Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:26, 3 July 2009

Wildhartlivie

Wildhartlivie (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie/Archive.

Report date July 1 2009, 23:45 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• LaVidaLoca (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by Viriditas

Wildhartlivie says that LaVidaLoca is his WP:ROOMMATE account and that they share the same IP but use different computers. While this may be true or not, they edit the same articles, revert for each other during edit wars and disputes, , defend each other in disputesand 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)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I was not notified of this but I assume I am also being accused. I do stay with Wildhartlivie sometimes, a lot during the last several months. I don't choose to say why, that is personal. We have shared residences at different times in our lives. When that happens, we share an internet connection, but I don't always edit here from home. I don't know of a policy against two people from the same house working on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 after that person left a an attack at . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Response by Wildhartlivie

I had begun to prepare a long and extensive defense against this accusation, but after having looked into the evidence offered, statements by other regular Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors that this accusation was spurred by the filing of Misplaced Pages: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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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.

• This revert was made 5 days after mine to remove an unsupported fact sourced to IMDB, while the revert made by LaVidaLoca removed an uncited change to Costner's collge fraternity.
• This revert was made 18 hours after mine that returned sourced content that had been removed, and the revert made by User:LaVidaLoca removed unsourced content regarding future personal appearances by Julianne Hough.
• This revert was made 2 1/2 days after mine that restored wording, while LaVidaLoca's revert removed corrections made to a quote.
• I made this revert which returned nationality and unlinked common terms made here, although in retrospect, I should have probably only unlinked the terms, while LaVidaLoca's revert was made 3 1/2 days afterward and restored image changes.
• This revert was made to remove the peacock wording inserted here, while the revert made by LaVidaLoca returned a list to prose style and asked the editor to discuss the change instead on John Dillinger.
• This revert removed the addition of [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Lynette_Fromme&diff=291909541&oldid=290781350 unsourced content regarding a WP:BLP five days after this revert removed an alias added (though in retrospect it was likely okay), on Lynette Fromme.
• This revert removed a series of vandalism made here two days after this revert by User:LaVidaLoca corrected the content error made here on Kim Basinger.
• This revert made by me here removed some odd styles changes made here, a full 18 days after LaVidaLoca removed infobox parameters that had been deprecated by WP:ACTOR while assisting other members of that project to so following a consensus, on William Holden.
• This revert removed vandalism (additional periods at the end of a sentence) made here 11 1/2 hours after LaVidaLoca removed title bolding, a stylistic change, on Erin Brockovich.
• This revert by User:LaVidaLoca reverted "unhelpful edits which removed repeated additions of surnames to Angelina Jolie's children and an unsourced statement that one child originally had different surname, while this revert was made 3 days before that and restored content that was changed against consensus. Angelina Jolie is a featured article.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comments by other users

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

• Viriditas falsely implies I was user Raggz (?)
• Viriditas falsely implies that editor Yachtsman1 is Raggz (maybe we're all part of the conspiracy!)
• Viriditas accuses editor Yachtsman1 as being a meat puppet
• Viriditas accuses editor Vecrumba of being a meat puppet
• Viriditas implies that I was a sock puppet for several IPs and other accounts (note: not only laughably false, but a year ago in an article not even edited by Viriditas)
• Viriditas makes the same false sock puppet implications above for Wildhartlivie re those several accounts

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: and compare with this pointed edit: 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)

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

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:LaVidaLoca&diff=167142034&oldid=167130363
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie/Archive_4&diff=prev&oldid=167918568
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie&diff=prev&oldid=237405462

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)

• Note - Compare with this: --Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That's interesting. I see the same or similar but unique language and phrasing in the word "busted" being use twice, and each time presented as a guilty verdict without a good faith assumption. Rossrs (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone could look at the three edits above, and leap to the conclusion that "the roommate story is a big lie". This issue is more serious, and requires something more consequential. The first edit is a welcome message placed on LaVidaLoca's page. It's main function is to provide a link to Misplaced Pages guidelines, and Wildhartlivie has confirmed she has helped LaVidaLoca with policies. Isn't the template the simplest way of doing this? The second edit is an acknowledgment. That is does not start "thanks old friend" does not prove any attempt to talk "like strangers". In fact the second part of the message is unclear and somewhat vague, and suggests familiarity, rather than an effort to disguise familiarity. The third one is a completely neutral comment that is as brief as it needs to be. Why would it require any kind of familiarity in conveying this piece of information? A bland piece of information doesn't need more than a bland message. It seems tenuous at best. I also feel that the examples ("w/", "completely", "&", "yet another", "???") given are not particularly idiosyncratic. I've used all but "w/" in my own edit summaries over the years, but I'm familiar with "w/" as a fairly common abbreviation. LaVidaLoca mentions it's used by waitresses, and I've never been a waitress, but I have seen it used in a clerical context. It seems to me that if an idiosyncratic language is causing suspicion, that these are not very strong examples. Find a common word that is consistently mispelled or a phrase that's used in an incorrect context, and that would be somewhat more unique. I just don't see suspicion in any of these things as presented.

It seems to be that some who have commented here have done so with their mind's already set and the comments of the two anons who commented before me, seem very set, but also very lacking in anything but a point of view. If you at least consider the possibility that Wildhartlivie and LaVidaLoca are being truthful, their editing patterns do not appear so suspicious. They've commented that they've been friends for a very long time, so it's natural that they would have a common set of interests, and that their language may even be common. I have friends that would edit the same type of articles as I edit, if they ventured into Misplaced Pages, so I don't disbelieve that two long standing friends may edit from a similar set of articles. I've been aware of Wildhartlivie for a considerable period of time, longer than I have communicated with her, but I have talked and edited with her for over a year. We have also maintained a private correspondence and I am aware of some of the world in which she lives. The person who edits as LaVidaLoca has often been mentioned or referred to as part of a group of family/friends when we have communicated, and the information that has been disclosed here recently, was disclosed to me some time ago, when there was no real need to provide me with a story, if it was only a story. There are too many small details throughout that indicate to me that there are two different people whose paths cross in the real world on a frequent basis. To a lesser extent I have also communicated with LaVidaLoca. As for their editing pattern well, here's a possibility. Consider that Wildhartlivie has health issues, and that she has a lot of free time. She chooses to spend it editing Misplaced Pages and Misplaced Pages is clearly an important interest to her. LaVidaLoca has more of a passing interest, and edits less frequently, and with less depth, but when she edits, it's understandable that she may look at the edits of Wildhartlivie. It's also possible that if she sees Wildhartlivie in some kind of disagreement, that she might step forward. It doesn't seem like an unnatural reaction for a friend, in fact, I think a friend almost certainly look to see what the other friend is working on, and once they've looked they may find it even more difficult not to react. Maybe she's protective, maybe she is used to providing support or maybe she just plain agrees with Wildhartivie. It doesn't follow automatically that they are setting out to work in tandem and to deceive the wider community. I can't offer any proof to support my opinion, but it is not something I take lightly and I base it on what I've observed over a long period of time. I would hope that anyone would at least look at the issue from each side. Assume the two editors are being dishonest and it all looks suspicious, but assume the editors are being truthful and there is very little to establish that there is any kind of intentional misconduct. Rossrs (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I admit that I am not a neutral editor, as I am also a target in Viriditas' WP:Wikihounding campaign that is the subject of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas. Thus, it probably won't surprise that I generally agree with Rossrs statement that the charges seem "tenuous at best", though I think the evidence firmly backs his/her conclusion. I have no knowledge of the two room mates private lives or computer use patterns, but the first edit is standard welcome message fare, the second if anything makes it seem as if they do in fact know each other and the third is a brief comment that doesn't swing in any direction.

The idea that using the extremely well used English words "completely", "yet another" and question marks somehow denotes "unique language" does not even rise to the level of tenuous at best. The "w/" waitressing language was also explained above, and would be expected with two waitress roomates. I also use it taking notes at work and I have never waited tables. I would like to note that I have edited a series of articles related to the Jonestown incident concurrently with Wildhartlivie (note: sometimes we have been at odds) and it's not like she uses "w/" with particiularly great frequency.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into the "evidence" (which is flimsy at best and one of the most obvious examples of fishing I've seen to date), I'd like to disclose that I have worked and interacted with Wildhartlivie (as evidenced by my talk page and edit history) on numerous occasions and that I am not involved in the Jonestown article debacle which has evidently caused all this drama. I've worked with Wildhartlivie on several articles and have communicated with her off-Wiki for the past two years or so. In that time, I learned enough about Wildhartlivie's personal life to know that she and LaVidaLoca are long-time friends and share common interests as most friends do. My knowledge of LaVidaLoca is limited to her work on-Wiki as I've never communicated with her here (if I have, I can't recall) or off-line. Never in the past two years have I suspected that LaVidaLoca and Wildhartlivie were/are the same person. Last time I looked, anyone could warn another user about personal attacks and doing so is hardly defending someone in a dispute. The same editor who opened this SPI also had issues with the very same editor that LaVidaLoca warned and endorsed a RfC that Wildhartlivie opened about that user. I think that's actually a better example of backing someone up in a dispute than a NPA warning. As for the similar edit summaries, big whoop. I know my edit summaries are probably very similar to other editors and I know for a fact that my editing interests probably overlap with a few other editors whom I never met and am not connected to in any way. Even if I didn't know Wildhartlivie and the circumstances surrounding her personal life, I would still think the evidence presented here is weak and circumstantial. Truth be told, the timing of this SPI is suspect considering the editor who opened it has worked with Wildhartlivie before and seemingly never had a problem with her until an RfC regarding their behavior was opened several days ago. I think this case has more to do with retaliation than any real concern over supposed sockpuppetry. As for the IP comments, both comments are from the same IP range as a notoriously annoying sockpuppet that Wildhartlivie got blocked last year. Coincidence? I think not. Pinkadelica 22:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a most ludicrous accusation. The evidence will bear this out. One thing I've learned about sockpoopets is that the multiple-use User has an ego the size of a small planet. I've seen no such behavior on the part of Wildhartlivie. On the contrary, Wildhartlivie's editing has always been in the best interests of this great encyclopedia.  ^) Paine Ellsworth (^  04:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Msg 2 LaVidaLoca: Please do not judge WP by such fun things as this preposterous accusation. Neither you nor Wildhartlivie could possibly be anything but strengthened by all this.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Conclusions

• Open SPI cases