Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 30 November 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

29 November 2014

– An SPI clerk has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 72.223.98.118 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Per this comment ] and a request to User:Lightbreather who has been requested for consent to checkuser and connect to an account. I made the conclusion that the IP was Lightbreather . The areas edited under as the IP is areas where Lightbreather was active at before her absence ie editor retention and also as a voice of support for both User:Neotarf and User:Carolmooredc. After this the IP started editing the GGTF arb case and in particular seemed to get upset anytime Eric Corbett was which mirrored other comments by Lightbreather. The dates of activity also matched up. Reason for the request is to verify inappropriate usage of an account to evade WP:SCRUTINY as a usage of WP:ILLEGIT. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• The IP is editing from Phoenix, a look at LB userpage shows she lives in the same timezone plus ] states that's where the user is from the reason why that's partly important is claims like ] which Lightbreather id'd as hers found ] and ]. I've attempted to only use publicly acknowledged details if any of this is WP:OUTING please remove but I hope I covered all my bases. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

After discussions with this IP about WP:SCRUTINY, it stop posting, and LightBreather appeared at the same venue; perhaps that's just a coincidence. There is no need to dig further. The problem was resolved by explaining to the IP user that what they thought was an allowed use of an alternate account was actually a prohibited use. It would be vindictive to run checkuser and issue a sanction after any negative behavior had already ceased. I recommend closing this case, until and unless the IP resumes posting. Jehochman 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jehochman, I'm not suggesting a block here. I think if it was that person and they were ok with the checkuser(the Ip {certainly was) those comments should be attributed to them. The reason for doing that is because the weight of those comments will be taken differently whether it is a positive or a negative impact. In this case I think scrutiny evasion was the purpose because if the community just sa3w Lightbreather then they might have dismissed it as part of that same group similar to what happened with the Speed of Light case a few years back and people who disagreed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• This is the ocmment I recieved from an ARB ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've no idea why GorillaWarfare would say that because a CU is very unlikely publicly to link a user account to an IP. Even if the connection were made, I can't see it being admitted here (although I suppose the arb mailing list might get a note). - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is and if you give me 15 minutes why I'm gathering the diffs. So to sum up exactly what I'm saying which is either very accurate or a mammoth assumption of bad faith, Lightbreather started out as an involved party and presented a large amount of evidence and went into a silence as of 10/14, Enter IP 72 less then two weeks later carrying the standard, editing the same page areas as LB does (the gender gap, civility, editor retention etc) and magically disappearing when I made this comment ] ] only to reappear as LB to pick up where the ip left off in the crusade against EC. The excuse that the IP was being used for privacy is plausable but a suggestion makes more sense is that it was done because of the reputation earned by LB and they didn't want that reputation to stand in the way of the ultimate goal one of which has been banning Eric Corbett. The other point raised by User:Jehochman is that they in good faith stopped using the IP when asked about it, that is untrue. ] shows the IP refering to Lightbreather in the third person and deceptively trying to feign ignorance of gender which is odd because they have such a detailed knowledge of everyone else involved, Neotarf, Sitush, Carolmooredc, Two Kinds of Pork and not to mention Eric Corbett and all of his supporters but somehow doesn't know LB gender? I would allege they stopped using the IP because the game was up, more people, Capeo, myself, Jehochman and Salvio, possibly more i missed, started pushing back at the socking and the evidence was becoming clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• I was suggesting you take this to SPI. Implying that comment was endorsing a CU is misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per the guidelines here ] when sockpuppetry is suspected during an open arbcom case to request the checkuser on the arb page, in fairness I did prepare this one because I still thought it would be there but that's one of the reasons why I put it on the page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Jehochman. If the IP is Lightbreather, I think it's a rather flagrant case of avoiding scrutiny. Note that the IP denied being Lightbreather here, by implication, and posted several times more after being told about WP:SCRUTINY (which I actually do not believe any experienced user would need telling about in a situation like this). Lightbreather also denies it here, as far as I understand her, even though that is also kind of implicitly and evasively expressed. If the IP is indeed Lightbreather, I'm not impressed by the way her post there, her last so far, was framed. If it's not Lightbreather, I'm also not impressed: why not state outright "The IP is not me"? The timeline which HIAB supplies is enough for a CheckUser IMO; certainly together with the evasiveness. It's not conclusive — if it were, we wouldn't need a checkuser — it may indeed be coincidence. But it's suggestive. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Per Bishonen's additional diffs, which I had not seen before, I would not oppose a Checkuser, especially because ArbCom seems to be doling out additional sanctions. Jehochman 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Clerk declined - I see no reason to publicly connect an account with an IP address using the CU tool. Rschen7754 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Behavioral analysis  In progress. Mike V • Talk 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting administration
• SPI cases declined for checkuser by clerk