Wildhartlivie says that LaVidaLoca is his WP:ROOMMATE account [1] and that they share the same IP [2] but use different computers. [3] While this may be true or not, they edit the same articles, revert for each other during edit wars and disputes, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , defend each other in disputes [15]and use the same or similar but unique language and phrasing in their edit summaries and talk pages. ("w/", "completely", "&", "yet another", "???" ) There are few, if any overlapping edits, and the LaVidaLoca account appears to only edit articles when Wildhartlivie is inactive. Viriditas ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not notified of this but I assume I am also being accused. I do stay with Wildhartlivie sometimes, a lot during the last several months. I don't choose to say why, that is personal. We have shared residences at different times in our lives. When that happens, we share an internet connection, but I don't always edit here from home. I don't know of a policy against two people from the same house working on Wikipedia or having an interest in the same topics. We grew up together, we went to school together. Because of that, we share many interests and other personal life things. One of those things is a great love of movies and actors and we usually think a lot alike. That happens when people remain friends all their lives. I have some of the same articles that she does on my watchlist. Our wake/sleep hours aren't congruent so we are rarely home together and awake when I am staying with her. I won't post personal contact information here to let anyone that wants take advantage of it.
She taught me how to edit on Wikipedia when I became interested. She directs me to policies when I need them and taught me how to use Wiki markup and insert links when it is needed. I don't think there is a lot of similarity in how we write, but I've seen her writing for over 30 years and she's seen mine. As for using w/ and & in edit summaries, Viritidas probably hasn't been a waitress. That's standard shorthand for writing down orders and I see it in a lot of edit summaries by other people. Wildhartlivie and I have both been waitresses during our lives. Saying "completely" is sort of a colloquialism for our group so that might creep in a lot. So is "totally" and sometimes so is "cool". I don't know about "yet another" and that seems like a stretch to me.
I don't see any evidence of being involved in edit wars or disputes or defending one another. I posted a personal attack message at [16] after that person left a an attack at [17]. That wasn't defending anyone in a dispute. It's a personal attack warning. I saw that she had an issue on Jonestown earlier in the morning with a new editor and decided to try and take care of that myself because of the dispute that was going on there with Viritidas. What was going on with the new editor had nothing to do with the dispute with Viriditas so there was no defending her edits. It mostly was about that person changing categories and moving a photo directly underneath the infobox. I admit it that I let it become a little bit of an edit war with the new editor and I'm sorry if that was the situation. If I have done something wrong on Wikipedia it was my doing, noone else's, but I don't see that I did. I am willing to be banned or have my account deleted if I have done something wrong, but there is no collusion or meatpuppet activities taking place. The truth is, this whole thing has made me rethink my interest in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a fun place to edit, not one where people get accused and attacked. It is wrong to try and seek punishment to Wildhartlivie for something that she or I did not do or I did wrong. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I had begun to prepare a long and extensive defense against this accusation, but after having looked into the evidence offered, statements by other regular Wikipedia editors and considering it, I believe a brief examination of what is being construed as sock or meat puppet activity indicates no culpability. The burden of proof rests with the accuser, the accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. I will start by stating that there seems to be an ulterior motive to this filing.
The case has been presented by comments by other Wikipedia editors that this accusation was spurred by the filing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas and the recent dispute on Jonestown. Before this was filed, Viriditas approached me on my talk page and simply left a message saying "You're busted", which was interestingly repeated by the IP post below [18]. Does that mean Viriditas posted that to support his/her contentions? Of course not, but the language used is similar. As was pointed out by Pinkadelica, I've had extensive issues with a persistent and tenditious sock puppet operator and, as I told Viriditas on that talk page, have had to have oversight intervention more than once. I've no doubt that this hit Wikipedia Review and brought the IP comments and I happily disclose to an oversight or bureaucrat the details of that. Regardless, when necessary, I was quite frank and candid about the fact that I know LaVidaLoca personally and explained that to Viriditas [19] but she/he kept trying to back me into making an admission that was and is unfounded, "Fess up now, or I pursue this. The jig is up.", go tell the AN/I board and promise to be a good girl [20] and ...if you want to come clean on this, I'll hold off." Another editor, who I would conclude is not unsupportive of Viriditas or noted the implications of what was going on, even left comments regarding the AN/I and RFCU reports, saying "V, you're probably not helping your cause much here", "V, you really are only hurting your cause here (and on AN/I)", and using the edit summary of "oh dear", said "V... holding an SPI over someone's head is a really, really bad idea. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up; either file an SPI and see what it proves/disproves, or stop making the accusation, as that counts as personal attacks", which was part of the basis of the RFCU filed and upon which I commented. Personal attacks can certainly be insinuations and unfounded accusations, such as this case.
The evidence presented above does not demonstrate in any way reverting for one another up in edit wars, edit warring at all, avoiding 3RR or defending one another in disputes (which was shown in fact to be a personal attack warning). The diffs above show situations that are in no way any of those.
All of this editing activity was in routine maintenance and vandalism protection, none was relative to any ongoing disputes, edit wars, or defense of someone else in any way. Some of LaVidaLoca's edits noted above occurred just following my eye surgery when I was unable to edit. You would find many, many more frequent instances on articles where two of the editors who replied on this page have reverted to a version of an article that I had last done, or where I had reverted to a version they had made. Pinkadelica and Rossrs and I all have many of the same articles on our watchlists because we frequently work together on actor related articles in conjunction with WP:ACTOR and all keep high profile targets of vandalisms and persistent sock masters ( HarveyCarter to name one) watchlists in case they return and make unsourced and contentious additions. We've also worked on articles together. That does not make either of them sock puppets or meat puppets either. I disclosed to at least four Wikipedia editors privately of our friendship some time ago, including Pinkadelica and Rossrs. I would name the other two if they happen to post comments here and confirm that.
LaVidaLoca addressed the other evidence presented above and I don't believe that needs to be revisited, except to note that Viriditas had issues with the same editor upon which LaVidaLoca left the "defensive" personal attack warning [21]. Pinkadelica left diffs and comments about that below. That someone I know in the real world and sometimes stays with me because of my health reasons and issues related to her and my personal lives, sometimes and frequently lately accesses the internet using my connection does not make us either sock puppets or meat puppets. I am unaware that it must be disclosed that I know another Wikipedia editor or for what reason unless it raises a question. When it did, I readily admitted that was the case because there is no malfeasance here. I am positive I actually know quite a number of editors in real life given the sheer number of editors registered on this site who might actually have edited something that I have. That LaVidaLoca's subject interests are similar to mine given our lifelong relationship is something that does not defy explanation or require one. The pattern of editing outlined in the evidence does not support this accusation and I suggest this case be closed as unsupported and unfounded and motivated by other factors. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Wilhartlivie or his room mate, nor is this information directly relevant to IP searching, etc., but it is worth a short mention: undisclosed above is that Viriditas has engaged in a long and extensive Wikihounding campaign against Wildhartlive, myself and Yachtsman1, that is now the subject of an RfCU. I won't go into details, but it includes NUMEROUS false charges and conspiracy theories. Viriditas included several false allegations of "sock puppets" or "meat puppets", such as:
Mosedschurte ( talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the abuse? I see a few examples of editing the same article over the span of years, but no real pattern of long term abuse that warrants any sort of action from two editors who share the same address. I also noted overlap on June 4, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. between the two editors. Also, please take note of this: [22] and compare with this pointed edit: [23] The "defending" each other allegation involves a sock who was banned, and with whom the initator of this investigation also had differences. -- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
They certainly are acting as sockpuppets. The same articles, the same times, and the same tone. Coincidence? I think not. -- 64.29.148.60 ( talk) 04:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
BUSTED - If they are really roommates, then why do they post to each others talk pages like strangers?
Just a few examples:
It is clear that the roommate story is a big lie.
If you check the all the IP's used for both accounts, I bet more accounts will show up. Then there will be more "we live together but comment on each other talk pages like we do know each other" explanations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.212.19 ( talk) 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Having read through the discussion in entirety, I believe that these two users are different people. The supposed "conclusive evidence" provided by the IP means nothing; friends welcome each other on Wikipedia, and occasionally post to their talk pages, so this does not prove they are lying. Nothing further is needed. PeterSymonds ( talk) 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
While I realize that accusing an established user of sockpuppetry is looked dimly upon, I suspect that MisterSoup is actually Wikipedia editor Wildhartlivie. MisterSoup's very first edit today was on my talk page. He/she then posted the following: [26]. I replied with the following: [27] in the December 2009 section of the talk page. MisterSoup then appeared again on my talk page with [28]. MisterSoup then made several edits that were deemed disruptive, including violating 3RR. MisterSoup was then blocked for one week. My belief that MisterSoup is actually Wildhartlivie is based on the following: Wildhartlivie has been frustrated that I have not answered a question where he/she has demanded an answer in a currently active issue involving me at [29]. Interestingly, during the time that MisterSoup was posting today (see user contribs: [30]), Wildhartlivie made no edits, as evidenced here: [31]. After MisterSoup was blocked, Wildhartlivie started editing again. The article Wildhartlivie and I first conflicted in was Ted Bundy (and article Wildhartlivie feels very strongly about) - this is the article MisterSoup referenced on my talk page. All of the edits MisterSoup subsequently made were to articles involving celebrities - these are the exact type of articles Wildhartlivie most frequently edits. When looking at MisterSoup's edits today after I discovered his/her "contribution" to my talk page, I immediately noticed that for someone with a new account, MisterSoup seemed awfully familiar with how to edit Wikipedia - including how to insert references (something it usually takes newbies a while to master). I hope that I am wrong - even though I might be charged with wrongfully accusing an established editor of sockpuppetry. Believe me, I take no joy in making this complaint. With all of that in mind, because I take editing in Wikipedia seriously and harassment involving hate-speech and intolerance surrounding sexual orientation even more seriously, I feel that I cannot let my suspicions go idle. Thank you for looking into this matter. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I added User:B. Fairbairn because of the following comments that were placed on my talk page in the same section where MisterSoup's comments were later placed. Diffs here: [32]; [33]; [34]. To which I responded: [35] and then B. Fairbairn responded: [36].
See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a specious, paranoid and vindictive sock case filed by someone who is pissed that I commented at her MfD filing (please feel free to look at the MfD to see how she had lobbied to have my comments disregarded) because she was pressed for an answer which she refused to provide. Regardless of her "suspicions", I freely request a checkuser because I personally know this is completely a delusional filing based on paranoid thinking. I don't even feel a need to post evidence to the contrary. I am not someone who makes commentary upon someone's sexual preference nor upon their religion. Do I like SkagitRiverQueen? Not especially now. Did I harass her? No. Am I MisterSoup? Nope, wrong again. Please close this specious fishing expedition as groundless, vindictive and based on bad faith. And for the record, she did not notify me of this filing, a requirement. Following this, I hope that SkagitRiverQueen can find a productive outlet for her delusions and paranoia that does not include me. And Merry Christmas (remember the season, Skag.) Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The checkuser should note that no evidence beyond mere happenstance regarding User:Beyond My Ken has been provided, and certainly nothing that indicates abusive use of multiple accounts. The addition of my account to this case by Betty Logan seems to be retaliation by him or her for this. Behavioral evidence (since checkuser data is apparently stale) for Betty Logan being a sockpuppet of WalterMitty/Melody Perkins is provided there. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm now an accused party I thought I should comment here for the record. My first encounter with Wildhartlivie (since he's the one I'm being accused of socking for) was in my attempt to mediate a dispute involving him and SkagitRiverQueen about two weeks ago, in which I had actually been a proponent of leniency in a 3RR report against SkagitRiverQueen [37]. In that same report you can see I also admonished the reporting party for focusing the report on one warring party and not the other -- the other being Wildhartlivie.
The only reason I'm in this report is because I'm now defending Wildhartlivie, which the reporting party doesn't like. I've been an established Wikipedia user for over 3 years, with over 25,000 edits, and rollback and autoreviewer privileges. I am nobody's sockpuppet. Having been here for this long, and built some semblance of a reputation here, I can assure you that (playing devil's advocate now), were I to engage in sockpuppeting, I would be smart enough not to risk this account by idiotically using it to defend one of my sockpuppets -- especially not in a frivolous case that would have been dismissed anyway without my intervention (the frivolousness being the accusation against Wildhartlivie et al; MisterSoup was a rather obvious sock, just not of anyone accused in this report).
