There are over a dozen more IP's listed here. Because a cell phone is being used in this case, I didn't want to clog up this report with all of them. The two articles in question have now been protected [1], [2], as the socking continued today.
A long history of problems on the Charles Karel Bouley article (as well as the Margaret Clark article) has resurfaced with IP socks. The IP's all appear to be related (Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless, MYVZW.COM domain) and the editing style and focus has convinced several editors who have experience with SRQ that they are her [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. SRQ often used phrases such as "for the good of Wikipedia" [9], "For the good of the article and WP in general" [10], and "the good of the article and the good of Wikipedia" [11] - and the IPs similarly not only "care about Wikipedia" [12], but are concerned with things that are "for the good of the article and Wikipedia" [13]. Both SRQ [14] and the IPs [15] threaten that the article will be "locked again". "Peacock" terms from this little-known article (where SRQ has a somewhat astonishing 343 edits) strongly want to be eliminated by both SRQ [16], [17] and the IPs [18] [19]. Both SRQ [20] and the IPs [21] give a brief "lecture" on the "Save Page" button below the edit summary. SRQ did say, "I am not going away from the Bouley article. Period." (and note the edit summary) [22]; in this passage, the phrase "social networking site" is mentioned, exactly like the IPs' use of it [23]. Both SRQ and the IPs have a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR and edit-warring, while engaging in it wholeheartedley: SRQ has often said things like, "The only person edit-warring is you..." [24], and the Ips lecture, "Edit-warring is unproductive..." [25] and "Edit warring over this article, or any article, is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia and deters others from wanting to take part in collegial editing." [26]; very familiar language from SRQ. When SRQ sought solace at Wikipedia Review after her community ban [27], she was told to sock; she said she wouldn't then, but she also said giving up on WP was not a "reasonable alternative". Given the history between SRQ and DocOfSoc on these articles and the IPs' attitude towards her [28], I feel this is very clear case of disruptive sockpuppetry. Doc9871 ( talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to add some evidence to justify Sabra2's inclusion in this report.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Hi. I'm not sure I understand completely how this all works but I am not a "sock puppet". Why am I being accused? Did I maybe offend someone with some of my changes? Does this mean I shouldn't work on any pages while this is going on? If someone could give me some information I would appreciate it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabra2 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to add that SkagitRiverQueen has notoriously used her cellphone to edit Wikipedia, although I can't find the place that it was revealed that her phone used the same provider as the IPs above. Her rollback was removed on January 3, 2010 which was noted here and here. I also am aware that checkuser is unavailable on edits this old, but SRQ clearly stated here that "Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless." I think this proof that she uses the same provider and the IPs listed above are to an article that very few other editors frequent is a prime example of a duck in the room that like the proverbial elephant, should not go ignored. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at their continued responses, I'm increasingly curious about the user's immediate comfort with terms like 3RR, sockpuppet, and AGF, demonstrated first in this early comment (and perhaps to a lesser degree, terms like "ownership" and "edit warring"). The user was first accused of 3RR and sockpuppetry in edit summaries, but wasn't actually linked to their policy pages, as far as I can see. The way they immediately responded to those accusations with a seeming extensive knowledge of them is curious. It seems that even if this user isn't SkagitRiverQueen, they are some past user who would've had experience dealing with those policies; it might help their case if they told us what previous account(s) they may have had, if not the one they're being accused of here. For the record though, the communication style, topic focus, POV and the seeming continuation of old rivalries with the same users do have me thinking this is SRQ. Equazcion (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
She states this is the first time editing this article. And then she states in very familiar rhetoric that the article should be locked *again*! How would she know that if she was was not prevaricating about her previous experience as SRQ? "This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia, just my first time editing this article.. For the good of the article and Wikipedia, maybe it is time for this article to be :locked again." 70.197.159.65 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc ( talk) 08:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the ban length should be reset if it is confirmed that she has been socking here.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed for convenience - non-material discussion
|
---|
|
Questions: Now with the accounts confirmed as socks shouldn't there be some blocking of the accounts? Also,
SkagitRiverQueen was community banned for a year, shouldn't that now be adjusted to either a year from this date of confirmed socks or better yet indefinitely? What do we do with her now? There are many more IP's of her's. I've been reverting her on sight, as have others, with edit summary
WP:DENY sock puppet. Is there anything else that can be done to stop her disruptions? --
CrohnieGal
Talk
21:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to ask him myself. I just thought that with his familiarity with SRQ that he might have something to add here. I think we've all laid out our best DUCK evidence. :) Wildhartlivie ( talk) 01:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Luke, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed that all of the following are operated by the same user:
Possible that SkagitRiverQueen ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) also matches. The geolocation does not match, although it's not always reliable with wireless. Because there are no overlapping editing time periods, one can conclude that the user has moved (or that the geolocation is simply unreliable and should be disregarded). The method of editing is identical, but because there is no recent data, it's impossible to conclude with certainty. Use behavior. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
After a recent failed edit warring report against SRQ's favorite harassment target DocOfSoc ( talk · contribs), it was demonstrated that this account has followed this editor to six different articles: List of people from Pasadena, California, Santa Anita Park, Montebello, California, Vesta Williams, Bruce Vilanch and Ovarian cancer (on the last one for a one-off edit made simply to revert an EL that DocOfSoc had been trying to include). This editor's signature is a direct copy of that of Bwilkins ( talk · contribs), and when they were reminded of this they rebuked Bwilkins (an admin at least formerly respected by SRQ as far as admins go) with chillingly familiar language [30] for many that know of SRQ. Creating an increasingly defined and lecturing set of "rules" of the talk page are quite similar for the two accounts (SRQ [31], Lhb1239 [32]), as is routine blanking of posts where the editor has clearly had civility issues with several others (e.g. [33] for just one small example among many) This edit and edit summary are completely in character for SRQ - no surprise there. Neither is this classic misunderstanding of policy, one of the many reasons that SRQ is a banned editor. Lhb1239 engages in the patented SRQ "point-by-point response" [34] [35]: one of many examples of SRQ using this method is here. Evidence of stalking other editors can be seen with this cute little warning for edit-warring with an IP on an article that Lhb1239 hadn't edited in nearly two months. MatthewTownsend's response speaks volumes, and there are a multitude of diffs available upon request of the twice-blocked-for-edit-warring Lhb1239 warning others not to edit war, exactly as SRQ always did. Lhb1239 recently visiting an obscure article with 5 edits for which SRQ is the #2 contributor with 18 edits shows the same pattern of revisiting old topics. The stalker comparison shows edits to many of the same articles associated with SRQ, notably Isaac N. Ebey and Whidbey Island, as well as This Boy's Life (film), Newton Earp and Jim Caviezel. There were only 15 total editors (including 2 bots) in the entire history of this article, and somehow Lhb1239 found it to protect it from vandalism - quite an amazing coincidence. The fact that their first edits, [36] and most recently created article ( KSVU) center around the exact same area of the state of Washington [37] that SRQ is known to be from, coupled with the ramped-up following of DocOfSoc for trademark "rewrites", make both myself and DocOfSoc convinced that there is little actual coincidence here. Doc talk 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied from HelloAnnyong's talk page:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Beyond My Ken has succinctly made the basic point. TY. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Blue Marble Egg was opened shortly after LHB1239 was banned. LHB1239 is a sockpuppet of banned user SkagitRiverQueen.
Blue Marble Egg has edited primarily two articles: Grand Cayman Islands and Three Cups of Tea. Both articles were edited by now-banned user LHB1239.
Blue Marble Egg has made a number of reverts which is not common of brand new editors.
Blue Marble Egg uses twinkle (TW) to make some reverts, which is the same as LHB1239 did prior to being banned. Blue Pony Express ( talk) 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Blue Marble Egg has actually edited five "Cayman" related articles that Lhb1239 has edited ( Caribbean [49], British West Indies [50], Grand Cayman [51], History of the Cayman Islands [52], and Talk:Cayman Islands [53]), and that could seem like a major coincidence: possibly a fellow editor interested in that same region. But when you consider the edits to Three Cups of Tea, which is totally unrelated to the Cayman Islands and was extensively edited with 57 edits by Lbh1239, and that out of six total articles BME has edited in their 15 total edits, only one was not edited by Lbh1239... yeah. We're once again looking at staggering odds that this new user would watchlist these particular pages and not be SRQ/Lhb1239. Doc talk 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Of particular note is this anti-vandalism edit to the Cayman Islands talk page. BME has never edited that talk page or article page: so how did they get there? Randomly? Or is it because Lhb1239 has 49 edits to the article? It really just makes no sense that a random editor would follow this pattern. Doc talk 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
She did indeed seem to follow you to the Trayvon Martin article. While you were again her usual focus, her inability to "play well with others" is also present. It makes perfect sense that the Rollo V. Tomasi and Blue Marble Egg accounts are the same user; and that they are SRQ. I can tag them, but I can't block them (neither account is blocked at this time). Doc talk 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The following users are Likely as each other:
And the following user are Confirmed as each other:
-- MuZemike 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
There are over a dozen more IP's listed here. Because a cell phone is being used in this case, I didn't want to clog up this report with all of them. The two articles in question have now been protected [1], [2], as the socking continued today.
