Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime

ItsLassieTime

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive.

A long-term abuse case exists at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime.

This SPI case may involve cross-wiki abuse. Please consider reporting the results on Meta; checkusers can send an email to the interwiki checkuser mailing list if required.

13 August 2021

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Rdp060707 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same modus operandi as RandNetter96 (talk · contribs) (confirmed sock) and Drill it (talk · contribs) (suspected sock, globally locked) - quick fire use of anti-vandalism tools with little to no communication or accountability.  Looks like a duck to me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Could you explain how that user is a sock of ItsLassieTime? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

DarkMatterMan4500, Because RandNetter96 was blocked as one, Drill it was globally locked by a steward with no prompting, and all three accounts have the same behaviour. Rapid-fire use of anti-vandalism tools, refusing to respond to multiple "shouldn't you have assumed good faith" messages, and adding very short ANI threads with very little context for minor incidents. This matches the behaviour mentioned in the LTA case : "In 2017 and 2018 a pattern of making mass reverts, templating users, and (as usual) reporting users to ANI was observed", citing Sakaimover (talk · contribs) and Architect 134 (talk · contribs) as examples. Essentially, I have spent some time explaining to these accounts why they should assume more good faith and what they can do to improve, only to ultimately find they have been blocked as a sock having bitten a number of newbies in the process. I hope I'm wrong with this one, but I don't want to go through all that discussion again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmm, yes. I see what you're talking about now. I've been looking at the Long-term abuse case against ItsLassieTime, and one of them states "In 2017 and 2018 a pattern of making mass reverts, templating users, and (as usual) reporting users to ANI was observed". DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

When Ritchie blocked Drill it, he tagged the account as a suspected puppet of this master. I don't know if any check was run then or since to provide technical corroboration of Ritchie's belief. I believe the previous confirmed socks of ItsLassieTime are stale. However, the suspected puppet here is not, and neither is Drill it. I am therefore requesting a CU for confirmation and to see if any other prolific editors like Rdp (75K edits!) have slipped through the cracks. Personally, I don't think it's a duck.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Passerby  Clerk note:: Architect 134 and Sakaimover are from a distinct case, and not the same person as ItsLassieTime. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

---