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)
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 checkuser has declined a request for CheckUser, and the case is now awaiting a behavioural investigation.
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)
- 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)
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 which is unrelated to ItsLassieTime. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Check declined by a checkuser. Lack of evidence beyond "this person is doing a thing someone else did" and a veteran admin saying "I don't think it's a duck" does not make me feel like going on a fishing expedition. Ducks can be blocked without a CU check. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac: I'm not sure what to say here. I thought that Drill it was disruptive and a suspicious editor; I did from the beginning. However, much as I appreciated Ritchie's block, I had trouble with his determination that Drill it was a sock of ILT. As far as Bsadowski1's "unprompted" global lock of Drill it with the notation of "long-term abuse", I (we) have no way of knowing what Bsadowski1 meant by that; nor do I see it as a violation of anyone's privacy if that were clarified. My main reason for requesting a CU was because I didn't see enough evidence to block Rdp behaviorally, and I was concerned that they would be. Unlike Drill it, from the limited number of edits I've seen Rdp make, their editing has been constructive (75K edits are hard to review). Anyway, I'm not expecting, or even asking you to, change your mind about the decline. I'm just using the decline as a trigger for expressing my views more clearly (hopefully) on the issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)