary. I am not someone who makes commentary upon someone's sexual preference nor upon their religion. Do I like SkagitRiverQueen? Not especially now. Did I harass her? No. Am I MisterSoup? Nope, wrong again. Please close this specious fishing expedition as groundless, vindictive and based on bad faith. And for the record, she did not notify me of this filing, a requirement. Following this, I hope that SkagitRiverQueen can find a productive outlet for her delusions and paranoia that does not include me. And Merry Christmas (remember the season, Skag.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing MisterSoup's edits as "All of the edits MisterSoup subsequently made were to articles involving celebrities" is a huge stretch since he only edited Roman Polanski and Steven Seagal and one other. Specious and conjecture to the extreme. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken

The checkuser should note that no evidence beyond mere happenstance regarding User:Beyond My Ken has been provided, and certainly nothing that indicates abusive use of multiple accounts. The addition of my account to this case by Betty Logan seems to be retaliation by him or her for this. Behavioral evidence (since checkuser data is apparently stale) for Betty Logan being a sockpuppet of WalterMitty/Melody Perkins is provided there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "common editing history" between Epeefleche and myself consists of a single edit I made on Erik's talk page to inform him, as an uninvolved editor, of the complaint that Betty Logan had posted on ANI. Erik, incidentally, is the lead coordinator of WikiProject Film, and thus known to most people who edit film articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in the interest of clarity, I'd like to draw the checkuser's attention to this edit, which is where SkagitRiverQueen added Betty Logan's name to the complaint - it was not addded by Wildhartlivie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I had already added mention of that below in the conclusion space, in response to Lar's comment. Equazcion (talk) 17:38, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Equazcion

Since I'm now an accused party I thought I should comment here for the record. My first encounter with Wildhartlivie (since he's the one I'm being accused of socking for) was in my attempt to mediate a dispute involving him and SkagitRiverQueen about two weeks ago, in which I had actually been a proponent of leniency in a 3RR report against SkagitRiverQueen [37]. In that same report you can see I also admonished the reporting party for focusing the report on one warring party and not the other -- the other being Wildhartlivie.

The only reason I'm in this report is because I'm now defending Wildhartlivie, which the reporting party doesn't like. I've been an established Wikipedia user for over 3 years, with over 25,000 edits, and rollback and autoreviewer privileges. I am nobody's sockpuppet. Having been here for this long, and built some semblance of a reputation here, I can assure you that (playing devil's advocate now), were I to engage in sockpuppeting, I would be smart enough not to risk this account by idiotically using it to defend one of my sockpuppets -- especially not in a frivolous case that would have been dismissed anyway without my intervention (the frivolousness being the accusation against Wildhartlivie et al; MisterSoup was a rather obvious sock, just not of anyone accused in this report).

I could probably go through contribs and present evidence that sockpuppeting is not likely between our two accounts, but it seems to me the burden of proof is on the accuser(s), who have not given any evidence yet aside from some paranoid anecdotes that come down to "both these users bothered me in the same place, so maybe they're sockpuppets, we should check just to make sure". When actual evidence is presented for these wild accusations, that's when I'll go scouring for diffs. Til then, adieu. Equazcion (talk) 17:38, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)

You're in this report because Betty Logan placed your name here. In the above, however, you seem to be accusing me of having something to do with your inclusion. I had nothing to do with your name being added. Nothing whatsoever. That you and I didn't see eye-to-eye on a few things over the last couple of days is neither here nor there when it comes to me filing this report and your name being subsequently added. I never would have added your name here because I have never even considered you could possibly be using a sock. I would appreciate it if you would stop implicating me erroneously and casting aspersion upon me unnecessarily. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this was partially directed at you, because even though you didn't accuse me, your rationale for the accusations you did bring are just as weak as Betty's. Equazcion (talk) 18:40, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
That reasoning doesn't explain why you have implicated me as being part of bringing your name here as a possible sock-user. I never mentioned your name here at all. Leaving any reader with the impression that I have something to do with you being brought into this situation (and, if you recall, you inserted *yourself* into this matter to begin with) is wrong and dishonest. Please stop. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up any possible implications, I am not, for the record, suggesting SkagitRiverQueen had anything to do with my being accused in this report. Nevertheless I am suggesting that Skag's actual accusations here are frivolous and unsupported. My having "inserted myself" here, as in, commenting on a sockpuppet case I wasn't previously involved with, is neither here nor there. Anyone is allowed to comment on basically any process, whether they're previously involved or not. Equazcion (talk) 19:07, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
While that's true, a useful metric is whether insertion when previously uninvolved ends up being helpful or not. On balance, it's not clear that your insertion into this particular matter has been helpful, or added clarity, when viewed by me acting as a CU. Which is what matters most on this page and similar ones. It may have been simpler to evaluate if you'd said nothing at all, oddly. ++Lar: t/c 09:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although that wasn't my point. While I'll admit my involvement may have contributed to the drama snowball, my original contribution was rather simple and contained pertinent evidence. It's not uncommon for uninvolveds to state opinions and provide context and evidence. Other uninvolved parties have been commenting here with a lot less. My claim above wasn't that I made things any simpler here, only that I haven't done anything against the rules; nor, as Skag has implied (rather disgustingly I think), that I somehow deserved, should have expected, or should not have been surprised by my addition to the accused list as a result of my contribution. Equazcion (talk) 14:46, 27 Dec 2009 (UTC)
And a "Fair enough" right back at you, you make good points. I'm just saying that sometimes meatball:DefendEachOther works, and saying nothing actually works out well, and may be this was one of those times. This roadshow is about ready to close, I'm thinking. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Equazcion, I have never, not once (disgustingly or otherwise), implied or thought that you that you "somehow deserved, should have excpected, or should not have been surprised by [your] addition to the accused list". Knock it off. Stop trying to now paint me rotten everywhere my name comes up (or where you bring it up). Stop saying I really meant this and I really meant that - stop second guessing me and pretending you can read my mind and know my intentions. the fact is that you don't and you can't know any of it. You may be a good Wikipedia editor, but as far as understanding people in this venue (Wikipedia) goes...you get a serious D-. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skag, when you answer an accused party's defense by saying "you inserted *yourself* into this matter to begin with", that has a rather obvious implication that you should expect. If my characterization of that statement was incorrect, then I'm not sure what you did intend to say there; but I have a feeling that it was meant as it sounded, and you're only backpedaling now because having it restated plainly back at you rightly makes your logic sound faulty. You've consistently had to continue criticizing everyone else's characterizations of your statements; this is not a problem localized to the interaction between the two of us. If I have a problem "understanding people", then so does everyone else, apparently, and basically only when it comes to understanding you. If you don't intend to make the implications that myself and others continue to berate you for, I think you need to re-examine your own strategies, and in the future work on making sure your position is clearer to begin with, and less likely to be "misconstrued", if indeed that's what is happening. And Lar, I think we're basically in agreement on all points. Including that this case can be closed. Equazcion (talk) 16:39, 27 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I may be erroneously "obvious" to you, but that isn't what I was saying at all. Why do you continue to tell me I really meant something than what I say I meant? I was commenting on how you inserted yourself into this thing (just as Lar made the same observation - but you didn't accuse *him* of saying you deserved to be accused) and made more noise than you should have. I stated early on that you should allow the sockpuppet investigation crew do their job and stop thinking Wikipedia *needs* you to help out everywhere. Seriously - do you think that they wouldn't have discovered on their own that the posting patterns didn't match up? I'm not backpedaling because I don't need to backpedal. I have no "strategies". I said what I said and it had no meaning other than what I say it had. I am an honest person - in Wikipedia and IRL. I don't lie. What you see with me is what you get. There's no hidden agenda. Please stop second guessing me (and everyone else you second guess, for that matter) and behaving as if you are omniscient.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SkagitRiverQueen (talk • contribs)
The sockpuppet investigation crew basically encompasses all Wikipedians, just as the incivility crew, the vandalism crew, and essentially all others do. If checkusers alone were meant to investigate sockpuppet cases, there would be a rule that no one uninvolved could comment; there is no such rule. So telling someone not to involve themselves is a non-starter. You refer to my characterizations as mind reading, but all communications have to be interpreted, which is what I did. Again, I'm not the only one who has, according to you, misinterpreted your communications. As Wikipedia thrives on communication, if everyone continually misinterprets you, it makes sense to re-evaluate your method for communicating. Equazcion (talk) 16:59, 27 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other users [edit]
Comment by User:Equazcion

Wildhartlivie did indeed edit while MisterSoup was editing, contrary to Skag's claim above.

MisterSoup's edits on 24 December:

  • [38] - 20:47 (their very first edit)
  • [39] - 20:50
  • [40] - 20:53

Wildhartlivie's edit, that same minute:

Aside from which the case was very thin to begin with. Skag is failing to assume good faith on the part of the people she gets into disputes with. She generally chooses to pump accusations back at them instead of arguing the issues, so this particular accusation doesn't surprise me (nor will it surprise me when Skag accuses me of something as a result of this posting). Equazcion (talk) 18:24, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Betty Logan

I have added user User:Equazcion to the checkuser list. There is an independent investigation alreday going on into User:Wildhartlivie at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice and Equazcion has turned up there to speak out on 'behalf' of Wildhartlivie [42]. It could be that he's done this in all good conscience, but the fact that is a sock investigation underway and this user has turned up in both investigations it would be wise to run a checkuser on him as well. I will make this clear that this is not an accusation, just a precaution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a little bit ridiculous. Defending a user during a sockpuppet investigation doesn't validate suspicions of them being in league with each other. You've also turned up in both discussions; shall I accuse you of being a sockpuppet of SkagitRiverQueen? This little "precaution" grossly crosses the witch-hunt line. Equazcion (talk) 19:33, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that if MisterSoup and Wildhartlivie turn out to one and the same then there is a good possibility he has other socks, and if that is the case I am recommending they check you. I think I may have jumped the gun though. An investigation into you should only be undertaken if their is a positive checkuser outcome between MisterSoup and Wildhartlivie. I'm sorry if I have wrongly accused you because I know how it feels. Please accept my apologies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept your apology if your actions match your words. Remove this ridiculous accusation from the sockpuppet report. FYI, even if the sockpuppet case gets accepted (it won't) and it comes up positive (it won't) there still wouldn't be any rational cause to suspect me. I only defended the user. Equazcion (talk) 20:43, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
There is no "independent investigation" being conducted at WP:AN/I. There is a whiny complaint filed by Betty Logan wherein she wants me to admit that commenting that her behavior of reversions of a talk page post bordered on edit warring. It has no place here and is not germane to this case. There is a sock puppet case hanging around in the background about Betty Logan and some other editor's name, however, which probably should be revived and I will be investigating why it wasn't pursued. Please take your vitriolic accusations elsewhere, Betty Logan. And PLEASE, run the checkuser on the names added here to clear the air. I welcome it as I will welcome the abject apologies from these specious accusers here. This is absolutely outrageous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by User:Elizabeth Bathory

Completely different edit patterns. Quite a ludicrous accusation, if you ask me. MisterSoup is probably a sock of some user, so a checkuser on that user might be warranted, but other than that this seems to be purely out of spite. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 22:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:SkagitRiverQueen

FYI: Socks who wish to remain socks rarely use the same "edit patterns" as their real selves. My report here was absolutely NOT out of spite in any way, shape, or form. In the future, I'd appreciate it if those who are tempted to editorialize their comments here with opinions of me personally, that they leave those personality opinions either to themselves or take it to my talk page. Facts are what's desired in report boards, not personality conflicts and personal attacks based on no evidence. The habit of attacking the reporting party has become too frequent in Wikipedia, IMO - and, in the end. does nothing more than deter editors from reporting anything at all in order to spare themselves the attacks they receive by those commenting. It's no different than what has historically happened to women who rightfully cry rape: blame the victim. But, beyond all that, the fact remains that MisterSoup's very first edit as MisterSoup was anti-gay hatespeech on my talk page. That says to me that MisterSoup is more than likely a sock of someone who has, in the past, had a beef with me in Wikipedia. I may be wrong about who MisterSoup actually is (and I sincerely hope I am), but I am 99.99% certain that MisterSoup is a sockpuppet. That's what needs to be addressed first - who MisterSoup actually is - not finding reasons to put blame on the person bringing the checkuser request forward. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, they might edit different articles, but in most cases the language used will be identical. This MisterSoup person forgot to sign the first post on your talk page (which seems unlikely if you are an established user with years of legitimate edits), tries to push questionable content with poor sources (yet again something that an established user such as Wildhartvie knows would never pass), and - also - the reasoning and questions posed on the various discussion/talk pages seems highly irregular for an established user. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who is intentionally attempting to divert any attention away from their real identity would intentionally change language styles, increase grammatical and spelling errors, punctuation differences, intentionally not signing a post in order to perpetuate the idea that the user really is a newbie, etc. That's what intelligent socks with the intention to deceive do - sockpuppets don't necessarily equate stupidity (although socking is certainly stupid behavior in Wikipedia). The thing that is, IMO, the most suspicious of actions is that rather than editing an article first, MisterSoup (a) went immediately to my talk page to harass me (why *me* out of all of the editors in Wikipedia?), (b) started editing articles as a knowledgable Wikipedia editor would (already understanding how to insert references is not a skill that most newbies *know* to implement nor understand *how* to implement with their first try). These are the two things that stand out to me first and foremost and made me suspicious in the first place. Look, if it turns out that I am completely wrong about whom I initially suspected as being MisterSoup's real identity, I will humbly and whole-heartedly apologize to that individual. As I said in my initial post here, I hope I am wrong. Reporting this wasn't a knee-jerk reaction on my part - I thought through it for a considerable amount of time before making the move to report it. But no matter who it is, I am (as I said earlier) personally convinced that MisterSoup is a sock of someone who targeted me for whatever reason - whether it be a beef between that individual and myself or hoping I would react as I did and accuse someone with whom they have a beef with as a form of vicarious revenge. I don't know the answer - that's why I am asking for the Wikipedia anti-sockpuppet crew to take care of finding out who it is and deal with them appropriately. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are roaming free here, accusing everyone involved with this. Are you sure I am not a suspect, too? (I did, after all, respond quite elaborately on here. Seemingly random, too?) If you read my thread above, you'll see that I too think it is a sock of some user, but there is no evidence whatsoever that would tie Wildhartvie to either of these users. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 02:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please leave your editorializing out of your comments and stick to the facts (did you not see the admonition regarding subjective comments left by Lar: earlier?). If you have nothing factual to add, should you even still be commenting? There's some evidence that points to Wildhartlivie. Whether or not there is *enough* is not up to you (unless you are one of the crew here...?). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but me and Wildhardlivie have edited a lot of the same articles, even reverting the same users several times. (See this and this edit; this and this edit, etc.) Surely that's suspicious? (Even more so than just posting at your talk page.) As pointed out several times, where's your objective, substantial facts? Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 03:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what evidence is there that point to me besides your suspicions? You have not provided a single diff that would show a connection between me and MisterSoup, nor have you provided any evidence connecting my edits with Equazcion or Betty Logan, you simply added Betty Logan to the list because she responded here and posted to your talk page. Please give substantial diffs that make that connection or drop your specious accusations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but filing a specious sock puppet case against an editor with whom you perceive you have ongoing disputes is a personal attack, make no other unfounded assumptions, you've made enough here. I stated that these charges are speculative and paranoid in nature, that's not a personality assessment, it's a characterization of a charge filed that has no basis in facts and no supporting diffs to support it. It is a personal attack upon me to immediately conclude that what you perceive as hate based commentary about your sexual preference would come from me. I don't give a crap which side you butter your bread, I do give a crap that you would immediately connect our dispute on the Bundy page to someone's anti-gay spoutings. Please provide any diff that would support that I personally make commentary based on religion or sexual preference anywhere on Wikipedia. It is paranoid speculation. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildhartlive/Beyond My Ken/Blocked sock Epeefleche connection

I have added User:Beyond My Ken to the checkuser list. I was involved in dispute with User:Erik at Avatar (2009 film). The dispute was eventually resolved amicably, but User:Wildhartlivie left some unpleasant messages on my User talk page: [43]. I felt they were completely unwarranted so reported them at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice. The admin agreed that Wildhartlivie was out of order: [44]. Suddenly, editor User:Beyond My Ken who had bene on Wikipedia less than a month who is very informed about Wikipedia protocol launches a sock investigation into me. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history on the talk page of User:Erik (the aforementioned editor above) with User:Epeefleche:[45] User:Epeefleche is a new name here, but was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh: [46]. User:Ethelh conducted a campaign of harrassment against me after I removed an unsourced contribution. She accused me of creating socks (seeing a pattern?) and waging a campaign of harrassment against her: User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. This came to nothing in the end because User:Ethelh was blocked for being a sock. I am very suspicious because User:Wildhartlivie launches an unprovoked attack on me, User:Beyond My Ken who has bene on Wikipedia less than a month launches a sock investigation into me after I complained about User:Wildhartlivie which was upheld by an admin, and then it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history with a sock who harrassed me on the talk page of the person I had the original dispute with. Betty Logan (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole case falls rather neatly under WP:SPI#When not to request CheckUser, as a paranoid fishing attempt. There's no real evidence. You guys are just adding names of people who gave you a hard time, in case any of them happen to be socks. That's not what CheckUser is for. Equazcion (talk) 15:58, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I admitted I was wrong to add you. But when User:Ethelh has been blocked for being a sock of another user, and the editor running the sock has a common editing history with an editor who has been on Wikiepdia just less than a month and is already filing sock investigations.... Betty Logan (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to state the obvious, a single edit on a user talk page is not a "common editing history". Please stop making these absurd accusations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if a single overlapping edit on a single page is enough, in the mind of Betty Logan, to raise suspicions that I am Epeefleche, what does that say about the 479 edits made by Betty Logan to 14 articles where Melody Perkins made 72 edits and WalterMitty made 76 before they were indef blocked for abusive use of mltiple accounts? That is the evidence I presented here, and for which the accusation against me made here is apparently retaliation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by User:SkagitRiverQueen

When did the focus of this report become Wildhartlivie? I filed this report to focus on the user MisterSoup and listed Wildhartlivie (and then B. Fairbairn and Betty Logan as possible actual identities/other socks of Mister Soup...did one of the clerks change it or someone else? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that clerk NuclearWarfare moved the case at 11:41 UTC 25 Dec. See this diff and the 2 or 3 right after it. You'd have to ask him why exactly but it makes sense to me, we tend to move cases to the more established user names, I think. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is frigging insane. Allow me to suggest some other names that you might rightly include, based on the evidence given here: WP:WBE. There is no more evidence present here that relates me to any of these names than the ones of which I'm being accused. This is a specious and paranoid witch hunt with no basis in fact or reality. Please close this specious and frigging insane report. I do not intend to further dignify this with a response. When this is closed as non-supported, please be so good as to delete this page, it contains only fodder for persons wishing ill against other editors and has no place in the archives. Folks, please, seek reality therapy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Johnuniq

I have encountered Wildhartlivie (a well-respected editor) in matters totally unrelated to this case and there is absolutely no basis for an SPI investigation. A very quick look (all this case is worth) at Beyond My Ken and Epeefleche shows that there is no reason to investigate them either. If anyone is wondering, I learned of this SPI at an MfD where I commented. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(To NW): See above. I don't have any evidence except for the emergence of this other editor in both investigations. It could be that he's just a concerned editor giving his support, but if MisterSoup and Wildhartlivie turn out to be one and the same it may be worth extending the check to Equezcion. It's not a proper suspicion, I appreciate that, but probably worth looking into if something does turn out to be amiss. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. It's "not a proper suspicion", and therefore should never have been made. Equazcion (talk) 19:35, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

To all the parties: Stick to facts please. Diffs that show a likelihood of disruptive socking are what is needed here. Aspersions cast on each other are not. So far I'm not seeing any reason to accept the request but I will not make a final determination just yet (some other CU could, of course). Stop posting anything other than dry factual analysis that helps make a determination of whether a check is warranted, please. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have added no names to this list. And I categorically deny being related to any of the other accounts mentioned on this page. WP:PROVEIT. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simmer down. Lashing out isn't going to get this sorted out any faster. ++Lar: t/c 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Betty Logan was actually added by SkagitRiverQueen. Equazcion (talk) 16:41, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for running a check on Wildhartlive, Beyond My Ken and Epeefleche is overwhelming:

Too many coincidences, too many of the same names keep popping up. Do you not think it is odd that we have an editor less than a month old instigating sock investigations, who has a common history with an editor who has been blocked for running socks? I would certianly put my mind at ease if these three editors were proven to be separate editors. Betty Logan (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of that, in my view, is actual evidence of disruptive behavior that's likely to be socks of a specific person. You're just fishing around, in my view, without specifics. ++Lar: t/c 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draw a line and start over, whoever still wants to hurl allegations ... present specific diffs that represent disruptive edits and a cogent analysis as to why they are likely to be those of a specific person. Or drop this. ++Lar: t/c 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: stay out of the areas that aren't for you. Clerk notes are for the clerks. CU findings are for CUs. ++Lar: t/c 09:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Clerk declined as a formality; see below. NW (Talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
  •  Clerk note: - Betty Logan, do you have any evidence for this at all? NW (Talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: This discussion is going nowhere. I am going to manually archive this case and full protect it for a day. If you want to start another case after that, you are welcome to do so. If you do, present clear and concise evidence for your position. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Evidence and SPI case guidelines might be a worthwhile read. Next time, no responding to each other. Just present evidence in your own section, and leave it at that. NW (Talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions [edit]

A case exists for checking MisterSoup, so I did.  Confirmed that

Blocked and tagged. The discussion above is not very helpful as it continues feature parties casting aspersions on each other. The warning I gave continues to apply to all parties. I am continuing to investigate but I'm not seeing the crisp justification we need here and if things don't improve soon I am going to ask the clerks to close this. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention... Red X Unrelated - MisterSoup/KermitClown and any other party named in this case. ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some more...

  • No justification was given for User:B. Fairbairn's inclusion in this report, I see no evidence whatever presented. fish CheckUser is not for fishing...
  • Insufficient justification was given for User:Equazcion's inclusion in this report, the evidence presented does not justify any checks. fish CheckUser is not for fishing again...
  • User:Betty Logan appears to have been included by someone (apparenty by Wildhartlivie?) in retaliation or something... fish CheckUser is not for fishing yet again...

That leaves us

after removing the parsiflage. I would ask folk again, present me with clearcut diffs here that demonstrate that there is a reason to believe there is a connnection, and that it is disruptive. Skip all the rest of the back and forth. Draw a line and start over. Absent that clear evidence, this case should be closed and after 24 hours I will so recommend. ++Lar: t/c 16:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 20 2010, 00:22 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by SkagitRiverQueen [edit]

User:Sara's Song became a new user around 9pm on Jan 19, 2010 - the same day as Wildhartlivie's account was blocked due to sockpuppetry. While not all, a good number of Sara's Song edits are at the same time of the early morning hours as Wildhartlivie would edit in the past. Sara's Song edits the same types of articles as Wildhartlivie - crime and entertainment/entertainers. Sara's Song has made references in talk page comments indicating she has knowledge of how editors have edited long in the past. Sara's Song's editing abilities seem very advanced (including references and imbedded comments) for someone who has only been editing for four days. Since I made two very benign comments regarding Sara's Song's editing today on talk pages she has left items on, she has requested that her pages be deleted under Right To Vanish - and they are now deleted as of 1630 PST. Because of this, I cannot provide any evidence here regarding her edits. With the evidence presented above, along with the sudden departure of Sara's Song, and the fact that Wildhartlivie is already currently blocked because of socking, I believe very, very strongly that Wildhartlivie has continued socking, this time as Sara's Song. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One addition: In the Marisa Tomei article, one of Sara's Song's comments appears to reveal that she has been around for longer than January 19th: "Also, just so you know, this has been in the article in the past and was removed." The diff is found here [50] --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims. So that account started on the 19th. So did hundreds upon hundreds of accounts. So the account edits at night. So do hundreds and hundreds of accounts, including every editor on Charles Manson at which that the filer edits and fights. So that account likes entertainment articles. So do hundreds and hundreds of accounts. So the editor knows how to edit. That doesn't mean the account hasn't been around, in one form or another, probably one of the anonymous IPs that show up every night and managed to learn how to make a reference. So the editor decided to use right to vanish, lots of accounts do, especially when they are hounded. This is a fishing expedition with a vendetta behind it with no tangible proof. As it clearly says on WP:SPI "CheckUser is not for fishing", for which an unsupported "I believe very, very strongly" claim with no diffs to evidence qualifies. Formally, let me say this is specious and vindictive. This case should be denied on that basis alone. I've never seen this editor before, though I've seen the name on a few high profile article that draw scores of editors each day. It is wholly paranoid to suggest that a new editor who likes entertainment articles is someone else. Also, way to bite the newcomer. Wildhartlivie 12.74.70.68 (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHL was warned on her talk page not to post elsewhere (even as an IP) while blocked, but instead to make her statements there, where one of her many talk page watchers would make sure it was linked or copied here. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]

As in her previous SPI accusation of Wildhartlivie, there's some reason to suspect Sara's Song is a sockpuppet of someone. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for saying that it's Wildhartlivie. This seems again like paranoia. Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Handled by Checkuser, who has told me that they do not intend to place the results on-wiki. Would say this is one to just mark as closed. NW (Talk) 06:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone at least declare whether or not any connection to Wildhartlivie was found? Equazcion (talk) 08:01, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Are you SURE you want that answer? What if the answer is "it's Wildhartlivie all right"? What then? Perhaps all the CUs here are trying very hard to find a path in which Wildhartlivie doesn't end up permanently blocked and are trying not to make things more difficult by providing more evidence of continued policy violation? If you want the question answered, I'll answer it, as I know what the answer is. But be sure you WANT the answer. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is (or is strongly suspected) as a further account of any currently blocked editor then it should be stated, here or in the appropriate place. I don’t understand the need for the evident subterfuge, especially "CUs here are trying very hard to find a path in which Wildhartlivie doesn't end up permanently blocked". I’ll ask the direct question, is it believed to be Wildhartlivie? Leaky Caldron 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to answer at this time, for the good of the project, and all parties concerned. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't in good conscience ask a question without being open to an unpleasant answer, so yes I'd be fine with the answer being stated, whatever it may be. I'm not the accused party though, so I don't have the authority to decline the possible leniency that checkusers are perhaps affording them here. Equazcion (talk) 20:16, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser.


  • Returning this case to closed status. The reported account is blocked, and no further action is likely or necessary in this case. Nathan T 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Report date April 14 2010, 07:28 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets [edit]


Evidence submitted by 207.69.137.36 , an Earthlink IP user who goes by MM in discussions [edit]

Background: User:Wildhartlivie was upset that I was commenting from a dynamic IP at Talk:Andrew Koenig (actor) and WHL made several accusations that I was sockpuppet / blocked / banned account (they are still visible on the talk page although I can provide links to diffs if requested). On March 30, I requested feedback Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie and WHL was told that IPs were allowed to edit anonymously and that the accusations should stop.

If we look at WHL's edits on April 10 (I am not sure if this will link right or not, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100410052941&target=Wildhartlivie) the edits are being made approximately every three minutes up until 4:14 at which point there is a 14 minute break.

Starting at 4:18 the IP begins to edit and makes 4 edits including this personal attack against me "the bizarre, jumping IP editor " [51] and this edit [52] which changes the format of a table filmography to a version in which the fonts are set at 95% with the edit summary "and again, you agreed to stop going about doing this" (see below for significance). The IP edits run from 4:18-4:24. After a 14 minute break, the same 14 minutes in which the IP makes its edits, at 4:28 WHL's edits begin, again at the rate of roughly one every 3 minutes.

WHL has a history of making reversion of filmography tables to versions with 95% font [53] in a dispute that WHL is having with User:Jack Merridew (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography).

I believe that this is pretty firm evidence that WHL logged out and attempted to use an "anonymous" IP to make a personal attack. Or if the logging out was somehow accidental, that the personal attack was still wrong and WHL should be held accountable. MM 207.69.137.36 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following remarks were added after the report had been closed and archived:

Notes post closing:
@Rossers - I did in fact mention the personal attack on the page [54]
@rossers & Crohniegall "why wait 4 days?" 4 whole days - becuase until i stumbled upon: [55] in a dispute that WHL is having with User:Jack Merridew (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography) I had no evidence that it was WHL. Unlike certain editors, I dont go around making accusations of Sockpuppetry that I do not have evidence to back up. MM 4.158.222.148 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties [edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Oh, give me a break. There is nothing presented here that indicates there was an attempt to edit surreptiously. I am quite certain that everyone gets logged out every month when the 30 days are up for auto-log-ins. This is a bad faith attempt to cast aspersions because I was automatically logged out by the server by an editor whose history has been questioned by me. In fact, WP:SOCK says "Alternate accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy." The IP jumping anonymous account doesn't seem to be aware of this. There is nothing presented here to indicate that I tried to avoid scrutiny, mislead or deceive anyone, or try making disruptive edits with the IP account and make good edits with another. This is specious, vengeful and a misleading representation. The software here logs me out every month, I refuse to believe this doesn't happen to anyone else, but then the IP wouldn't know that, would he, since he refuses to have a regular account and thus never has to log in? There was no effort to try and hide my identity and as soon as I noticed it, I logged back in. This accusation is specious and a bad faith attempt to get rid of a source of criticism when I did nothing wrong. I edited the same articles, I made the same comments (see the edit summary here, which was obviously not an attempt to hide who I was, and the comments I made on the Andrew Koenig talk page here. There was no attempt to represent myself as someone other than who I am. This is a specious accusation in an attempt to shut me up in speculating about an IP. And this has not been helped at all by the appearance of Jack Merridew, who has been wikistalking me and harassing me wherever he goes. Merridew agreed to stop editing the coding on filmography tables and threw a giant fit when I reverted an edit to an article that served to combine separate tables into one giant one and added bad code. Yet, he continues to slip in and change coding while an RfC is still open, like the revert I did on the Bullock page. This entire report is simply bullshit that has no legs to go any further than this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users [edit]

It is quite clear to me that the edit adding the hard-coded markup is WHL, and the other edits are consistent with her POV; the IP's geolocation corresponds, too. Jack Merridew 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't understand why this is a sockpuppet investigation, on the basis of 4 edits. If someone was going to log out and post anonymously in order to post a personal attack, wouldn't they also try to change their style and ensure they didn't post elsewhere? The change to the Sandra Bullock filmography looks like Wildhartlivie, and is consistent with earlier discussion to not change the filmography header until the discussion had ended. Was the editor calling for this investigation involved in that filmography discussion? If not, that edit is not about you. The edit summary doesn't suggest any attempt to hide and seems to be directed towards Jack Merridew. The other edit to Sandra Bullock, who knows. But it's not in response to the editor calling for this investigation, so I see no relevance in that one. The Reese Witherspoon edit - again no connection to the editor calling for this investigation. So, if Wildhartlivie "logged out and attempted to use an "anonymous" IP to make a personal attack" it seems odd that 3 of the 4 edits made, had nothing to do with you. That leaves just the comment at Talk:Andrew Koenig (actor) and whether or not it was made by Wildhartlivie, it's similar to a comment that she previously made. "MM" and Wildhartlivie continued to discuss the situation (of Koenig's death) without either one referring to the "personal attack" so there's no accusation and no denial. Four days later, when both parties seem to have moved past that comment without commenting on it, it's reported as justification for a sockpuppet investigation. Why not four days ago? Rossrs (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure every editor with an account knows, the system here automatically logs you out every 30 days. It happens to me too. I prevent using my ISP as a sign in because I go directly to my watchlist. If I have been automatically logged out, the system will tell me so and refuse me access to my watchlist. Also the comments that user Rossrs states makes sense to me too. Why the wait? There is nothing nefarious going on here IMHO. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If one would look, the system logged me out in the midst of editing. I had been editing prior to that and it logged me out, I continued and logged back in when I realized I was logged out. It's just that simple and no more sinister than that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, edits from this IP (207.69.137.36) have been nothing but problematic. For example, this IP made a series of five edits to John C. Lilly in March that removed and deleted easily verifiable information for no reason whatsoever, other than outright ignorance; This is not an acceptable editing style. If the reporting IP wishes to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest they create an account and get to work building an encyclopedia, otherwise, I recommend closing this report with prejudice. Yes, IPs are allowed to edit anonymously, but when they are unable to make constructive edits, they should be blocked. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments [edit]

 Clerk note: closing this case, as it appears that Wildhartlivie only edited as an IP as a result of being automatically logged out. I also see no violation of WP:SCRUTINY, as Wildhartlivie has stated that the IP was them. Please also note that SPI is not the correct place to make any allegations of personal attacks. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive&oldid=1136432751"