| Revision as of 18:23, 16 January 2015 editScalhotrod (talk | contribs)18,672 edits →Comments by other users: Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:09, 16 January 2015 edit undoUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits →Comments by other usersNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| * Even though LB and myself have had our disagreements, I would be highly surprised if this claim had any veracity whatsoever. DN's (I really wish they would change that name) comments would have to indicate an Oscar level performance and amazing level of deception on LB's part for these to be the same User. I see no point in this case. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | * Even though LB and myself have had our disagreements, I would be highly surprised if this claim had any veracity whatsoever. DN's (I really wish they would change that name) comments would have to indicate an Oscar level performance and amazing level of deception on LB's part for these to be the same User. I see no point in this case. --] ] ☮ღ☺ 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| * Looking over the contribs I have to agree with Scalhotrod. I don't see this as Lightbreather, the name itself is enough in my mind to damn near enough clear that beyond doubt for me. The last inappropriate socking was rather clumsy and I honestly believe that if ] would have been socking she would have used that other account at that time. The subject overlap is minimal but not enough to go on to really do a checkuser. ] (]) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== | ||
Revision as of 22:09, 16 January 2015
Lightbreather
Lightbreather (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive.
16 January 2015
– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Darknipples (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
The suspected sock appeared the same time Lightbreather was under investigation in June 2014 and subsequently topic banned in July 2014. Lightbreather returned to Gun show loophole the day her ban expired and the exact same article Darknipples has been Single purpose editing and the same article they tag teamed in June 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gun_show_loophole_controversy&offset=&limit=500&action=history Today I discovered evidence today of tag teaming against other editors in the community in Gun show loophole after navigating there from a RSN noticeboard which led to further investigating that discovered that Darknipples is pretty much a SPA dedicated to Gun Shows and Gun Show Loopholes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions/Darknipples&offset=&limit=500&target=Darknipples I also discovered that Lightbreather was under investigation when this account showed up and topic banned shortly after here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=616912193 Lightbreather has been found to be operating socks in the past and the evidence points that Darknipples is likely a sock originally created to tag team for consensus in controlling articles. It has been since used for editing in areas Lightbreather has been banned from. It looks like a sock, smells like a sock, and quacks like a sock so I suspect they are one and the same. A checkuser may be beneficial unless they had access to a separate IP. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Per Defending yourself against claims, I think this allegation is simply an attack in an attempt to besmirch me and Darknipples. I am not she. I am not her meatpuppet, nor is she my meatpuppet. We share an interest in some subjects, and we apparently share some opinions, but if that is against WP policy, all the other editors on the project are suspect, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Even though LB and myself have had our disagreements, I would be highly surprised if this claim had any veracity whatsoever. DN's (I really wish they would change that name) comments would have to indicate an Oscar level performance and amazing level of deception on LB's part for these to be the same User. I see no point in this case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Looking over the contribs I have to agree with Scalhotrod. I don't see this as Lightbreather, the name itself is enough in my mind to damn near enough clear that beyond doubt for me. The last inappropriate socking was rather clumsy and I honestly believe that if User:Lightbreather would have been socking she would have used that other account at that time. The subject overlap is minimal but not enough to go on to really do a checkuser. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Categories: