Jump to content

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Kittybrewster[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

MrsBucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
CarbonLifeForm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)


Report submission by

One Night In Hackney303 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

First off, we'll establish beyond any doubt that CarbonLifeForm (henceforth referred to as CLF to save my aching fingers) is a sockpuppet of someone, and the later evidence will prove that it is Kittybrewster. CLF's third ever edit was to an ANI thread about Kittybrewster - quack, quack, quack! Also tut tut tut, using a sockpuppet to comment on an ANI thread about your main account, talk about brazen sockpuppetry most definitely not covered by policy!

The Kittybrewster account was unused from 11 December 2007 to 20 February 2008 (save two edits on 1 January). The CLF account had been dormant since 23 July 2007 (save three edits on 3 December), then became active again on 11 December. What convenient timing some might say! Even more convenient is the account stopped editing on 18 February 2008, just two days before the Kittybrewster account became active again. Well knock me down with a feather! An account that makes its third ever edit on an ANI thread about Kittybrewster, then edits for almost the entire time period the Kittybrewster account wasn't active. No ducks quacking round here, no siree.....

And if that wasn't bad enough, there was another sock being used in January as well. From 13 January to 29 January the MrsBucket account was used in addition to the CarbonLifeForm account. The accounts were used in a method incompatible with the sockpuppetry policy, for example on 13 January the accounts were used interchangeably for no discernible reason. None of the "Legitimate uses of alternative accounts" from WP:SOCK apply, especially due to the methods in which the accounts were being used, and especially considering this isn't one main account and one sockpuppet account, it's one unused main account and two sockpuppet accounts.

(edits by MrsBucket are idented and in italics)

  • 11:55, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)‎ (→David Howe (claimant to King of Mann))
  • 11:56, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)‎ (→David Howe (claimant to King of Mann))
  • 11:57, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)‎ (→David Howe (claimant to King of Mann))
  • 12:40, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) David Lean‎ (→External links)
  • 12:50, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) George MacDonald Fraser‎ (→External links)
  • 13:01, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Patricia Routledge‎ (→External links)
  • 13:03, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) John Gambril Nicholson‎ (→Further information)
  • 13:07, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Norman Wong‎ (→External links)
  • 13:09, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Rachel Adler‎ (→External links)
  • 13:09, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Rachel Adler‎ (→External links)
  • 13:24, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Audrey Hepburn‎ (→External links)
  • 13:26, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Vivien Leigh‎ (→External links)
  • 13:27, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Vivien Leigh‎ (→Notes)
  • 13:31, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun‎ (→External links)
  • 13:44, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Peter O'Toole‎ (→External links)
  • 14:01, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) James Stronge (Unionist)‎ (→See also)
  • 14:08, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Jimmy Stewart (racing driver)‎ (→External links)
  • 14:17, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Jackie Stewart‎ (→External links)
  • 14:55, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) William Tollemache, 9th Earl of Dysart‎ (→External links)
  • 16:49, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities‎ (→wife taking husband's name)
  • 16:52, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Hassanal Bolkiah‎ (→Other concerns)
  • 16:54, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Aga Khan‎ (→References)
  • 16:57, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities‎ (→Living Gods)
  • 17:27, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Gorget‎ (→Other uses)
  • 17:28, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Gorget‎ (→Other uses)
  • 17:31, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Chilean Army‎ (→Commanders-in-chief)
  • 17:33, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Chilean Army‎ (→Commanders-in-chief)
  • 17:46, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Claude Vorilhon‎
  • 17:48, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Claude Vorilhon‎ (→Raël's marriage life)
  • 17:52, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) Claude Vorilhon‎ (→References)

More CLF edits followed, no need for listing them all as there was no further use of the MrsBucket account that day.

Now as I like to be thorough, let's have some common articles for the accounts as well. Both accounts edited articles Kittybrewster had edited previously, for example 1994 Scotland RAF Chinook crash has been edited by MrsBucket, CarbonLifeForm and Kittybrewster. Nothing contentious, but three accounts all being used to edit the same article? What part of WP:SOCK covers that then? Rose Dugdale, edited by MrsBucket and Kittybrewster. Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, edited by MrsBucket and Kittybrewster. James Stronge (Unionist), edited by MrsBucket and Kittybrewster etc etc etc etc. There's also Knight of Glin, edited by Vintagekits (who made Kittybrewster his whipping boy on many occasions, and was repeatedly wikistalked and harassed in return by Kittybrewster). Then MrsBucket edits the article just two days later. Clearly following Vintagekits round like Kittybrewster always did....

Other similar editing themes are the frequent participation of all accounts on the reference and help desks.

You can change your name, but the habits stay the same as ever.

The block log of MrsBucket is very interesting. The account was initially erroneously blocked as a sockpuppet of User:[email protected] on 21 February. I provided evidence to User:Alison via email that she had in fact been mistaken and that Kittybrewster was the sockmaster of the MrsBucket account, and the account was unblocked and reblocked on 14 April. Despite having not posted an unblock request or talk page message at any time since the initial block, an unblock request was made less than 24 hours later. Mighty suspicious timing, especially as discussion was occurring on Wiki about the controller of the account at the time. Let's make this clear....the account was blocked as a sockpuppet with evidence, then the sockpuppeteer (who had returned to their main account) posted an unblock request in a deliberate attempt to discredit the blocking admin. There was no reason for an unblock request to take place, other than to cause trouble and disrupt Wikipedia. It is this action that is the most reprehensible of all, the clear attempt to discredit an administrator in good standing (who also has access to checkuser and oversight). Note that Alison confirms here that the main account (Kittybrewster, as I'm sure she'll be happy to confirm to avoid any possible ambiguity) was caught in MrsBucket's autoblock, nicely linking all the accounts together given the common articles, and the Kittybrewster editing absence timing ever so conveniently with CarbonLifeForm's reappearance and subsequent disappearance...

More evidence available if needed, didn't want to work too hard unnecessarily when it's a slam dunk in my humble opinion. One Night In Hackney303 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • I don't see how an unblock attempt would discredit the blocking admin., surely this is just your opinion, however humble that is. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do. Why else would a sockpuppeteer try and get one of their sockpuppets unblocked the day after it had been reblocked as a sock of a "known" editor? Nothing but an attempt to stir up trouble. One Night In Hackney303 13:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even on that analysis it's not the same as trying to discredit the blocking administrator. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh but it is, and in fact I have a much better idea. Rather than me or you speculating, why doesn't Kittybrewster explain exactly why he attempted to get his sockpuppet unblocked without mentioning it was a sockpuppet account, and he can also explain how it (and CarbonLifeForm) were permitted by policy? I don't believe that's an unreasonable request. One Night In Hackney303 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alison

*sigh* - well, this really got out of hand.

For the record, checkuser has now  Confirmed -

  1. CarbonLifeForm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. MrsBucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Temp account 999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd originally blocked the Bucket account, mistakenly, as a sock of User:[email protected] based on behaviour. Unfortunately, Kittybrewster was caught in the autoblock. I released the autoblock and emailed KB, requesting an explanation. While this was ongoing, I declined to discuss the matter too much, despite loud demands by User:Counter-revolutionary, as I felt there may have been an RtV issue here and I was concerned about the likely drama following yet another "Troubles" socking dénouement. I then went off-line for a day or so. When I got back, this SSP case had been filed. A checkuser then showed up the other accounts and, to be honest, I can no longer assume RTV here.

While the use of multiple accounts here is clearly against policy, this case is not grievous by any means and I feel that indef blocking all sock accounts should be sufficient without applying major sanctions to the KB account. Nor am I viewing the unblock request as KB trying to cause trouble for me. Rather, he found himself in a quandary as his main account was caught in the autoblock and likely tried to get an uninvolved admin to lift the main block. As regards Counter-rev; I'm actually not quite sure what he was trying to achieve, as he seemed very keen on "outing" the main account for some reason - Alison ❤ 09:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusions

All three accounts have now been indefinitely blocked. Deferring to Alison's views, I don't propose applying a sanction to the main account at this stage. If anyone feels that's not good enough, you know where to contact me...GBT/C 12:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kittybrewster&oldid=1144623891"