Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sarsaparilla

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

30 June 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Suspicious similarities in editing patterns between (previous socks)

Leucosticte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log),
Tisane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Aldrich Hanssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

Similar topics, similar behavior (e.g. creating lots of questionable redirects), same anti-deletionist stance. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 13:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: another piece of evidence: {{UnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines}}. Look at the edit history of this relatively obscure legal citation template. Created by one sock (Tisane) and perfected by Leucostite. The latter account also created a related template, {{Ussgref}}. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 06:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

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

I just stumbled across this while checking backlinks to {{UnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines}}. I would like to discuss options for resolving the situation. My concern is that I don't want people to feel like action must be taken immediately, and ArbCom to rush into a non-transparent decision that's hard to reverse. Are there some provisional measures, pending final disposition of this matter, that should be taken to address the immediate concerns of the community? I will voluntarily suspend editing outside this page and my talk page until this is resolved.
I do not want to harm the encyclopedia in any way, and if there are concerns about my editing, perhaps we can address those through mentorship, or by the standard methods of communication, BRD, etc. I make a lot of positive contributions, I believe, even if some I have to admit have not been positive. One lives and learns, and one matures and changes as a result of experiences and one's own contemplations of what is the most productive way to go forward. But I hope we can find a way for me to continue participating here, because I think it is possible that the good that can come from that can outweigh the bad. Thank you for your time and consideration. Leucosticte (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming good faith here, and I believe much of what Leucosticte is saying here is true. One might characterize his behavior as disruptive, but I haven't seen any evidence of full-on vandalism. Indeed, many of his contributions expand our knowledge base; he's just been going about the process somewhat haphazardly. I am willing to serve as his mentor if this could be a satisfactory outcome. --BDD (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if what you are saying is true (and I will concede that Leucosticte has added some useful content), the issue here is whether or not he is a sockpuppet of a banned user. That is for CheckUser to determine, and for ArbCom to decide how to proceed. I bear no ill will toward Leucosticte nor anyone else on Wikipedia, I just found something that I thought might be sockpuppet activity. Whether I was right or wrong is for them to decide. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 06:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that you are indeed right and that I am the banned user in question. I also request that discussion of the necessity of a complete ban be reopened in light of my 21-month complete absence from Wikipedia and my willingness to accept some restrictions on editing (including operating under this one account and being mentored by BDD) until I have demonstrated that I have reformed. In the interests of making it easier for the ArbCom to discuss the matter openly (rather than in non-transparent channels such as the ArbCom listserv), I also agree to hold Wikimedia and all participants in such discussions harmless for any statements they publicly make with regard to me. I agree not to sue for libel for anything anyone writes about me (I actually am philosophically opposed to libel lawsuits in general, since I think they do more harm than good by restricting free speech, but that's another matter). I'll sign a waiver if you want. I also request that while this is being discussed, I be allowed to continue editing my user talk page and pages directly related to my mentorship and to discussion of my ban, so that I can speak in my own defense and hopefully pursue means of returning to the community as a better editor than I have been in the past. Thank you. Leucosticte (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • Reformatting request to make easier to read and check. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some interesting similarities, but would like another clerk opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the activity from recent socks, ArbCom has been notified of this case. --MuZemike 02:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee have blocked Leucosticte as the returned banned user Sarsaparilla. Any queries regarding this should be addressed to ArbCom. If Leucosticte wishes to appeal against the block he should contact the Committee by email. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

01 December 2015[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

These accounts are already blocked, but I want it on "official" record that they are socks of Sarsaparilla/User:Nathan Larson/User:Tisane/User:Leucosticte. Running a check on these accounts will also provide fresh data for comparing future sock accounts, and so Alison won't always have to do all the work. I also ask for WP:Sleeper checks. The ExplanationUser account is probably stale. As for a recent fresh account that has been identified as a Tisane sock, and which can be used to compare to the other accounts I listed above, see Zenitnaya (talk · contribs). Also see this section from my talk page and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Ponyo, I didn't look at the "globally locked" aspect before reporting above. Unless the "globally locked" aspect very recently happened, it must have happened during the aforementioned WP:ANI report on this editor. Either way, like I stated above, I wanted "official" on-the-record data that these accounts are Sarsaparilla accounts, and I wanted fresh data on the record for other WP:CheckUsers. This report serves as fresh data, and as a note in the Sarsaparilla file that this editor is still active. For example, ExplanationUser was blocked by Zad68 in March, but there was no official confirmation that the account is Sarsaparilla's; that account was only recently tagged by Vanjagenije as a Sarsaparilla sock. That account also is not yet globally blocked. The other accounts were also recently tagged by Vanjagenije as Sarsaparilla socks. I know that the Zenitnaya account (which is not yet globally blocked) was checked for additional accounts by Alison. If the ExplanationUser account and the other accounts were already checked for additional accounts, then you are correct that there is no need for more checks. That is, unless doing so can help locate current socks this editor is using. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Clerk endorsed - To compare three non-stale accounts with Zenitnaya and to look for sleepers (Valuable content creator treated to continue socking, so it is reasonable to expect there are sleepers). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see from the logs that multiple checks have already been run on each of these users, and the last three are all globally blocked by the WMF, which I would consider more than confirmation enough. I'm not sure what another check would achieve?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Flyer22 Reborn: I can confirm that ExplanationUser was indeed checked by more than one CU more familiar with the situation than I. As this appears to be complete and can serve as a record for future checks as you intended, I'll close with no further action required.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 September 2016[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


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.
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 additional 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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Behavioral evidence so far

  • Markshale, like Tisane, is interested in child sexual abuse and law topics.
  • Markshale, like Tisane, has a habit of signing his edit summaries with four tildes (I previously stated a dash, but I meant tildes).
  • Markshale, like Tisane, consistently uses an asterisk (*) for his edit summary when adding something to the See also section. Have you seen any other Wikipedia editor do that, or consistently do that?
  • Markshale, like Tisane, is preoccupied with redirects.
  • Markshale, like Tisane, created an article for a sexual topic one month after I opposed the creation.
  • Markshale, like Tisane, consistently includes the template in his edit summary when adding a template to an article (see the new evidence below).

All of that does not add up to one big coincidence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, just like Tisane, he is currently ignoring the fact that I've identified him. It usually isn't until after his latest account is blocked as a Tisane account that he then does a drive-by assault to my talk page, complaining. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I appreciate you clarifying. As for contacting others, a second checkuser opinion, such as Ponyo's, wouldn't hurt. But either way, it's become clear that this case needs to be decided on behavioral evidence, not checkuser evidence. You mentioned that the case "will be closed whenever a clerk or an administrator decides it's appropriate." To that, I state that it will be a big mistake to close this case without an administrator/checkuser blocking Markshale as a sock of Tisane. Above, I linked to a previous sock case where the sock beat the checkuser tool. That sock roamed free for a year even though it was obvious that he was a sock. It's like common sense was lacking in that first SPI and didn't come along until Floquenbeam and Courcelles heard me out. It wasn't until after I added more behavioral evidence that the sock was blocked, but that block should have happened in that first SPI. It should not have taken a second SPI. As you know, socks can be blocked on behavioral evidence alone. I feel that the behavioral evidence I've presented above is strong. Consistent use of an asterisk (*) for an edit summary when adding something to the See also section is a unique trait and I have never seen any other editor except Tisane with that trait. It is one of the main ways that I consistently recognize him. And the odds of the behavior I've presented under "Behavioral evidence so far" belonging to two different people are not good. Like I used to note on my user page, odds (use of mathematics) is one way I would consistently catch socks. Editors such as Beyond My Ken have noted my accuracy. I have never been wrong when 100% certain that an editor is a sock. I do not have anything else to state on this matter, except that I did contact the WP:WMF, and that they may be considering this case. I ask that the clerk or administrator close this case wisely. If Markshale is allowed to roam freely, Tisane will have won. Then again, if it's this easy for him to move about as Markshale, I have no doubt that he has been easily moving about as other accounts as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, thanks for weighing in. Regarding what you've just stated, I have seen various new editors (and a few experienced ones) include four tildes in their edit summaries. I have never seen an editor consistently use an asterisk (*) for his edit summary when adding something to the See also section. And that fact is one of the reasons I've been able to consistently identify Tisane. So I do think that, in context, this evidence is particularly useful. It's things like this that have made it capable for me to easily identify socks. Editors rarely deviate from their mannerisms. I cited the asterisk (*) evidence along with the other evidence, and all of that evidence adds up to Markshale being Tisane. Furthermore, last year, during the WP:ANI thread I started about Tisane, Tisane sent me all sorts of emails (that I no longer have). He has boasted about the day he would be able to beat the checkuser tool and sock as much as he wants to. If this case closes without the Markshale account being blocked, the Markshale account will suddenly start editing again (he's watching right now), and will likely move on to the topics Tisane is known to be interested in (mainly law and child sexual abuse). This case is also currently being watched by pedophiles. All that stated, Tisane is clever, and a block on the Markshale account would not stop him anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: If it's the case that newbie accounts are more prone to the asterisk popping up, keep in mind that the Tisane account was not new (as in very new; it lasted from February 2010 to August 2010) and that Tisane has used this asterisk style for just about all of his accounts. For instance, he also did it with Leucosticte (as seen here and here) and with his Ferberson account, as seen here. As far as this type of asterisk use goes, the common denominator is Tisane. There is no other editor who has consistently used the asterisk like this, and no other sock who has used it like this across almost all accounts. And edits like this one, the two-style asterisk that he will sometimes use, indicate that this style is not (or at least not always) an automated thing with him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence

Something else that Tisane consistently does and across almost all of his accounts is include the template in his edit summary when adding a template to an article.

He did it did as Tisane, as seen here, here, here, here, here and here.

He did it as Yev Yev, as seen here and here

He did it as Leucosticte, as seen here, here and here.

He did it as Ferberson, as seen here.

And he is doing it as Markshale, as seen here, here, here, here and here.

Really, the more I look at all of these accounts, the easier it is to see that it's Tisane who has operated all of them. His mannerisms mainly remain the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Ivanvector, the reason that I must disagree with you on the edit summary stuff is because these are traits that Tisane has consistently displayed across almost all of his accounts and I have never seen another editor consistently edit like this in all my years of editing this site. You even stated that you "have not been able to reproduce [it yourself]"...as far as an automated response goes. I am certain that Tisane has an actual habit of editing this way. I've looked at all of these accounts, down to every minute detail. This is the same person. Think about how unlikely it is that all of these accounts would consistently display that same edit summary style (the four tildes, the asterisk use, the templates). Add that on top of the other evidence and this does not logically add up to one big coincidence. I don't know what else to state. I really don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor trying to deflect

And here, the deflection has begun, with the editor in question (or seemingly the editor in question) trying to save his own hide. The difference between that "evidence" and my evidence is that it is only Tisane who consistently uses four tildes for an edit summary, an asterisk in his edit summary when adding something to the See also section, and a full template in his edit summary. This pattern is so much a "without fail" matter that after re-scanning the editing style of Tisane, and therefore being reminded that Tisane adds templates to his edit summaries, I then looked at the Yev Yev, Leucosticte, Ferberson and Markshale accounts, certain that I would find the same pattern. And, as shown above, I did. Unless someone can show another editor using this pattern, I don't see what there is to question. On top of this Tisane pattern, we have Markshale with a clear interest in law and child sexual abuse topics and a clear focus on creating redirects; these are two more Tisane patterns, as documented in past sock cases concerning Tisane. And on top of that, we have Markshale creating an article that I opposed one month after I opposed it. Tisane did the same. Like Tisane, Markshale stalked my edit history and waited a month before creating the article. This is because he is Tisane. Editors can question using edit summary style as proof of sockpuppetry all they want to, but the fact remains that it is often one of the key pieces of evidence for identifying socks (even if neglected by some editors reporting socks). Same goes for other editing patterns. I successfully relied on edit summary style and other editing patterns for my Cali11298 cases; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. And I successfully relied on them for the aforementioned Jdogno5 case; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive.

If the above mentioned drive-by editor was Tisane, it seems Bbb23 can confirm. He blocked the account for block evasion, but didn't identify whose sock it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markshale has commented; see here. I noted there that I believe that he is only commenting now due to editors below stating that they would like to hear from him and that his silence was indicating guilt. If he has anything more to state, he can state it here. I do not want to continue to engage him on his talk page. Or at this page either, really. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)`[reply]