A long history of problems on the Charles Karel Bouley article (as well as the Margaret Clark article) has resurfaced with IP socks. The IP's all appear to be related (Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless, MYVZW.COM domain) and the editing style and focus has convinced several editors who have experience with SRQ that they are her [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. SRQ often used phrases such as "for the good of Wikipedia" [9], "For the good of the article and WP in general" [10], and "the good of the article and the good of Wikipedia" [11] - and the IPs similarly not only "care about Wikipedia" [12], but are concerned with things that are "for the good of the article and Wikipedia" [13]. Both SRQ [14] and the IPs [15] threaten that the article will be "locked again". "Peacock" terms from this little-known article (where SRQ has a somewhat astonishing 343 edits) strongly want to be eliminated by both SRQ [16], [17] and the IPs [18] [19]. Both SRQ [20] and the IPs [21] give a brief "lecture" on the "Save Page" button below the edit summary. SRQ did say, "I am not going away from the Bouley article. Period." (and note the edit summary) [22]; in this passage, the phrase "social networking site" is mentioned, exactly like the IPs' use of it [23]. Both SRQ and the IPs have a fundamental lack of understanding of 3RR and edit-warring, while engaging in it wholeheartedley: SRQ has often said things like, "The only person edit-warring is you..." [24], and the Ips lecture, "Edit-warring is unproductive..." [25] and "Edit warring over this article, or any article, is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia and deters others from wanting to take part in collegial editing." [26]; very familiar language from SRQ. When SRQ sought solace at Wikipedia Review after her community ban [27], she was told to sock; she said she wouldn't then, but she also said giving up on WP was not a "reasonable alternative". Given the history between SRQ and DocOfSoc on these articles and the IPs' attitude towards her [28], I feel this is very clear case of disruptive sockpuppetry. Doc9871 ( talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to add some evidence to justify Sabra2's inclusion in this report.
See Defending yourself against claims.
Hi. I'm not sure I understand completely how this all works but I am not a "sock puppet". Why am I being accused? Did I maybe offend someone with some of my changes? Does this mean I shouldn't work on any pages while this is going on? If someone could give me some information I would appreciate it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabra2 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to add that SkagitRiverQueen has notoriously used her cellphone to edit Wikipedia, although I can't find the place that it was revealed that her phone used the same provider as the IPs above. Her rollback was removed on January 3, 2010 which was noted here and here. I also am aware that checkuser is unavailable on edits this old, but SRQ clearly stated here that "Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless." I think this proof that she uses the same provider and the IPs listed above are to an article that very few other editors frequent is a prime example of a duck in the room that like the proverbial elephant, should not go ignored. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at their continued responses, I'm increasingly curious about the user's immediate comfort with terms like 3RR, sockpuppet, and AGF, demonstrated first in this early comment (and perhaps to a lesser degree, terms like "ownership" and "edit warring"). The user was first accused of 3RR and sockpuppetry in edit summaries, but wasn't actually linked to their policy pages, as far as I can see. The way they immediately responded to those accusations with a seeming extensive knowledge of them is curious. It seems that even if this user isn't SkagitRiverQueen, they are some past user who would've had experience dealing with those policies; it might help their case if they told us what previous account(s) they may have had, if not the one they're being accused of here. For the record though, the communication style, topic focus, POV and the seeming continuation of old rivalries with the same users do have me thinking this is SRQ. Equazcion (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
She states this is the first time editing this article. And then she states in very familiar rhetoric that the article should be locked *again*! How would she know that if she was was not prevaricating about her previous experience as SRQ? "This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia, just my first time editing this article.. For the good of the article and Wikipedia, maybe it is time for this article to be :locked again." 70.197.159.65 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC) DocOfSoc ( talk) 08:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the ban length should be reset if it is confirmed that she has been socking here.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed for convenience - non-material discussion
|
---|
|
Questions: Now with the accounts confirmed as socks shouldn't there be some blocking of the accounts? Also,
SkagitRiverQueen was community banned for a year, shouldn't that now be adjusted to either a year from this date of confirmed socks or better yet indefinitely? What do we do with her now? There are many more IP's of her's. I've been reverting her on sight, as have others, with edit summary
WP:DENY sock puppet. Is there anything else that can be done to stop her disruptions? --
CrohnieGal
Talk
21:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to ask him myself. I just thought that with his familiarity with SRQ that he might have something to add here. I think we've all laid out our best DUCK evidence. :) Wildhartlivie ( talk) 01:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Luke, -- CrohnieGal Talk 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed that all of the following are operated by the same user:
