Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike V (talk | contribs) at 05:39, 17 January 2015 (moving non-administrative comments, closing case). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:39, 17 January 2015 by Mike V (talk | contribs) (moving non-administrative comments, closing case)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

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)
Follow-up: I am not afraid of a CU because I am not user Darknipples, but I do support Jehochman's suggestion to CU IP editor 172.56.9.123. Do I need to do that, or will you, Jehochman? Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I will take that as you have no problem with one being conducted then? It would sure help speed this along if you volunteered and save much time of arguing over motives and further abuse of editors. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional Evidence

A quick look at the most recent history shows the two editors suspected of sock puppetry are editing at the same time within a minute of each other at times. That appears more than coincidental. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AGun_show_loophole_controversy&action=history&year=2015&month=1&tagfilter= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.226 (talk) 02:15, 17 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)
  • I would like to state that I am not, nor have I ever been, a "sock". Darknipples (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The potential socking here is by the IP who seems to be evading scrutiny. I suggest a check user look at the IP. Jehochman 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Please elaborate on why you believe being an IP is evading scrutiny? That's s a serious charge with no specifics which is an attempt to discredit an IP for reporting a known practitioner of sock puppetry and one who denied it until the evidence was overwhelming and then finally admitted to it. Considering Lightbreather's past sock puppetry and vehement denials until she was caught here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=636406956#Sockpuppet_investigation I do not take her denial above as worth any consideration. I may be wrong and a check user would show if the strong evidence pointing to more sock puppetry is indeed pointing out what seems very much like a sock. To clear one's name one should not be afraid of a check user as it would add evidence in their favor if they are not practicing more sock puppetry. Of course one would resist if they new it would show a pattern of additional sock puppetry. The suspected socks comments on the gun show loophole talk page and each others talk page also seem to be the same style of writing. It would be nothing to banter back and forth to deter some suspicions but the edit history of the two matches way to much to be seen as pure coincidence. I hope Lightbreather does not resort to canvassing to tip discussions in her favor. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
IP editors are typically casual users. Casual users have no idea about how to file a sock puppetry report. A much more likely scenario is that the IP participating here is a registered user pursuing a grudge or a banned user having a little fun on Friday night. Jehochman 00:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am a sporadic editor and have edited for 10 years or so and I guess failing to register after not so subtle suggestions/even harassment would mean I am not typical under the definition you gave above. None the less your logic is extremely flawed and your obvious prejudice against IP's appears to be affecting your ability to make a sound judgment based on the information given above which you did not address. If there is not sufficient evidence then state that and quit leveling unfounded implications as to my motive. In other words assume good faith unless I have demonstrate otherwise. We could all come up with creative scenarios and spew implications as to editors motive but how does that have any bearing on whether the evidence is there? I have no grudge as you implied above based on your mistrust of those who edit without giving up personal information to a non-profit corporation which pays a few at the top rather well while it has thousands working for nothing which is what I call the non-profit scheme. Many IP's have many good/valid reasons to remain unknown and contribute a great deal and should not suffer abusive slander simply for doing what registered users do. Many registered users abuse Misplaced Pages as Lightbreather's talk page has shown. Again I may be wrong but the record weighs heavily against Lightbreather's integrity. I do hope prejudiced assumptions do not trump looking at the evidence. My concern may be wrong but I believe the evidence warrants due diligence. If a check user proves to be false then I apologize for taking up time of busy editors. If the concerns are valid then I will let the community discuss the ramifications and stay out of it. Attacking an IP for no valid reason for reporting it however is a canard to avoid dealing with the concern. My free time is limited and I believe I have sufficiently addressed the mud slinging to discredit the report based on sound evidence. As I do not enjoy rolling in the mud do as you believe is proper and I will go back to the area I was addressing previously. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
For every IP like you, there are dozens of the type I mentioned. Checking an IP is quite harmless. Fact is you came here and leveled what appears to be a questionable allegation. Of course the first step is to examine you and see whether you might be somebody with an axe to grind. Jehochman 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Report from editor interaction analyzer. A neat tool that shows interactions between editors in this case the accused and Jehochman. Some evidence of a possible COI issue but let the results speak for themselves. http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Lightbreather&user2=Jehochman&user3=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=
I rest my case. Check user please do your thing. Jehochman 03:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I'm closing this case with no action taken. The case seems to have some merit on the surface (given the past socking concerns and the similar views on the same topics) so I don't think this case was opened entirely in bad faith. However, after looking through the contributions, I think it's more than likely the accounts don't belong to the same individual. For example, if you look at the contributions from around June 24 - 26, 2014 for DN and Lightbreather there are a number of chronologically interwoven edits that span many hours. While yes, it's possible to contribute to 30+ hour straight and structure the edits as such, it's very, very unlikely. Also note that that was before Lightbreather was topic banned for 6 months, so I don't think there would have been much to gain from such alleged behavior. Also, if DN was an account to bypass LB's topic ban, why the account stop editing from August to January? It doesn't make much sense to me. As one of the editor's that helped provide evidence for LB's original case, I don't see a significant amount of similarities here and it doesn't match up with LB's modus operandi. As such, I don't think a checkuser is warranted here.
  • A few last notes: 208.54.38.226 - On the English Misplaced Pages, checkusers will not perform checks on a user to prove his or her innocence. (This is most likely to prevent coercing users into agreeing to a check, as well as the fact that checkuser is not a be-all and end-all tool. It needs to be taken in consideration with behavioral evidence.) Jehochman - Checkusers are very unlikely to check and publicly connect an IP to an account in this situation due to the WMF privacy policy. If you are confident enough that the IP is a user who is editing while logged out to evade scrutiny, you're welcome to open an SPI case with supporting evidence or you can take administrative action, provided that you're willing to adequately justify your rationale. Mike V • Talk 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Categories: