Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:21, 26 December 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 December 25 2009, 02:49 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

• MisterSoup (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Equazcion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• B. Fairbairn (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Betty Logan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by SkagitRiverQueen

While I realize that accusing an established user of sockpuppetry is looked dimly upon, I suspect that MisterSoup is actually Misplaced Pages editor Wildhartlivie. MisterSoup's very first edit today was on my talk page. He/she then posted the following: . I replied with the following: in the December 2009 section of the talk page. MisterSoup then appeared again on my talk page with . 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 . Interestingly, during the time that MisterSoup was posting today (see user contribs: ), Wildhartlivie made no edits, as evidenced here: . 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Comments by accused parties   

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)

Characterizing MisterSoup's edits as "All of the edits MisterSoup subsequently made were to articles involving celebrities" is a huge stretch since he only edited Roman Polanski and Steven Seagal and one other. Specious and conjecture to the extreme. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Comment by User:Equazcion

Wildhartlivie did indeed edit while MisterSoup was editing, contrary to Skag's claim above.

MisterSoup's edits on 24 December:

• - 20:47 (their very first edit)
• - 20:50
• - 20:53

Wildhartlivie's edit, that same minute:

• - 20:53

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 18:24, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Betty Logan

I have added user User:Equazcion to the checkuser list. There is an independent investigation alreday going on into User:Wildhartlivie at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_can_I_have_some_advice and Equazcion has turned up there to speak out on 'behalf' of Wildhartlivie . 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)

That's just a little bit ridiculous. Defending a user during a sockpuppet investigation doesn't validate suspicions of them being in league with each other. You've also turned up in both discussions; shall I accuse you of being a sockpuppet of SkagitRiverQueen? This little "precaution" grossly crosses the witch-hunt line. Equazcion 19:33, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if MisterSoup and Wildhartlivie turn out to one and the same then there is a good possibility he has other socks, and if that is the case I am recommending they check you. I think I may have jumped the gun though. An investigation into you should only be undertaken if their is a positive checkuser outcome between MisterSoup and Wildhartlivie. I'm sorry if I have wrongly accused you because I know how it feels. Please accept my apologies. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll accept your apology if your actions match your words. Remove this ridiculous accusation from the sockpuppet report. FYI, even if the sockpuppet case gets accepted (it won't) and it comes up positive (it won't) there still wouldn't be any rational cause to suspect me. I only defended the user. Equazcion 20:43, 25 Dec 2009 (UTC)

There is no "independent investigation" being conducted at WP:AN/I. There is a whiny complaint filed by Betty Logan wherein she wants me to admit that commenting that her behavior of reversions of a talk page post bordered on edit warring. It has no place here and is not germane to this case. There is a sock puppet case hanging around in the background about Betty Logan and some other editor's name, however, which probably should be revived and I will be investigating why it wasn't pursued. Please take your vitriolic accusations elsewhere, Betty Logan. And PLEASE, run the checkuser on the names added here to clear the air. I welcome it as I will welcome the abject apologies from these specious accusers here. This is absolutely outrageous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Elizabeth Bathory

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)

Comment by User:SkagitRiverQueen

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

You are right, they might edit different articles, but in most cases the language used will be identical. This MisterSoup person forgot to sign the first post on your talk page (which seems unlikely if you are an established user with years of legitimate edits), tries to push questionable content with poor sources (yet again something that an established user such as Wildhartvie knows would never pass), and - also - the reasoning and questions posed on the various discussion/talk pages seems highly irregular for an established user. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone who is intentionally attempting to divert any attention away from their real identity would intentionally change language styles, increase grammatical and spelling errors, punctuation differences, intentionally not signing a post in order to perpetuate the idea that the user really is a newbie, etc. That's what intelligent socks with the intention to deceive do - sockpuppets don't necessarily equate stupidity (although socking is certainly stupid behavior in Misplaced Pages). The thing that is, IMO, the most suspicious of actions is that rather than editing an article first, MisterSoup (a) went immediately to my talk page to harass me (why *me* out of all of the editors in Misplaced Pages?), (b) started editing articles as a knowledgable Misplaced Pages editor would (already understanding how to insert references is not a skill that most newbies *know* to implement nor understand *how* to implement with their first try). These are the two things that stand out to me first and foremost and made me suspicious in the first place. Look, if it turns out that I am completely wrong about whom I initially suspected as being MisterSoup's real identity, I will humbly and whole-heartedly apologize to that individual. As I said in my initial post here, I hope I am wrong. Reporting this wasn't a knee-jerk reaction on my part - I thought through it for a considerable amount of time before making the move to report it. But no matter who it is, I am (as I said earlier) personally convinced that MisterSoup is a sock of someone who targeted me for whatever reason - whether it be a beef between that individual and myself or hoping I would react as I did and accuse someone with whom they have a beef with as a form of vicarious revenge. I don't know the answer - that's why I am asking for the Misplaced Pages anti-sockpuppet crew to take care of finding out who it is and deal with them appropriately. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but filing a specious sock puppet case against an editor with whom you perceive you have ongoing disputes is a personal attack, make no other unfounded assumptions, you've made enough here. I stated that these charges are speculative and paranoid in nature, that's not a personality assessment, it's a characterization of a charge filed that has no basis in facts and no supporting diffs to support it. It is a personal attack upon me to immediately conclude that what you perceive as hate based commentary about your sexual preference would come from me. I don't give a crap which side you butter your bread, I do give a crap that you would immediately connect our dispute on the Bundy page to someone's anti-gay spoutings. Please provide any diff that would support that I personally make commentary based on religion or sexual preference anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It is paranoid speculation. Period. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests

{{RFCU}} is deprecated. Please change the case status parameter in {{SPI case status}} to "CURequest" instead.

Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )

Current status – Awaiting initial clerk review.    Requested by SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

•  Clerk note: - Betty Logan, do you have any evidence for this at all? NW (Talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

See above. I don't have any evidence except for the emergence of this other editor in both investigations. It could be that he's just a concerned editor giving his support, but if MisterSoup and Wildhartlivie turn out to be one and the same it may be worth extending the check to Equezcion. It's not a proper suspicion, I appreciate that, but probably worth looking into if something does turn out to be amiss. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right. It's "not a proper suspicion", and therefore should never have been made. Equazcion 19:35, 25 Dec 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)

Conclusions

• Open SPI cases
• SPI requests for pre-CheckUser review