I could probably go through contribs and present evidence that sockpuppeting is not likely between our two accounts, but it seems to me the burden of proof is on the accuser(s), who have not given any evidence yet aside from some paranoid anecdotes that come down to "both these users bothered me in the same place, so maybe they're sockpuppets, we should check just to make sure". When actual evidence is presented for these wild accusations, that's when I'll go scouring for diffs. Til then, adieu. Equazcion (talk) 17:38, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie did indeed edit while MisterSoup was editing, contrary to Skag's claim above.
MisterSoup's edits on 24 December:
Wildhartlivie's edit, that same minute:
Aside from which the case was very thin to begin with. Skag is failing to assume good faith on the part of the people she gets into disputes with. She generally chooses to pump accusations back at them instead of arguing the issues, so this particular accusation doesn't surprise me (nor will it surprise me when Skag accuses me of something as a result of this posting). Equazcion (talk) 18:24, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I have added user User:Equazcion to the checkuser list. There is an independent investigation alreday going on into User:Wildhartlivie at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice and Equazcion has turned up there to speak out on 'behalf' of Wildhartlivie [42]. It could be that he's done this in all good conscience, but the fact that is a sock investigation underway and this user has turned up in both investigations it would be wise to run a checkuser on him as well. I will make this clear that this is not an accusation, just a precaution. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Completely different edit patterns. Quite a ludicrous accusation, if you ask me. MisterSoup is probably a sock of some user, so a checkuser on that user might be warranted, but other than that this seems to be purely out of spite. Erzsébet Báthory( talk| contr.) 22:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Socks who wish to remain socks rarely use the same "edit patterns" as their real selves. My report here was absolutely NOT out of spite in any way, shape, or form. In the future, I'd appreciate it if those who are tempted to editorialize their comments here with opinions of me personally, that they leave those personality opinions either to themselves or take it to my talk page. Facts are what's desired in report boards, not personality conflicts and personal attacks based on no evidence. The habit of attacking the reporting party has become too frequent in Wikipedia, IMO - and, in the end. does nothing more than deter editors from reporting anything at all in order to spare themselves the attacks they receive by those commenting. It's no different than what has historically happened to women who rightfully cry rape: blame the victim. But, beyond all that, the fact remains that MisterSoup's very first edit as MisterSoup was anti-gay hatespeech on my talk page. That says to me that MisterSoup is more than likely a sock of someone who has, in the past, had a beef with me in Wikipedia. I may be wrong about who MisterSoup actually is (and I sincerely hope I am), but I am 99.99% certain that MisterSoup is a sockpuppet. That's what needs to be addressed first - who MisterSoup actually is - not finding reasons to put blame on the person bringing the checkuser request forward. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlive/Beyond My Ken/Blocked sock Epeefleche connection
I have added User:Beyond My Ken to the checkuser list. I was involved in dispute with User:Erik at Avatar (2009 film). The dispute was eventually resolved amicably, but User:Wildhartlivie left some unpleasant messages on my User talk page: [43]. I felt they were completely unwarranted so reported them at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice. The admin agreed that Wildhartlivie was out of order: [44]. Suddenly, editor User:Beyond My Ken who had bene on Wikipedia less than a month who is very informed about Wikipedia protocol launches a sock investigation into me. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history on the talk page of User:Erik (the aforementioned editor above) with User:Epeefleche: [45] User:Epeefleche is a new name here, but was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh: [46]. User:Ethelh conducted a campaign of harrassment against me after I removed an unsourced contribution. She accused me of creating socks (seeing a pattern?) and waging a campaign of harrassment against her: User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. This came to nothing in the end because User:Ethelh was blocked for being a sock. I am very suspicious because User:Wildhartlivie launches an unprovoked attack on me, User:Beyond My Ken who has bene on Wikipedia less than a month launches a sock investigation into me after I complained about User:Wildhartlivie which was upheld by an admin, and then it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history with a sock who harrassed me on the talk page of the person I had the original dispute with. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
When did the focus of this report become Wildhartlivie? I filed this report to focus on the user MisterSoup and listed Wildhartlivie (and then B. Fairbairn and Betty Logan as possible actual identities/other socks of Mister Soup...did one of the clerks change it or someone else? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This is frigging insane. Allow me to suggest some other names that you might rightly include, based on the evidence given here: WP:WBE. There is no more evidence present here that relates me to any of these names than the ones of which I'm being accused. This is a specious and paranoid witch hunt with no basis in fact or reality. Please close this specious and frigging insane report. I do not intend to further dignify this with a response. When this is closed as non-supported, please be so good as to delete this page, it contains only fodder for persons wishing ill against other editors and has no place in the archives. Folks, please, seek reality therapy. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have encountered Wildhartlivie (a well-respected editor) in matters totally unrelated to this case and there is absolutely no basis for an SPI investigation. A very quick look (all this case is worth) at Beyond My Ken and Epeefleche shows that there is no reason to investigate them either. If anyone is wondering, I learned of this SPI at an MfD where I commented. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
To all the parties: Stick to facts please. Diffs that show a likelihood of disruptive socking are what is needed here. Aspersions cast on each other are not. So far I'm not seeing any reason to accept the request but I will not make a final determination just yet (some other CU could, of course). Stop posting anything other than dry factual analysis that helps make a determination of whether a check is warranted, please. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason for running a check on Wildhartlive, Beyond My Ken and Epeefleche is overwhelming:
Too many coincidences, too many of the same names keep popping up. Do you not think it is odd that we have an editor less than a month old instigating sock investigations, who has a common history with an editor who has been blocked for running socks? I would certianly put my mind at ease if these three editors were proven to be separate editors. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Draw a line and start over, whoever still wants to hurl allegations ... present specific diffs that represent disruptive edits and a cogent analysis as to why they are likely to be those of a specific person. Or drop this. ++ Lar: t/ c 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A case exists for checking MisterSoup, so I did. Confirmed that
Blocked and tagged. The discussion above is not very helpful as it continues feature parties casting aspersions on each other. The warning I gave continues to apply to all parties. I am continuing to investigate but I'm not seeing the crisp justification we need here and if things don't improve soon I am going to ask the clerks to close this. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, some more...
That leaves us
after removing the parsiflage. I would ask folk again, present me with clearcut diffs here that demonstrate that there is a reason to believe there is a connnection, and that it is disruptive. Skip all the rest of the back and forth. Draw a line and start over. Absent that clear evidence, this case should be closed and after 24 hours I will so recommend. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
User:Sara's Song became a new user around 9pm on Jan 19, 2010 - the same day as Wildhartlivie's account was blocked due to sockpuppetry. While not all, a good number of Sara's Song edits are at the same time of the early morning hours as Wildhartlivie would edit in the past. Sara's Song edits the same types of articles as Wildhartlivie - crime and entertainment/entertainers. Sara's Song has made references in talk page comments indicating she has knowledge of how editors have edited long in the past. Sara's Song's editing abilities seem very advanced (including references and imbedded comments) for someone who has only been editing for four days. Since I made two very benign comments regarding Sara's Song's editing today on talk pages she has left items on, she has requested that her pages be deleted under Right To Vanish - and they are now deleted as of 1630 PST. Because of this, I cannot provide any evidence here regarding her edits. With the evidence presented above, along with the sudden departure of Sara's Song, and the fact that Wildhartlivie is already currently blocked because of socking, I believe very, very strongly that Wildhartlivie has continued socking, this time as Sara's Song. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
One addition: In the Marisa Tomei article, one of Sara's Song's comments appears to reveal that she has been around for longer than January 19th: "Also, just so you know, this has been in the article in the past and was removed." The diff is found here [50] -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. So that account started on the 19th. So did hundreds upon hundreds of accounts. So the account edits at night. So do hundreds and hundreds of accounts, including every editor on Charles Manson at which that the filer edits and fights. So that account likes entertainment articles. So do hundreds and hundreds of accounts. So the editor knows how to edit. That doesn't mean the account hasn't been around, in one form or another, probably one of the anonymous IPs that show up every night and managed to learn how to make a reference. So the editor decided to use right to vanish, lots of accounts do, especially when they are hounded. This is a fishing expedition with a vendetta behind it with no tangible proof. As it clearly says on WP:SPI "CheckUser is not for fishing", for which an unsupported "I believe very, very strongly" claim with no diffs to evidence qualifies. Formally, let me say this is specious and vindictive. This case should be denied on that basis alone. I've never seen this editor before, though I've seen the name on a few high profile article that draw scores of editors each day. It is wholly paranoid to suggest that a new editor who likes entertainment articles is someone else. Also, way to bite the newcomer. Wildhartlivie 12.74.70.68 ( talk) 02:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As in her previous SPI accusation of Wildhartlivie, there's some reason to suspect Sara's Song is a sockpuppet of someone. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for saying that it's Wildhartlivie. This seems again like paranoia. Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
Background: User:Wildhartlivie was upset that I was commenting from a dynamic IP at Talk:Andrew Koenig (actor) and WHL made several accusations that I was sockpuppet / blocked / banned account (they are still visible on the talk page although I can provide links to diffs if requested). On March 30, I requested feedback Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie and WHL was told that IPs were allowed to edit anonymously and that the accusations should stop.
If we look at WHL's edits on April 10 (I am not sure if this will link right or not, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100410052941&target=Wildhartlivie) the edits are being made approximately every three minutes up until 4:14 at which point there is a 14 minute break.
Starting at 4:18 the IP begins to edit and makes 4 edits including this personal attack against me "the bizarre, jumping IP editor " [51] and this edit [52] which changes the format of a table filmography to a version in which the fonts are set at 95% with the edit summary "and again, you agreed to stop going about doing this" (see below for significance). The IP edits run from 4:18-4:24. After a 14 minute break, the same 14 minutes in which the IP makes its edits, at 4:28 WHL's edits begin, again at the rate of roughly one every 3 minutes.
WHL has a history of making reversion of filmography tables to versions with 95% font [53] in a dispute that WHL is having with User:Jack Merridew ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography).
I believe that this is pretty firm evidence that WHL logged out and attempted to use an "anonymous" IP to make a personal attack. Or if the logging out was somehow accidental, that the personal attack was still wrong and WHL should be held accountable. MM 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The following remarks were added after the report had been closed and archived:
See Defending yourself against claims.
It is quite clear to me that the edit adding the hard-coded markup is WHL, and the other edits are consistent with her POV; the IP's geolocation corresponds, too. Jack Merridew 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't understand why this is a sockpuppet investigation, on the basis of 4 edits. If someone was going to log out and post anonymously in order to post a personal attack, wouldn't they also try to change their style and ensure they didn't post elsewhere? The change to the Sandra Bullock filmography looks like Wildhartlivie, and is consistent with earlier discussion to not change the filmography header until the discussion had ended. Was the editor calling for this investigation involved in that filmography discussion? If not, that edit is not about you. The edit summary doesn't suggest any attempt to hide and seems to be directed towards Jack Merridew. The other edit to Sandra Bullock, who knows. But it's not in response to the editor calling for this investigation, so I see no relevance in that one. The Reese Witherspoon edit - again no connection to the editor calling for this investigation. So, if Wildhartlivie "logged out and attempted to use an "anonymous" IP to make a personal attack" it seems odd that 3 of the 4 edits made, had nothing to do with you. That leaves just the comment at Talk:Andrew Koenig (actor) and whether or not it was made by Wildhartlivie, it's similar to a comment that she previously made. "MM" and Wildhartlivie continued to discuss the situation (of Koenig's death) without either one referring to the "personal attack" so there's no accusation and no denial. Four days later, when both parties seem to have moved past that comment without commenting on it, it's reported as justification for a sockpuppet investigation. Why not four days ago? Rossrs ( talk) 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, edits from this IP (207.69.137.36) have been nothing but problematic. For example, this IP made a series of five edits to John C. Lilly in March that removed and deleted easily verifiable information for no reason whatsoever, other than outright ignorance; This is not an acceptable editing style. If the reporting IP wishes to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest they create an account and get to work building an encyclopedia, otherwise, I recommend closing this report with prejudice. Yes, IPs are allowed to edit anonymously, but when they are unable to make constructive edits, they should be blocked. Viriditas ( talk) 10:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: closing this case, as it appears that Wildhartlivie only edited as an IP as a result of being automatically logged out. I also see no violation of
WP:SCRUTINY, as Wildhartlivie has stated that the IP was them. Please also note that SPI is not the correct place to make any allegations of personal attacks.
Spitfire
Tally-ho! 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Wildhartlivie says that LaVidaLoca is his WP:ROOMMATE account [1] and that they share the same IP [2] but use different computers. [3] While this may be true or not, they edit the same articles, revert for each other during edit wars and disputes, [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] , defend each other in disputes [15]and use the same or similar but unique language and phrasing in their edit summaries and talk pages. ("w/", "completely", "&", "yet another", "???" ) There are few, if any overlapping edits, and the LaVidaLoca account appears to only edit articles when Wildhartlivie is inactive. Viriditas ( talk) 23:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I was not notified of this but I assume I am also being accused. I do stay with Wildhartlivie sometimes, a lot during the last several months. I don't choose to say why, that is personal. We have shared residences at different times in our lives. When that happens, we share an internet connection, but I don't always edit here from home. I don't know of a policy against two people from the same house working on Wikipedia or having an interest in the same topics. We grew up together, we went to school together. Because of that, we share many interests and other personal life things. One of those things is a great love of movies and actors and we usually think a lot alike. That happens when people remain friends all their lives. I have some of the same articles that she does on my watchlist. Our wake/sleep hours aren't congruent so we are rarely home together and awake when I am staying with her. I won't post personal contact information here to let anyone that wants take advantage of it.
She taught me how to edit on Wikipedia when I became interested. She directs me to policies when I need them and taught me how to use Wiki markup and insert links when it is needed. I don't think there is a lot of similarity in how we write, but I've seen her writing for over 30 years and she's seen mine. As for using w/ and & in edit summaries, Viritidas probably hasn't been a waitress. That's standard shorthand for writing down orders and I see it in a lot of edit summaries by other people. Wildhartlivie and I have both been waitresses during our lives. Saying "completely" is sort of a colloquialism for our group so that might creep in a lot. So is "totally" and sometimes so is "cool". I don't know about "yet another" and that seems like a stretch to me.
I don't see any evidence of being involved in edit wars or disputes or defending one another. I posted a personal attack message at [16] after that person left a an attack at [17]. That wasn't defending anyone in a dispute. It's a personal attack warning. I saw that she had an issue on Jonestown earlier in the morning with a new editor and decided to try and take care of that myself because of the dispute that was going on there with Viritidas. What was going on with the new editor had nothing to do with the dispute with Viriditas so there was no defending her edits. It mostly was about that person changing categories and moving a photo directly underneath the infobox. I admit it that I let it become a little bit of an edit war with the new editor and I'm sorry if that was the situation. If I have done something wrong on Wikipedia it was my doing, noone else's, but I don't see that I did. I am willing to be banned or have my account deleted if I have done something wrong, but there is no collusion or meatpuppet activities taking place. The truth is, this whole thing has made me rethink my interest in Wikipedia. This is supposed to be a fun place to edit, not one where people get accused and attacked. It is wrong to try and seek punishment to Wildhartlivie for something that she or I did not do or I did wrong. LaVidaLoca ( talk) 05:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I had begun to prepare a long and extensive defense against this accusation, but after having looked into the evidence offered, statements by other regular Wikipedia editors and considering it, I believe a brief examination of what is being construed as sock or meat puppet activity indicates no culpability. The burden of proof rests with the accuser, the accused does not have to prove his or her innocence. I will start by stating that there seems to be an ulterior motive to this filing.
The case has been presented by comments by other Wikipedia editors that this accusation was spurred by the filing of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas and the recent dispute on Jonestown. Before this was filed, Viriditas approached me on my talk page and simply left a message saying "You're busted", which was interestingly repeated by the IP post below [18]. Does that mean Viriditas posted that to support his/her contentions? Of course not, but the language used is similar. As was pointed out by Pinkadelica, I've had extensive issues with a persistent and tenditious sock puppet operator and, as I told Viriditas on that talk page, have had to have oversight intervention more than once. I've no doubt that this hit Wikipedia Review and brought the IP comments and I happily disclose to an oversight or bureaucrat the details of that. Regardless, when necessary, I was quite frank and candid about the fact that I know LaVidaLoca personally and explained that to Viriditas [19] but she/he kept trying to back me into making an admission that was and is unfounded, "Fess up now, or I pursue this. The jig is up.", go tell the AN/I board and promise to be a good girl [20] and ...if you want to come clean on this, I'll hold off." Another editor, who I would conclude is not unsupportive of Viriditas or noted the implications of what was going on, even left comments regarding the AN/I and RFCU reports, saying "V, you're probably not helping your cause much here", "V, you really are only hurting your cause here (and on AN/I)", and using the edit summary of "oh dear", said "V... holding an SPI over someone's head is a really, really bad idea. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up; either file an SPI and see what it proves/disproves, or stop making the accusation, as that counts as personal attacks", which was part of the basis of the RFCU filed and upon which I commented. Personal attacks can certainly be insinuations and unfounded accusations, such as this case.
The evidence presented above does not demonstrate in any way reverting for one another up in edit wars, edit warring at all, avoiding 3RR or defending one another in disputes (which was shown in fact to be a personal attack warning). The diffs above show situations that are in no way any of those.
All of this editing activity was in routine maintenance and vandalism protection, none was relative to any ongoing disputes, edit wars, or defense of someone else in any way. Some of LaVidaLoca's edits noted above occurred just following my eye surgery when I was unable to edit. You would find many, many more frequent instances on articles where two of the editors who replied on this page have reverted to a version of an article that I had last done, or where I had reverted to a version they had made. Pinkadelica and Rossrs and I all have many of the same articles on our watchlists because we frequently work together on actor related articles in conjunction with WP:ACTOR and all keep high profile targets of vandalisms and persistent sock masters ( HarveyCarter to name one) watchlists in case they return and make unsourced and contentious additions. We've also worked on articles together. That does not make either of them sock puppets or meat puppets either. I disclosed to at least four Wikipedia editors privately of our friendship some time ago, including Pinkadelica and Rossrs. I would name the other two if they happen to post comments here and confirm that.
LaVidaLoca addressed the other evidence presented above and I don't believe that needs to be revisited, except to note that Viriditas had issues with the same editor upon which LaVidaLoca left the "defensive" personal attack warning [21]. Pinkadelica left diffs and comments about that below. That someone I know in the real world and sometimes stays with me because of my health reasons and issues related to her and my personal lives, sometimes and frequently lately accesses the internet using my connection does not make us either sock puppets or meat puppets. I am unaware that it must be disclosed that I know another Wikipedia editor or for what reason unless it raises a question. When it did, I readily admitted that was the case because there is no malfeasance here. I am positive I actually know quite a number of editors in real life given the sheer number of editors registered on this site who might actually have edited something that I have. That LaVidaLoca's subject interests are similar to mine given our lifelong relationship is something that does not defy explanation or require one. The pattern of editing outlined in the evidence does not support this accusation and I suggest this case be closed as unsupported and unfounded and motivated by other factors. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 04:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Wilhartlivie or his room mate, nor is this information directly relevant to IP searching, etc., but it is worth a short mention: undisclosed above is that Viriditas has engaged in a long and extensive Wikihounding campaign against Wildhartlive, myself and Yachtsman1, that is now the subject of an RfCU. I won't go into details, but it includes NUMEROUS false charges and conspiracy theories. Viriditas included several false allegations of "sock puppets" or "meat puppets", such as:
Mosedschurte ( talk) 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Where is the abuse? I see a few examples of editing the same article over the span of years, but no real pattern of long term abuse that warrants any sort of action from two editors who share the same address. I also noted overlap on June 4, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. between the two editors. Also, please take note of this: [22] and compare with this pointed edit: [23] The "defending" each other allegation involves a sock who was banned, and with whom the initator of this investigation also had differences. -- Yachtsman1 ( talk) 01:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
They certainly are acting as sockpuppets. The same articles, the same times, and the same tone. Coincidence? I think not. -- 64.29.148.60 ( talk) 04:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
BUSTED - If they are really roommates, then why do they post to each others talk pages like strangers?
Just a few examples:
It is clear that the roommate story is a big lie.
If you check the all the IP's used for both accounts, I bet more accounts will show up. Then there will be more "we live together but comment on each other talk pages like we do know each other" explanations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.83.212.19 ( talk) 05:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Having read through the discussion in entirety, I believe that these two users are different people. The supposed "conclusive evidence" provided by the IP means nothing; friends welcome each other on Wikipedia, and occasionally post to their talk pages, so this does not prove they are lying. Nothing further is needed. PeterSymonds ( talk) 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
While I realize that accusing an established user of sockpuppetry is looked dimly upon, I suspect that MisterSoup is actually Wikipedia editor Wildhartlivie. MisterSoup's very first edit today was on my talk page. He/she then posted the following: [26]. I replied with the following: [27] in the December 2009 section of the talk page. MisterSoup then appeared again on my talk page with [28]. MisterSoup then made several edits that were deemed disruptive, including violating 3RR. MisterSoup was then blocked for one week. My belief that MisterSoup is actually Wildhartlivie is based on the following: Wildhartlivie has been frustrated that I have not answered a question where he/she has demanded an answer in a currently active issue involving me at [29]. Interestingly, during the time that MisterSoup was posting today (see user contribs: [30]), Wildhartlivie made no edits, as evidenced here: [31]. After MisterSoup was blocked, Wildhartlivie started editing again. The article Wildhartlivie and I first conflicted in was Ted Bundy (and article Wildhartlivie feels very strongly about) - this is the article MisterSoup referenced on my talk page. All of the edits MisterSoup subsequently made were to articles involving celebrities - these are the exact type of articles Wildhartlivie most frequently edits. When looking at MisterSoup's edits today after I discovered his/her "contribution" to my talk page, I immediately noticed that for someone with a new account, MisterSoup seemed awfully familiar with how to edit Wikipedia - including how to insert references (something it usually takes newbies a while to master). I hope that I am wrong - even though I might be charged with wrongfully accusing an established editor of sockpuppetry. Believe me, I take no joy in making this complaint. With all of that in mind, because I take editing in Wikipedia seriously and harassment involving hate-speech and intolerance surrounding sexual orientation even more seriously, I feel that I cannot let my suspicions go idle. Thank you for looking into this matter. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I added User:B. Fairbairn because of the following comments that were placed on my talk page in the same section where MisterSoup's comments were later placed. Diffs here: [32]; [33]; [34]. To which I responded: [35] and then B. Fairbairn responded: [36].
See Defending yourself against claims.
This is a specious, paranoid and vindictive sock case filed by someone who is pissed that I commented at her MfD filing (please feel free to look at the MfD to see how she had lobbied to have my comments disregarded) because she was pressed for an answer which she refused to provide. Regardless of her "suspicions", I freely request a checkuser because I personally know this is completely a delusional filing based on paranoid thinking. I don't even feel a need to post evidence to the contrary. I am not someone who makes commentary upon someone's sexual preference nor upon their religion. Do I like SkagitRiverQueen? Not especially now. Did I harass her? No. Am I MisterSoup? Nope, wrong again. Please close this specious fishing expedition as groundless, vindictive and based on bad faith. And for the record, she did not notify me of this filing, a requirement. Following this, I hope that SkagitRiverQueen can find a productive outlet for her delusions and paranoia that does not include me. And Merry Christmas (remember the season, Skag.) Wildhartlivie ( talk) 16:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The checkuser should note that no evidence beyond mere happenstance regarding User:Beyond My Ken has been provided, and certainly nothing that indicates abusive use of multiple accounts. The addition of my account to this case by Betty Logan seems to be retaliation by him or her for this. Behavioral evidence (since checkuser data is apparently stale) for Betty Logan being a sockpuppet of WalterMitty/Melody Perkins is provided there. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm now an accused party I thought I should comment here for the record. My first encounter with Wildhartlivie (since he's the one I'm being accused of socking for) was in my attempt to mediate a dispute involving him and SkagitRiverQueen about two weeks ago, in which I had actually been a proponent of leniency in a 3RR report against SkagitRiverQueen [37]. In that same report you can see I also admonished the reporting party for focusing the report on one warring party and not the other -- the other being Wildhartlivie.
The only reason I'm in this report is because I'm now defending Wildhartlivie, which the reporting party doesn't like. I've been an established Wikipedia user for over 3 years, with over 25,000 edits, and rollback and autoreviewer privileges. I am nobody's sockpuppet. Having been here for this long, and built some semblance of a reputation here, I can assure you that (playing devil's advocate now), were I to engage in sockpuppeting, I would be smart enough not to risk this account by idiotically using it to defend one of my sockpuppets -- especially not in a frivolous case that would have been dismissed anyway without my intervention (the frivolousness being the accusation against Wildhartlivie et al; MisterSoup was a rather obvious sock, just not of anyone accused in this report).
I could probably go through contribs and present evidence that sockpuppeting is not likely between our two accounts, but it seems to me the burden of proof is on the accuser(s), who have not given any evidence yet aside from some paranoid anecdotes that come down to "both these users bothered me in the same place, so maybe they're sockpuppets, we should check just to make sure". When actual evidence is presented for these wild accusations, that's when I'll go scouring for diffs. Til then, adieu. Equazcion (talk) 17:38, 26 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie did indeed edit while MisterSoup was editing, contrary to Skag's claim above.
MisterSoup's edits on 24 December:
Wildhartlivie's edit, that same minute:
Aside from which the case was very thin to begin with. Skag is failing to assume good faith on the part of the people she gets into disputes with. She generally chooses to pump accusations back at them instead of arguing the issues, so this particular accusation doesn't surprise me (nor will it surprise me when Skag accuses me of something as a result of this posting). Equazcion (talk) 18:24, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)
I have added user User:Equazcion to the checkuser list. There is an independent investigation alreday going on into User:Wildhartlivie at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice and Equazcion has turned up there to speak out on 'behalf' of Wildhartlivie [42]. It could be that he's done this in all good conscience, but the fact that is a sock investigation underway and this user has turned up in both investigations it would be wise to run a checkuser on him as well. I will make this clear that this is not an accusation, just a precaution. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Completely different edit patterns. Quite a ludicrous accusation, if you ask me. MisterSoup is probably a sock of some user, so a checkuser on that user might be warranted, but other than that this seems to be purely out of spite. Erzsébet Báthory( talk| contr.) 22:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Socks who wish to remain socks rarely use the same "edit patterns" as their real selves. My report here was absolutely NOT out of spite in any way, shape, or form. In the future, I'd appreciate it if those who are tempted to editorialize their comments here with opinions of me personally, that they leave those personality opinions either to themselves or take it to my talk page. Facts are what's desired in report boards, not personality conflicts and personal attacks based on no evidence. The habit of attacking the reporting party has become too frequent in Wikipedia, IMO - and, in the end. does nothing more than deter editors from reporting anything at all in order to spare themselves the attacks they receive by those commenting. It's no different than what has historically happened to women who rightfully cry rape: blame the victim. But, beyond all that, the fact remains that MisterSoup's very first edit as MisterSoup was anti-gay hatespeech on my talk page. That says to me that MisterSoup is more than likely a sock of someone who has, in the past, had a beef with me in Wikipedia. I may be wrong about who MisterSoup actually is (and I sincerely hope I am), but I am 99.99% certain that MisterSoup is a sockpuppet. That's what needs to be addressed first - who MisterSoup actually is - not finding reasons to put blame on the person bringing the checkuser request forward. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlive/Beyond My Ken/Blocked sock Epeefleche connection
I have added User:Beyond My Ken to the checkuser list. I was involved in dispute with User:Erik at Avatar (2009 film). The dispute was eventually resolved amicably, but User:Wildhartlivie left some unpleasant messages on my User talk page: [43]. I felt they were completely unwarranted so reported them at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice. The admin agreed that Wildhartlivie was out of order: [44]. Suddenly, editor User:Beyond My Ken who had bene on Wikipedia less than a month who is very informed about Wikipedia protocol launches a sock investigation into me. Unsurprisingly perhaps, it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history on the talk page of User:Erik (the aforementioned editor above) with User:Epeefleche: [45] User:Epeefleche is a new name here, but was blocked for having a sock User:Ethelh: [46]. User:Ethelh conducted a campaign of harrassment against me after I removed an unsourced contribution. She accused me of creating socks (seeing a pattern?) and waging a campaign of harrassment against her: User_talk:Betty_Logan#ANI_discussion_you_may_be_interested_in. This came to nothing in the end because User:Ethelh was blocked for being a sock. I am very suspicious because User:Wildhartlivie launches an unprovoked attack on me, User:Beyond My Ken who has bene on Wikipedia less than a month launches a sock investigation into me after I complained about User:Wildhartlivie which was upheld by an admin, and then it turns out that User:Beyond My Ken has a common editing history with a sock who harrassed me on the talk page of the person I had the original dispute with. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
When did the focus of this report become Wildhartlivie? I filed this report to focus on the user MisterSoup and listed Wildhartlivie (and then B. Fairbairn and Betty Logan as possible actual identities/other socks of Mister Soup...did one of the clerks change it or someone else? -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This is frigging insane. Allow me to suggest some other names that you might rightly include, based on the evidence given here: WP:WBE. There is no more evidence present here that relates me to any of these names than the ones of which I'm being accused. This is a specious and paranoid witch hunt with no basis in fact or reality. Please close this specious and frigging insane report. I do not intend to further dignify this with a response. When this is closed as non-supported, please be so good as to delete this page, it contains only fodder for persons wishing ill against other editors and has no place in the archives. Folks, please, seek reality therapy. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have encountered Wildhartlivie (a well-respected editor) in matters totally unrelated to this case and there is absolutely no basis for an SPI investigation. A very quick look (all this case is worth) at Beyond My Ken and Epeefleche shows that there is no reason to investigate them either. If anyone is wondering, I learned of this SPI at an MfD where I commented. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
To all the parties: Stick to facts please. Diffs that show a likelihood of disruptive socking are what is needed here. Aspersions cast on each other are not. So far I'm not seeing any reason to accept the request but I will not make a final determination just yet (some other CU could, of course). Stop posting anything other than dry factual analysis that helps make a determination of whether a check is warranted, please. ++ Lar: t/ c 00:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason for running a check on Wildhartlive, Beyond My Ken and Epeefleche is overwhelming:
Too many coincidences, too many of the same names keep popping up. Do you not think it is odd that we have an editor less than a month old instigating sock investigations, who has a common history with an editor who has been blocked for running socks? I would certianly put my mind at ease if these three editors were proven to be separate editors. Betty Logan ( talk) 08:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Draw a line and start over, whoever still wants to hurl allegations ... present specific diffs that represent disruptive edits and a cogent analysis as to why they are likely to be those of a specific person. Or drop this. ++ Lar: t/ c 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A case exists for checking MisterSoup, so I did. Confirmed that
Blocked and tagged. The discussion above is not very helpful as it continues feature parties casting aspersions on each other. The warning I gave continues to apply to all parties. I am continuing to investigate but I'm not seeing the crisp justification we need here and if things don't improve soon I am going to ask the clerks to close this. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, some more...