Possible that SkagitRiverQueen ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) also matches. The geolocation does not match, although it's not always reliable with wireless. Because there are no overlapping editing time periods, one can conclude that the user has moved (or that the geolocation is simply unreliable and should be disregarded). The method of editing is identical, but because there is no recent data, it's impossible to conclude with certainty. Use behavior. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
After a recent failed edit warring report against SRQ's favorite harassment target DocOfSoc ( talk · contribs), it was demonstrated that this account has followed this editor to six different articles: List of people from Pasadena, California, Santa Anita Park, Montebello, California, Vesta Williams, Bruce Vilanch and Ovarian cancer (on the last one for a one-off edit made simply to revert an EL that DocOfSoc had been trying to include). This editor's signature is a direct copy of that of Bwilkins ( talk · contribs), and when they were reminded of this they rebuked Bwilkins (an admin at least formerly respected by SRQ as far as admins go) with chillingly familiar language [30] for many that know of SRQ. Creating an increasingly defined and lecturing set of "rules" of the talk page are quite similar for the two accounts (SRQ [31], Lhb1239 [32]), as is routine blanking of posts where the editor has clearly had civility issues with several others (e.g. [33] for just one small example among many) This edit and edit summary are completely in character for SRQ - no surprise there. Neither is this classic misunderstanding of policy, one of the many reasons that SRQ is a banned editor. Lhb1239 engages in the patented SRQ "point-by-point response" [34] [35]: one of many examples of SRQ using this method is here. Evidence of stalking other editors can be seen with this cute little warning for edit-warring with an IP on an article that Lhb1239 hadn't edited in nearly two months. MatthewTownsend's response speaks volumes, and there are a multitude of diffs available upon request of the twice-blocked-for-edit-warring Lhb1239 warning others not to edit war, exactly as SRQ always did. Lhb1239 recently visiting an obscure article with 5 edits for which SRQ is the #2 contributor with 18 edits shows the same pattern of revisiting old topics. The stalker comparison shows edits to many of the same articles associated with SRQ, notably Isaac N. Ebey and Whidbey Island, as well as This Boy's Life (film), Newton Earp and Jim Caviezel. There were only 15 total editors (including 2 bots) in the entire history of this article, and somehow Lhb1239 found it to protect it from vandalism - quite an amazing coincidence. The fact that their first edits, [36] and most recently created article ( KSVU) center around the exact same area of the state of Washington [37] that SRQ is known to be from, coupled with the ramped-up following of DocOfSoc for trademark "rewrites", make both myself and DocOfSoc convinced that there is little actual coincidence here. Doc talk 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied from HelloAnnyong's talk page:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Beyond My Ken has succinctly made the basic point. TY. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 10:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Blue Marble Egg was opened shortly after LHB1239 was banned. LHB1239 is a sockpuppet of banned user SkagitRiverQueen.
Blue Marble Egg has edited primarily two articles: Grand Cayman Islands and Three Cups of Tea. Both articles were edited by now-banned user LHB1239.
Blue Marble Egg has made a number of reverts which is not common of brand new editors.
Blue Marble Egg uses twinkle (TW) to make some reverts, which is the same as LHB1239 did prior to being banned. Blue Pony Express ( talk) 02:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Blue Marble Egg has actually edited five "Cayman" related articles that Lhb1239 has edited ( Caribbean [49], British West Indies [50], Grand Cayman [51], History of the Cayman Islands [52], and Talk:Cayman Islands [53]), and that could seem like a major coincidence: possibly a fellow editor interested in that same region. But when you consider the edits to Three Cups of Tea, which is totally unrelated to the Cayman Islands and was extensively edited with 57 edits by Lbh1239, and that out of six total articles BME has edited in their 15 total edits, only one was not edited by Lbh1239... yeah. We're once again looking at staggering odds that this new user would watchlist these particular pages and not be SRQ/Lhb1239. Doc talk 15:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Of particular note is this anti-vandalism edit to the Cayman Islands talk page. BME has never edited that talk page or article page: so how did they get there? Randomly? Or is it because Lhb1239 has 49 edits to the article? It really just makes no sense that a random editor would follow this pattern. Doc talk 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
She did indeed seem to follow you to the Trayvon Martin article. While you were again her usual focus, her inability to "play well with others" is also present. It makes perfect sense that the Rollo V. Tomasi and Blue Marble Egg accounts are the same user; and that they are SRQ. I can tag them, but I can't block them (neither account is blocked at this time). Doc talk 00:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
The following users are Likely as each other:
And the following user are Confirmed as each other:
-- MuZemike 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)