Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iloveandrea

Iloveandrea

Iloveandrea (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/Iloveandrea/Archive.

11 November 2013

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Banned User:Iloveandrea has a long history of sockpuppetry. One of their socks, User:ColaXtra, had a combative relationship with me. Based on my past experience with ColaXtra, I am convinced that User:LudicrousTripe is in fact the latest Iloveandrea sockpuppet. First of all, for someone who supposedly joined Wikipedia earlier this year, it's obvious that even LudicrousTripe's earliest edits show knowledge of Wikipedia policy and avoid common beginner's mistakes (as User:Shrike noticed). I've suspected LudicrousTripe ever since I first saw their edits on Vietnam War: Both ColaXtra and LudicrousTripe left similar messages seeking User:Midnightblueowl's help regarding Cambodia. What really gave LudicrousTripe away was a recent dispute between the two of us at WP:RSN, in which they demonstrated far greater familiarity with me than you would expect if we recently met: "Your tone is, as usual....unnecessarily combative. Quite disappointing....it makes any interaction with you extremely unpleasant....Dealing with this clearly and deeply unhappy individual is just so unenjoyable, I am minded to let him just get on and do what he wants with the article....I am not going to make any further posts here." Compare that to ColaXtra's remarks: "I deleted my additions because I was utterly sick of his appalling attitude and wanted to wash my hands of him and my involvement in the article," "Do I reply to this person, and so put up with their sneering mockery and aggression, or do I just leave it?....Why should I have to engage with such an editor?" I think even a casual comparison of LudicrousTripe's and ColaXtra's edits reveals a remarkably consistent writing style, as well as the same outspoken Chomskyite political rhetoric. They have many pages in common beyond their conversations with Midnightblueowl, including The Holocaust, Cuba, Noam Chomsky, Tony Blair, Richard Posner, ect; they even go to some of the same users for advice. Note that both Iloveandrea and LudicrousTripe have made considerable edits to Greek government-debt crisis. Additional examples:

• Edit Summaries that you can barely tell apart: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
• Desire to make pages "pretty" or "tidy": [8], [9], [10]
• Affectionate, perky personal messages: Ludicrous Tripe, Iloveandrea, ColaXtra

I've barely scratched the surface when it comes to commonalities; I feel as though I could go on indefinitely. Briefly glancing at Iloveandrea's edits makes me even more sure, and I haven't looked into any of their other socks. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Andrea's great. I don't have a combative relationship with you this time; I reverted one of your edits and have thanked you for others you have made to Vietnam War article. I got a sit-out issued to me from the arb comm via e-mail (check with them if you like) saying don't edit for six months to show you can stick to Wikipedia rules; that I have done. I've not asked them if I could come back, but I think my constructive editing up till now (see the donkey work I put in for Fluorine, that was not fun...) is proof enough that I am involving myself constructively, and so on. I've got two barnstars and a page full of thank yous. I wasn't explicitly asked to stay away from Israel–Palestine in the arb comm e-mail, but since I've come back, save for I think a small edit the other day to Arafat's article (something I read in the news), I've not touched the topic since it was one that primarily being banned last time.

This is exactly what I wanted to avoid, namely being hassled by individuals like TheTimesAreAChanging again. I've done a lot of hard work on various articles (see my userpage); I've obeyed any requests from admins (see my talk page) and others to knock it off if I'm doing something they don't like (which has never involved vandalising articles); and so on. If you want to judge me by my past account, go ahead. This account so far, after months of sitting out as I was asked to do, speaks for itself in my view. Well, even if arb comm take a dim view of me not getting their explicit OK to come back after months of sitting out, I would vanish again now anyway. Either that or just not edit any article where TheTimesAreAChanging hangs about. I really just don't enjoy having to deal with people like him. I'm not going to post here again, and don't post again on my talk, TheTimesAreAChanging. LudicrousTripe (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ludicrous did huge work on Fluorine. I can tell he doesn't like to kowtow (but that's not bad). And he is a good egg inside. And trying not to get spun up with the conflicts endemic to this forum. I vote mercy. -TCO 64.134.103.150 (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

---