That leaves us
after removing the parsiflage. I would ask folk again, present me with clearcut diffs here that demonstrate that there is a reason to believe there is a connnection, and that it is disruptive. Skip all the rest of the back and forth. Draw a line and start over. Absent that clear evidence, this case should be closed and after 24 hours I will so recommend. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
User:Sara's Song became a new user around 9pm on Jan 19, 2010 - the same day as Wildhartlivie's account was blocked due to sockpuppetry. While not all, a good number of Sara's Song edits are at the same time of the early morning hours as Wildhartlivie would edit in the past. Sara's Song edits the same types of articles as Wildhartlivie - crime and entertainment/entertainers. Sara's Song has made references in talk page comments indicating she has knowledge of how editors have edited long in the past. Sara's Song's editing abilities seem very advanced (including references and imbedded comments) for someone who has only been editing for four days. Since I made two very benign comments regarding Sara's Song's editing today on talk pages she has left items on, she has requested that her pages be deleted under Right To Vanish - and they are now deleted as of 1630 PST. Because of this, I cannot provide any evidence here regarding her edits. With the evidence presented above, along with the sudden departure of Sara's Song, and the fact that Wildhartlivie is already currently blocked because of socking, I believe very, very strongly that Wildhartlivie has continued socking, this time as Sara's Song. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 00:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
One addition: In the Marisa Tomei article, one of Sara's Song's comments appears to reveal that she has been around for longer than January 19th: "Also, just so you know, this has been in the article in the past and was removed." The diff is found here [50] -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
See Defending yourself against claims. So that account started on the 19th. So did hundreds upon hundreds of accounts. So the account edits at night. So do hundreds and hundreds of accounts, including every editor on Charles Manson at which that the filer edits and fights. So that account likes entertainment articles. So do hundreds and hundreds of accounts. So the editor knows how to edit. That doesn't mean the account hasn't been around, in one form or another, probably one of the anonymous IPs that show up every night and managed to learn how to make a reference. So the editor decided to use right to vanish, lots of accounts do, especially when they are hounded. This is a fishing expedition with a vendetta behind it with no tangible proof. As it clearly says on WP:SPI "CheckUser is not for fishing", for which an unsupported "I believe very, very strongly" claim with no diffs to evidence qualifies. Formally, let me say this is specious and vindictive. This case should be denied on that basis alone. I've never seen this editor before, though I've seen the name on a few high profile article that draw scores of editors each day. It is wholly paranoid to suggest that a new editor who likes entertainment articles is someone else. Also, way to bite the newcomer. Wildhartlivie 12.74.70.68 ( talk) 02:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
As in her previous SPI accusation of Wildhartlivie, there's some reason to suspect Sara's Song is a sockpuppet of someone. There just doesn't seem to be any basis for saying that it's Wildhartlivie. This seems again like paranoia. Equazcion (talk) 03:23, 20 Jan 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser. |
Background: User:Wildhartlivie was upset that I was commenting from a dynamic IP at Talk:Andrew Koenig (actor) and WHL made several accusations that I was sockpuppet / blocked / banned account (they are still visible on the talk page although I can provide links to diffs if requested). On March 30, I requested feedback Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive84#User:Wildhartlivie and WHL was told that IPs were allowed to edit anonymously and that the accusations should stop.
If we look at WHL's edits on April 10 (I am not sure if this will link right or not, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20100410052941&target=Wildhartlivie) the edits are being made approximately every three minutes up until 4:14 at which point there is a 14 minute break.
Starting at 4:18 the IP begins to edit and makes 4 edits including this personal attack against me "the bizarre, jumping IP editor " [51] and this edit [52] which changes the format of a table filmography to a version in which the fonts are set at 95% with the edit summary "and again, you agreed to stop going about doing this" (see below for significance). The IP edits run from 4:18-4:24. After a 14 minute break, the same 14 minutes in which the IP makes its edits, at 4:28 WHL's edits begin, again at the rate of roughly one every 3 minutes.
WHL has a history of making reversion of filmography tables to versions with 95% font [53] in a dispute that WHL is having with User:Jack Merridew ( Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography).
I believe that this is pretty firm evidence that WHL logged out and attempted to use an "anonymous" IP to make a personal attack. Or if the logging out was somehow accidental, that the personal attack was still wrong and WHL should be held accountable. MM 207.69.137.36 ( talk) 07:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The following remarks were added after the report had been closed and archived:
See Defending yourself against claims.
It is quite clear to me that the edit adding the hard-coded markup is WHL, and the other edits are consistent with her POV; the IP's geolocation corresponds, too. Jack Merridew 08:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't understand why this is a sockpuppet investigation, on the basis of 4 edits. If someone was going to log out and post anonymously in order to post a personal attack, wouldn't they also try to change their style and ensure they didn't post elsewhere? The change to the Sandra Bullock filmography looks like Wildhartlivie, and is consistent with earlier discussion to not change the filmography header until the discussion had ended. Was the editor calling for this investigation involved in that filmography discussion? If not, that edit is not about you. The edit summary doesn't suggest any attempt to hide and seems to be directed towards Jack Merridew. The other edit to Sandra Bullock, who knows. But it's not in response to the editor calling for this investigation, so I see no relevance in that one. The Reese Witherspoon edit - again no connection to the editor calling for this investigation. So, if Wildhartlivie "logged out and attempted to use an "anonymous" IP to make a personal attack" it seems odd that 3 of the 4 edits made, had nothing to do with you. That leaves just the comment at Talk:Andrew Koenig (actor) and whether or not it was made by Wildhartlivie, it's similar to a comment that she previously made. "MM" and Wildhartlivie continued to discuss the situation (of Koenig's death) without either one referring to the "personal attack" so there's no accusation and no denial. Four days later, when both parties seem to have moved past that comment without commenting on it, it's reported as justification for a sockpuppet investigation. Why not four days ago? Rossrs ( talk) 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, edits from this IP (207.69.137.36) have been nothing but problematic. For example, this IP made a series of five edits to John C. Lilly in March that removed and deleted easily verifiable information for no reason whatsoever, other than outright ignorance; This is not an acceptable editing style. If the reporting IP wishes to be taken seriously, I strongly suggest they create an account and get to work building an encyclopedia, otherwise, I recommend closing this report with prejudice. Yes, IPs are allowed to edit anonymously, but when they are unable to make constructive edits, they should be blocked. Viriditas ( talk) 10:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Clerk note: closing this case, as it appears that Wildhartlivie only edited as an IP as a result of being automatically logged out. I also see no violation of
WP:SCRUTINY, as Wildhartlivie has stated that the IP was them. Please also note that SPI is not the correct place to make any allegations of personal attacks.
Spitfire
Tally-ho! 11:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |