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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
- 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]
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 and ItsLassieTime are related; Checkuser investigation is continuing. Risker ( talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Buttermilk1950 blocked indefinitely. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In response to added names:
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
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)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
Clerk endorsed sleepers etc. Tim Song ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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
Another user User talk:BlowItAway Peppermint Chills
Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlowItOuttaHere, original page history can be found there Spitfire Tally-ho! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed, ducks, self-endorse for sleepers, etc Spitfire Tally-ho! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
Auto-generated every six hours.
See Defending yourself against claims.
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. TN X Man 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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~~ talk Contribs 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a diff where DeadSend4 says they are ILT? The connection to Janehiswife has been established, so there's nothing new there. TN X Man 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on CheckUser evidence, unless ILT has found a way to be in two different places at the same time, DeadSend4 and ItsLassieTime are Unrelated.
However, the following two accounts are Confirmed as ItsLassieTime:
That underlying IP has been blocked. – MuZemike 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.)
Confirmed the following are matches to each other:
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Thank you for your time. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As far as en.wiki is concerned, seems 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
I think CU data is stale. We'll have to look at the behavioral evidence.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk declined ItsLassieTime and all his previous socks are very stale. There is nothing to compare with, and 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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
self confessed sock. CU requested to look for sleepers Nthep ( talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also
identical behaviour - replacing content with "It's Lassie Time". Alll three blocked for quacking. Nthep ( talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
False Claims at an SPI against me Lemmysland ( talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The following accounts are Confirmed:
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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. GAB Hello! 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Vandalizing Maine State Route 89, username, SPI vandalism -- all iconic traits of this LTA: [145] [146]. GAB Hello! 19:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Per this edit, matches the MO shown in the LTA report. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
following more vandalism. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 15:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
Compare: [147], [148], [149], [150]
Blocked as a duck. Filing for documentation. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ManShacks. GAB gab 01:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC).
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See below.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 14:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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 Night fury 14:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Is this a confession? Adam9007 ( talk) 02:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Per User:Ansh666's comment on this ANI thread. Semi Hypercube ✎ 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed to Architect 134 ( talk · contribs · count). Adjusting block. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Created immediately after ban; both are SPAs accusing others of supposed Serbian nationalism. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 01:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:Additional accounts:
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
- 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]
Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 19:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed that Buttermilk1950 and ItsLassieTime are related; Checkuser investigation is continuing. Risker ( talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Buttermilk1950 blocked indefinitely. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In response to added names:
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
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)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
Clerk endorsed sleepers etc. Tim Song ( talk) 06:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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
Another user User talk:BlowItAway Peppermint Chills
Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlowItOuttaHere, original page history can be found there Spitfire Tally-ho! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerk endorsed, ducks, self-endorse for sleepers, etc Spitfire Tally-ho! 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
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)
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)
Auto-generated every six hours.
See Defending yourself against claims.
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. TN X Man 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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~~ talk Contribs 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a diff where DeadSend4 says they are ILT? The connection to Janehiswife has been established, so there's nothing new there. TN X Man 20:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on CheckUser evidence, unless ILT has found a way to be in two different places at the same time, DeadSend4 and ItsLassieTime are Unrelated.
However, the following two accounts are Confirmed as ItsLassieTime:
That underlying IP has been blocked. – MuZemike 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.)
Confirmed the following are matches to each other:
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Thank you for your time. -- Cirt ( talk) 03:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 03:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
-- Cirt ( talk) 03:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
As far as en.wiki is concerned, seems 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
I think CU data is stale. We'll have to look at the behavioral evidence.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Clerk declined ItsLassieTime and all his previous socks are very stale. There is nothing to compare with, and 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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
self confessed sock. CU requested to look for sleepers Nthep ( talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also
identical behaviour - replacing content with "It's Lassie Time". Alll three blocked for quacking. Nthep ( talk) 17:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
False Claims at an SPI against me Lemmysland ( talk) 15:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The following accounts are Confirmed:
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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. GAB Hello! 21:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Vandalizing Maine State Route 89, username, SPI vandalism -- all iconic traits of this LTA: [145] [146]. GAB Hello! 19:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Per this edit, matches the MO shown in the LTA report. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
following more vandalism. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 15:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
Compare: [147], [148], [149], [150]
Blocked as a duck. Filing for documentation. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Merged from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ManShacks. GAB gab 01:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC).
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
See below.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 14:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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 Night fury 14:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Is this a confession? Adam9007 ( talk) 02:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Per User:Ansh666's comment on this ANI thread. Semi Hypercube ✎ 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed to Architect 134 ( talk · contribs · count). Adjusting block. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Created immediately after ban; both are SPAs accusing others of supposed Serbian nationalism. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 01:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
:Additional accounts:
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
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)
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
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)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.