Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lutrinae/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Lutrinae

Lutrinae (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
02 November 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The account Lutrinae was banned from the ARBPIA topic area for four months on June 7. The account was also restricted to using 1 account (specifically Lutrinae) for any edits to the topic area for 1 year. See here. The account Modinyr was created about a month later.

The connection between the two users can be seen in both technical and behavioral giveaways. On the technical side, this edit by Lutrinae, signing a comment made by 132.160.54.155 gives the connection to IPs registered to the University of Hawaii. This edit by Modinyr shows the same connection with the user removing a comment left while signed out.

Behaviorally, the similarity can be seen in the inability to properly indent talk page comments with multiple line breaks used to create new lines. See for example Lutrinae ([1], [2] and every other talk page comment ever made by the user, and for Modinyr see [3] and [4] and, again, ever other edit made in a talk page by the editor.

Also, the connection is made obvious when looking at this edit to Zero0000's talk page. Zero had made a comment about Lutrinae's repeated use of the word "pally" as a substitute for "Palestinian" at the AE thread that saw Lutrinae topic banned (here). Lutrinae made a similar comment at Zero's talk page demanding an explanation here. The user effectively admitted to being the same as Lutrinae when they made the edit to Zero's talk page. All the same, I request a CU to see if there are any other sleeper accounts. AGK, when restricting the editor to 1 account, wrote of a history of sockpuppetry, so I think a check is warranted. Either way, Modinyr is very clearly the same person as Lutrinae and has been used to evade the topic ban by editing from July through October and evading the 1 account restriction. Both accounts should be indef'd. Nableezy 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

 Confirmed the following are the same:

18 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Behavior based evidence that if posted publicly will help future socks evade detection. Happy to email to any clerk. nableezy - 04:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC) 04:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk · contribs) nableezy - 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioral evidence I have links Luke with Modinyr, and Society of Rules with both. Not even really a need for CU. nableezy - 15:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
It was never established that User:Luke 19 Verse 27 is sock anyhow he is stale probably by now.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lutrinae has never been very careful about hiding his IP for any of his socks. IPs for Lutrinae are available in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102#Lutrinae. This guy is instantly recognizable and the behavioral evidence to link the accounts is about as compelling as it gets. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what should decide its behavioral evidence.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, probably. I assume Nableezy will send it shortly. I only provided the IPs because I'm not quite sure whether the checkuser results for Society of Rules combined with the IPs can generate useful information. I'm not sure how these technical aspects of SPI are carried out. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should provide diffs of "disruption and the harassment" if this the case you shouldn't wait for SPI but report him on WP:AN/I--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look through the history of my talk page for today will probably suffice. He is also targeting Tiamut as usual too. I think his disruption can be managed, so I'm not sure it's worth bothering ANI. The guy's stimulation seeking behavior always leads to these meltdowns. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
28 July 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral evidence that if publicly shared will allow greater opportunity for Lutrinae socks to evade detection. Happy to email any clerk the evidence. In addition to the behavioral evidence that I can email, this IP has, almost immediately after Society of Rules (talk · contribs) eas blocked, edit-warring over the same edit that Society of Rules had been. SoR: [5], [6]. IP: [7], [8], [9], [10]. nableezy - 16:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

 IP blocked --MuZemike 03:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

09 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


The IP was blocked for a week as a Lutrinae sock. As soon as the week was up, the IP was back performing the exact same edits as prior to the block. Can we get an extended vacation from the re-runs of the Adventures of Lutrinae? nableezy - 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the below, I'll be happy to email behavioral evidence to any clerk establishing the connection. nableezy - 02:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

There is no "behavioral evidence" against me besides not following the NPOV line that Nableezy and the other accusers follow. If I am not following policy, than please correct me, but it seems "sock" is just a label that is used to denounce editors that don't let the above and others Own certain articles. 171.8.66.113 (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brand new user User:John Behind The Curve making the exact same edits should be added to this. The strategy of socks like this is one of attrition/distraction and conflict. Wikipedia handles such problems poorly.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im guessing thats NoCal100. nableezy - 02:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments


17 October 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral evidence, happy to send to any clerk or CU through email. Nableezy 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence I can send is fairly convincing, I dont think this even needs a checkuser. nableezy - 05:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steel, email sent. Thanks, nableezy - 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I've not been disruptive in any way. Please review my contributions. Also, there is no article that both I and Lutrinae have edited. Where'stheanykey (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true, but as Lutrinae is currently blocked they are not supposed to be editing under any username. Jafeluv (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)\[reply]
My meaning is that we aren't the same person because we haven't edited anything in common. Where'stheanykey (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

I became aware of Where'stheanykey last month at Al-Aqsa Mosque but didn't take any action because I couldn't be sure who s/he was a reincarnation of. My inbox is open. – Steel 16:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email evidence corroborates a few things I suspected already, blocked. – Steel 20:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lutrinae/Archive&oldid=1079619646"