Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 2 October 2016

Sarsaparilla

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Suspected sock puppets/Sarsaparilla

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarsaparilla

30 September 2016

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

It seems odd to start an official sock investigation on this editor, considering that he has been blocked so many times by Alison, WP:ArbCom or the WP:WMF without one (sometimes with my help), but I'm going ahead and reporting him in case Alison is busy or doesn't want to take on this case. While almost starting an official case on him today under the Tisane title, I was reminded (when looking at past evidence) that I started a case on him in 2015 under the Sarsaparilla name.

Anyway, I recently stated the following on my talk page:

I am 100% certain that Markshale is Tisane (talk · contribs)/Sarsaparilla. I would rather not divulge these easy ways to recognize Tisane here out in the open since he will likely try to change his editing style afterward, but the following is how I know that Markshale is Tisane....

• For one, we know that Tisane is interested in law topics and child sexual abuse topics. The first few edits by Markshale show that he is as well; see here, here and here.

• Tisane has a habit of signing his edit summaries with a dash. This is seen here, here, here, here and here.

• • Tisane did the same as Yev Yev (talk · contribs). See here.

• • He's doing the same as Markshale. See here, here and here.

• Now while some other editors have signed their edit summaries with a dash, Tisane does something that I don't think I've seen any other editor consistently do... He has a unique habit of adding an asterisk (*) to his edit summary when adding something to the See also section or when making a similar edit. See here, here, here and here for examples.

• • He did the same as Yev Yev. See here, here, here, and here.

• • He's doing the same as Markshale, as seen here, here, here, here

• What led me to immediately recognize Markshale as Tisane is that after I'd recently noticed that Tisane, while editing as Yev Yev, created the Types of rapist article a month after I kind of opposed it, I saw that Markshale recently created the Sex robot article a month after I opposed it. Coincidence? I think not. Tisane does stuff like this, keep track of my edits and then goes against them by creating an article or similar, because he feels that I'm not doing all of what needs to be done for sexual topics. That (in my own words) I have gotten lazy. He's stated this on my talk page. Of course, laziness is not what has me and others disagreeing with a lot of Tisane's edits.

Now because the Sarsaparilla and Tisane accounts are stale, you will need to compare the Markshale account to one of Tisane's more recent socks. Beembly (talk · contribs), Valuable content creator (talk · contribs), Zenitnaya (talk · contribs) and Hitotsume (talk · contribs) are recent ones...in that order. Even if the checkuser data does not connect Markshale to these accounts, I assure you that Markshale is Tisane. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, what other accounts did you compare Markshale to? And can we leave this case open long enough to have Alison or the WP:WMF weigh in? I'll contact Alison on her talk page, making my case, and I'll have the WP:WMF contacted via email. I'm not sure how Tisane beat the checkuser tool this time, but going by checkuser evidence is not the be all and end all for sock investigations. Behavioral evidence should also be a factor. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive; it is a cautionary tale about relying solely on checkuser evidence. That editor managed to beat the checkuser data. It took me compiling a lot of behavioral evidence just to get that editor blocked. He was free for a year to roam with destructive edits. The behavioral evidence for Tisane/Markshale is here, especially his consistent use of an asterisk (*) for his edit summary when adding something to the See also section. I ask editors: How many other editors have they seen do that, or consistently do that? More examples are here, here and here. In addition to what I stated above, Markshale is also preoccupied with redirects, just like Tisane was. See here, here, here and here for examples. At Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla/Archive#30 June 2012, Eastlaw, for example, noted Tisane's preoccupation with redirects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Markshale is  Unrelated to, for example, Hitotsume--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases CU complete