Ivanvector, below, you stated, "However, I have also independently confirmed that this behaviour is not necessarily unique to this set of sockpuppets." Do you mean what you stated to me via email? If so, I explained that I've never seen anyone but Tisane consistently edit this way. Others occasionally using such edit summaries (like four tildes) is not the same thing. If there is an example of one or more editors consistently using the same edit summary style (the four tildes, the asterisk use for the See also section, and the templates), I would like to see that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, will you or some other WP:Checkuser (such as Mike V) confirm who SSP Patrolman (talk · contribs) is? Doing so will help add another dimension to this case. If the sock is Tisane's, for example, it confirms that he is currently stalking me/watching this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Markshale[edit]

I have replied to Flyer22 on my talk page. I really am not the person they are accusing me of, and the "behavioral evidence" is indeed coincidental. I am certain that I have not committed sny sbusive behavior, nor done any wrong to Flyer22 -- plesse see my entire edit history for evidence. As for abuse, I'm against it, as I hope the robot sex article will show -- the whole idea is creepy, and the reporting of the anti-robot-sex campaign there is deliberate. Unfortunately, this now seems an idee fixe with Flyer22, so I will retire this account, and create a new one that will let me edit in peace. -- Markshale (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your entire edit history. Almost everything you typed, including your variations of "more" in edit summaries, is indicative that you are Tisane. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sm using the same habits I've always used, and I see no reason to change them, because I've done nothing wrong. Other than resemblances of minutiae in my typing habits to those of another editor, what do you think I've done that might actually be wrong, or inappropriate, or offensive to anyone? -- Markshale (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Habits you have always used? That's exactly my point. Your Markshale account is new, but you are not a newbie. Your edit history from the earliest edits show that. Your edit style is unique to one persistent sock. But you want me to believe that you display that same editing pattern? You even call me "Flyer22." As I noted to a previous now blocked editor, it's almost always those who have interacted with me times before, or know of me from the mess posted at boywiki and other pedophile forums, who call me "Flyer22." Newbies usually call me "Flyer22 Reborn." What do I think you've done that might actually be wrong, or inappropriate, or offensive to anyone? WP:Sock. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. The Markshale account is new, but I'm not a newbie: all of this is entirely legitimate -- this is an alternate account for my laptop. I have indeed edited articles about law and the UK abuse scandal, because those are both subjects of concern, precisely because documenting the cases publicly here works in favor of preventing abuse: sunlight is the best disinfectant. And -- Jesus wept -- I don't know anything about your interactions with pedophiles, nor do I want to. -- Markshale (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To admins and checkusers: even though I'm not, there is clearly no way I can prove to Flyer22 that I'm not a sockpuppet of Tisane, even though I'm not, as detailed investigation of my edit history will show. Flyer22's comments about me are so extreme I find it hard to reply in a civil way. Flyer22 has not posted a single diff showing any wrongdoing of any sort on my part, other than the insistent claim that I am Tisane. If you were me, what would you do now? -- Markshale (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this and this, my reverting all of that was an accident and you are not supposed to comment in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you conveniently erased my comment a second time. I will repeat it below.
[comment to admin/checkuser] By the way, you're spot on. Almost all of the "habits" described above are created by my cutting and pasting edit content into the summary bar, which I do as a matter of course. If Tisane does the same thing, that would explain the resemblance. As for actual wrongdoing, there is none, and Flyer22 has posted no evidence of any. -- Markshale (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you that I removed that comment because it does not go where you placed it. Furthermore, as Ivanvector noted to me via email, the edit summaries are not automated. He asked about the matter at WP:Village pump (technical). Editing the way you do with the edit summaries has to be purposeful. So you edit exactly like Tisane and everything I've pointed to, including the article creation a month after I opposed it, is just one big coincidence? That you showed up here to make your case after editors below stated that they would like to hear from you and that you not commenting was signaling guilt... That's just a coincidence too? I've never seen so many coincidences that equate to one person in my life. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. You have now successfully hounded me off Wikipedia. Please consider two things: firstly, that there's a chance I might not be Tisane, and secondly, how amazingly insulting and abusive your comments would come across to someone who has been unhjustly accused of being so. Goodbye. -- Markshale (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited Bbb3 to privately verify my main account, so we can lay this to rest once and for all. By the way: Flyer22, you were not interacting with me on the talk page: that was a separate IP who was not me, as checkuser will show. And yes, your accusations are completely illegitimate and wrong, and I would like you to apologise. -- Markshale (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a past main account would not mean that you are not Tisane, though. I think that Ivanvector and Bbb23 know this. I have tried to consider that you are not Tisane. I really have, but there are too many things that add up to you being him. When I look at your contributions and then I look at the contributions of the aforementioned Tisane socks, you look like Tisane. Every edit you've made is an edit he would make. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for at least giving the idea some credence. No, I'm not Tisane, and my edits are, as far as I can tell, innocuous. For example, what is suspicious about my creating the Kitty Xu Ting article, or editing the One-sex and two-sex theories article, to name just two recent edits. You are reading too much into coincidences of editing style. By the way: I know no evidence can ever prove the I (or anyone else) am not Tisane; but by the same token not can any evidence prove that you are not Tisane. If you consider how insulting and upsetting it might be on the receiving end of that accusation, you can now imagine how I'm feeling right now. -- Markshale (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that I am "reading too much into coincidences of editing style.", but see what I noted above about similarity in editing style being a key factor to identifying socks. It's worked remarkably well for me when identifying socks. As for stuff like One-sex and two-sex theories, it is something Tisane would have edited. As for me being Tisane, my account was created in 2007 and there are a number of things that can prove that I am not Tisane. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've got it wrong this time, and you are now suffering from confirmation bias. And really? How could you possibly show you are not Tisane? Being in a different country won't help, nor indeed would CCTV evidence of you not editing, at a time when Tisane was editing -- why, it could be a shared account! And so on. Are you saying a nine-year editing history precludes it? -- Markshale (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you are toying with me now. How can I possibly show that I am not Tisane? For one, there's our editing styles and the Tisane data confirmed by checkusers and the WP:WMF. For two, unlike Tisane, I am very much against child sexual abuse and similar. This is well known, which is why pedophiles (like those at boywiki) discuss ways to undermine me here at Wikipedia. Pedophiles also discuss Tisane, who is a hero to them. To suggest that I have been feuding with myself in the most elaborate of ways and that the Flyer22 Reborn account is a clever disguise is not in any way believable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've been looking over the way that Tisane (under different accounts) challenges matters on talk pages, and I looked at some content he's posted to my talk page that I have saved, such as this rant, and I must state that the way you talk to me is like Tisane would talk to me...and also not like Tisane would talk to me. The way that you are so prone to typos and the fact that you sign your username with two dashes in the front (a signature style not usually displayed by Tisane) has somewhat confused me. Maybe confusing me was your intention. As seen here and here, Tisane has played clueless before when I've accused him of socking, but your responses have made me re-think things. I cannot, however, rule out the possibility that you are Tisane; the probability is still high. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

  • I can't add to Flyer22's evidence but I do urge that this be addressed based on the behavioral evidence, which is compelling. While there is no acute disruption, the past activities of the sock master have led to a firm bar on their participation in WP or any WMF project. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find the behavioral evidence compelling. It is also astonishingly easy to simply edit from multiple locations (go to a different coffee shop), so even if CU draws a blank, it is not dispositive that it is not the same editor. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's face it, checkuser only works on somewhat unsophisticated vandals (e.g. teens and college kids who thing they are being funny). The type of user we're talking about here is both highly knowledgeable of how Wikipedia works and has an ideological agenda, and thus are more that willing to put in the effort to work around common detection methods. The circumstances under which the sock master was banned mark this as a very serious matter, above mere vandalism, and so a thorough evaluation of behavior is required to determine if they are related.Legitimus (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • just want to add here that Flyer has a nose for this kind of thing. Please see (if you are not aware): User_talk:Bishonen#Boilingorangejuice_again. Flyer was raising alarms about that person and it wasn't until somebody on Wikipediocracy pointed out the account that WMF and others took action. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm admittedly not familiar with Tisane, but the evidence here is compelling and like the others have said, Flyer is pretty savvy when it comes to stuff like this. Given that the past accounts have been globally blocked and the similarity in editing topics and patterns, this just seems a little too much to be coincidence. I'd like to hear the person in question's answers to the issues posed here, but I note that they haven't been back since September. It's possible that they just haven't logged back in, but if we're dealing with the type of editor that is familiar with this process (and is indeed Tisane), this absence is likely intentional and they're either waiting for the dust to settle and reclaim the account (if not blocked) or to create a new account (if blocked). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the behavioral evidence is quite strong here, and while I believe the editor in question should be given a chance to defend themselves, as Tokyogirl79 notes, if they just disappear into the aether, that's to me conclusive of the fact that this account is, at the very least, *someone's* sockpuppet evading scrutiny, and should thus be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Flyer knows what she's doing with this. I mean, each of the points she made could be coincidental; but taken as a whole- nonsense. One speck of paint doesn't paint a picture- but take a step backwards and you've got a Seurat. Muffled Pocketed 07:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

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

@Flyer22 Reborn: You're welcome to contact whomever you like, but the case will be closed whenever a clerk or an administrator decides it's appropriate. I am aware of the accounts Alison blocked in August. They are all  Technically indistinguishable from each other and are unrelated to Markshale. There are no other accounts you've listed that are checkable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: no comment on this case at this time. Just pointing out that the unusual edit summaries described by Flyer22 Reborn are explained by a feature which automatically fills the content of the edit as the edit summary if it is left blank, which entirely explains that behaviour by all of the accounts, and numerous others. I believe it is turned on automatically for accounts newer than some date, but it's off for me and I don't know how to turn it on to demonstrate. So, unfortunately, that evidence is not useful at all to indicate sockpuppetry. I'll be back later if someone doesn't beat me to it, but right now Ivanvector needs coffee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Oh lord, you know you're in trouble when you start talking about yourself in the third person.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Flyer22 Reborn: the templates and asterisks appearing in edit summaries is the behaviour that I described above. When the user makes an edit that adds two bullets to a list, the two bullets are filled into their edit summary, hence a double asterisk. I've inquired to verify this is programmatic behaviour since I have not been able to reproduce it myself, but at the moment I am reasonably convinced that those edit summaries are not evidence of sockpuppetry. To everyone else commenting: sockpuppetry is always a behavioural investigation, CheckUser is just one of the tools we can use to demonstrate a behavioural link. An "unrelated" result is not the final word; I assure you we are reviewing all of the evidence. I at least am not familiar with this case, so unless someone with more experience steps in, it will take some time. If you can provide more evidence which is not related to the accounts' use of edit summaries, that will be helpful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: I understand what you're saying, and I'm taking it into account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have independently confirmed that the edit summaries noted by Flyer22 Reborn are not automated, the user would need to manually copy their text and paste it into the edit summary field to get these edit summaries. Markshale has also confirmed in a comment above that that is the case. However, I have also independently confirmed that this behaviour is not necessarily unique to this set of sockpuppets. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action: please block Markshale until they disclose their other accounts. They have admitted that this account is an alternate, and disclosure is required by the sockpuppetry policy; please see WP:SOCK#LEGIT and WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, and if you have a valid reason for not disclosing, contact a CheckUser immediately. Please do not close this case, I have not made a conclusion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Markshale: You said that the Markshale account is an alternative account for your laptop. Alternative accounts need to be declared. Please identify the other account.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Montanabw: I wish people wouldn't speculate as to what a CU might show as most non-CheckUsers don't understand how CUs work. They then do what you did and assume an "unrelated" finding has no weight. Your example of going to a different location like a coffeeshop would generally not trigger an unrelated finding in and of itself. In this particular case, it has no relevance whatsoever.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @Ivanvector: Sorry about our edit conflicts. I've changed the status back to checked as I'd like to deal with the issue of the alternative account in an, uh, alternate way. My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: fine by me of course. There's a conversation on my talk page that might interest you, otherwise standing by. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm closing this with no action. I cannot disclose who this account belongs to (what Markshale calls their "main account") for privacy reasons. The Markshale account should not be blocked by an administrator, regardless of how they feel about the behavioral evidence. I will probably be taking additional actions privately. For the moment, I am unable to share any of this information with anyone, even though technically I could share it with another CheckUser. Frankly - and this is addressed to my fellow CheckUsers - I'd rather keep the list of editors who are aware of what's happening to a minimum. After I close this, I will archive it as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

29 April 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Buidalot has begun creating articles on Virginia House of Delegates districts, shortly after the block of User:N I H I L I S T I C's sockpuppet St. claires fire, who had been doing the same (see here), and User:N I H I L I S T I C (see here). User:St. claires fire's more recent creation of such articles will need to be supported by their deleted contributions, as most of the articles that they have created after the block of User:N I H I L I S T I C have been deleted under g5. Buidalot has also been adding election results to pages created by St. claires fire and N I H I L I S T I C (diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4). User:N I H I L I S T I C can be seen doing the same (diff1, diff2).

Vampire economy has also created articles on Virginia House of Delegates districts diff1, diff2, both of which were later edited by St. claires fire (see here and here), and one of which was later edited by N I H I L I S T I C (see here), who added election boxes to the article, which what Buidalot has been doing recently. Tdl1060 (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence: A look at the articles created by Buidalot (see here) and Vampire economy (see here), show that they share N I H I L I S T I C's trait of focusing on creating articles on Virginia House of Delegates districts (see here), as did their other sockpuppet St. claires fire (see here). In fact, it seems all articles on Virginia House of Delegates districts were created in recent months by N I H I L I S T I C and their sockpuppets.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Red X Unrelated. Buidalot is a much older account than N I H I L I S T I C.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


06 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Block evasion:

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Inconclusive,  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. no No comment with respect to IP address(es). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


Mister Ernest Thayer added identical content to the article Civil disobedience to what St. claires fire had added two months ago: diff1, diff2. Mister Ernest Thayer has also been active in creating articles on Virginia House of Delegates districts as had St. claires fire and their sockpuppets, including the recreation of articles that had been deleted due to block evasion, as seen here [7][8] and here [9][10] Tdl1060 (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

​—DoRD (talk)​ 10:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2017[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

I ran a check based on behavior and found the following accounts. While checking, I found an entry in the checkuser log dated "08:01, July 21, 2017" which clinches it. I'm going to call this  Confirmed to St. claires fire.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • This case should be merged with Leucosticte's case which is this one, I believe. CU wiki has matching info that very strongly suggests this when compared to these socks. I think it would be good to get another checkuser's opinion publicly here before doing the merge to be on the safe side. Note Leucosticte is a banned user.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Endorsed by a checkuser for a second opinion before merging. The CU wiki case is labeled under the Leucosticte name. His SPI case is under the name Sarsaparilla so we should probably merge under one name....Sarsaparilla? These accounts have now been globally locked by the way.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    From a WMF CU standpoint I'd say that the link between the two masters is  Confirmed based on my own research/CUs. Jalexander--WMF 21:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much.  Clerk assistance requested: to merge these cases to the Sarsaparilla name and re-tag accounts. Cheers.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

26 November 2019[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

Зенитная Самоходная Установка was recently blocked. Since then, this new account has shown up to edit two pages that the Зенитная Самоходная Установка account was working on, Cannabis in Virginia and Wakefield Country Day School. It seems possible to me that this is block evasion. Cheers, gnu57 21:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

19 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

This new user has several interests in common with past Sarsaparilla sockpuppets: American law, obscure right-wing topics, violent crime, cannabis legalization, and local politics in Virginia. It seems possible to me that this is ban evasion. Cheers, gnu57 18:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

17 February 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]


An account which has not edited in 7 years appears to vote keep on a low-visibility AfD for a page whose creation correctly led to the creator being immediately indeff'd for promoting/glorifying child pornography. Pinging User:El_C since I think there's a reasonable case that Swordfishspring should be blocked on similar grounds as Crawl of the wild, regardless of whether they are actually socks. JBL (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Of course I just realized that I created this backwards (master vs. sock); apologies to the clerks for that. --JBL (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  •  Confirmed and given the nature i've gone ahead and blocked without TPA per the master's block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing more to do. Closing. Cabayi (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk assistance requested: Sorry to resurect this, but would a clerk please merge this page into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla when you have a chance? There's already too much documentation going on in this case and I don't want another place we have to follow. I'm deleting the userpage tags, so don't worry about that. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Case moved from Swordfishspring to Sarsaparilla — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

29 March 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

TimesOfIndiana's only edit was to restore Зенитная Самоходная Установка's preferred version of Race suicide. The edit summary, "removed text from citations, no citations for added text", was incorrect as well, but suggests prior familiarity with Wikipedia.

Checkuser attention requested due to extensive prior history of concurrent accounts and sleepers. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

  • Red X Unrelated and CU isn't being helpful here for figuring out who it is. I'm NOTHERE blocking though, because we don't need eugenics apologists on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23 November 2020[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The username and the Mises Institute-related edits (see Murray Rothbard and Draft:Jeffery Herbaner) make me think that this is Sarsaparilla/Leucosticte. gnu57 21:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarsaparilla/Archive&oldid=1142566404"