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

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 [[1]] 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 [given another chance] 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)[reply]

• The IP is editing from Phoenix, a look at LB userpage shows she lives in the same timezone plus [[2]] states that's where the user is from the reason why that's partly important is claims like [[3]] which Lightbreather id'd as hers found [[4]] and [[5]]. 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)[reply]

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.[6] [7] 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 ^Talk 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• This is the ocmment I recieved from an ARB [[8]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 [[9]] [[10]] 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. [[11]] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Per the guidelines here [[12]] 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)[reply]

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[13][14] 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).[reply]

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 ^Talk 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the block?

If this is Lightbreather editing logged out, that would seem perfectly reasonable given the somewhat combative process around this ArbCom case. Arguments are valid or invalid regardless of their source, and IP edits traditionally have little weight in terms of pure numbers in a consensus issue - which scarcely applies here. In fact I could see significant benefits from more anonymous rather than pseudonymous discussion. Certainly the suggestion that Lightbreather should be blocked until the end of the case is dubious, given that new people are being added to the findings/remedies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC).

•  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)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Please note that on the English Wikipedia a user cannot consent to a check to prove their innocence, so a check won’t be run solely for that reason. Also, disclosure of an IP is generally reserved for the most egregious of offenses and even then it’s preferable to disclose it privately. I agree with Rschen7754’s decline because it would be a breach of the privacy policy to provide a public, technical verification of an IP link to Lightbreather. That being said, the IP has been engaging in internal discussion, contributing to the same discussion as a registered and logged-out user, and attempting to avoiding scrutiny, all in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. I’ve compiled a number of diffs that I believe sufficiently demonstrates that Lightbreather has been editing while logged out.

As a result, I've issued a 1 week block to Lightbreather and a 2 week anon only block for the IP, which should (hopefully) cover the remaining duration of the case. Mike V • Talk 08:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Darknipples (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 http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Lightbreather&user2=Darknipples&user3=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=

The suspected sock appeared the same time Lightbreather was under investigation in June 2014 and subsequently topic banned in July 2014. Lightbreather returned to Gun show loophole the day her ban expired and the exact same article Darknipples has been Single purpose editing and the same article they tag teamed in June 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_show_loophole_controversy&offset=&limit=500&action=history Today I discovered evidence today of tag teaming against other editors in the community in Gun show loophole after navigating there from a RSN noticeboard which led to further investigating that discovered that Darknipples is pretty much a SPA dedicated to Gun Shows and Gun Show Loopholes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Darknipples&offset=&limit=500&target=Darknipples I also discovered that Lightbreather was under investigation when this account showed up and topic banned shortly after here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=616912193 Lightbreather has been found to be operating socks in the past and the evidence points that Darknipples is likely a sock originally created to tag team for consensus in controlling articles. It has been since used for editing in areas Lightbreather has been banned from. It looks like a sock, smells like a sock, and quacks like a sock so I suspect they are one and the same. A checkuser may be beneficial unless they had access to a separate IP. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Defending yourself against claims, I think this allegation is simply an attack in an attempt to besmirch me and Darknipples. I am not she. I am not her meatpuppet, nor is she my meatpuppet. We share an interest in some subjects, and we apparently share some opinions, but if that is against WP policy, all the other editors on the project are suspect, too. Lightbreather (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I am not afraid of a CU because I am not user Darknipples, but I do support Jehochman's suggestion to CU IP editor 172.56.9.123. Do I need to do that, or will you, Jehochman? Lightbreather (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as you have no problem with one being conducted then? It would sure help speed this along if you volunteered and save much time of arguing over motives and further abuse of editors. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Evidence

A quick look at the most recent history shows the two editors suspected of sock puppetry are editing at the same time within a minute of each other at times. That appears more than coincidental. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGun_show_loophole_controversy&action=history&year=2015&month=1&tagfilter= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.226 (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Even though LB and myself have had our disagreements, I would be highly surprised if this claim had any veracity whatsoever. DN's (I really wish they would change that name) comments would have to indicate an Oscar level performance and amazing level of deception on LB's part for these to be the same User. I see no point in this case. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking over the contribs I have to agree with Scalhotrod. I don't see this as Lightbreather, the name itself is enough in my mind to damn near enough clear that beyond doubt for me. The last inappropriate socking was rather clumsy and I honestly believe that if User:Lightbreather would have been socking she would have used that other account at that time. The subject overlap is minimal but not enough to go on to really do a checkuser. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to state that I am not, nor have I ever been, a "sock". Darknipples (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The potential socking here is by the IP who seems to be evading scrutiny. I suggest a check user look at the IP. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please elaborate on why you believe being an IP is evading scrutiny? That's s a serious charge with no specifics which is an attempt to discredit an IP for reporting a known practitioner of sock puppetry and one who denied it until the evidence was overwhelming and then finally admitted to it. Considering Lightbreather's past sock puppetry and vehement denials until she was caught here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&oldid=636406956#Sockpuppet_investigation I do not take her denial above as worth any consideration. I may be wrong and a check user would show if the strong evidence pointing to more sock puppetry is indeed pointing out what seems very much like a sock. To clear one's name one should not be afraid of a check user as it would add evidence in their favor if they are not practicing more sock puppetry. Of course one would resist if they new it would show a pattern of additional sock puppetry. The suspected socks comments on the gun show loophole talk page and each others talk page also seem to be the same style of writing. It would be nothing to banter back and forth to deter some suspicions but the edit history of the two matches way to much to be seen as pure coincidence. I hope Lightbreather does not resort to canvassing to tip discussions in her favor. 172.56.9.123 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP editors are typically casual users. Casual users have no idea about how to file a sock puppetry report. A much more likely scenario is that the IP participating here is a registered user pursuing a grudge or a banned user having a little fun on Friday night. Jehochman ^Talk 00:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a sporadic editor and have edited for 10 years or so and I guess failing to register after not so subtle suggestions/even harassment would mean I am not typical under the definition you gave above. None the less your logic is extremely flawed and your obvious prejudice against IP's appears to be affecting your ability to make a sound judgment based on the information given above which you did not address. If there is not sufficient evidence then state that and quit leveling unfounded implications as to my motive. In other words assume good faith unless I have demonstrate otherwise. We could all come up with creative scenarios and spew implications as to editors motive but how does that have any bearing on whether the evidence is there? I have no grudge as you implied above based on your mistrust of those who edit without giving up personal information to a non-profit corporation which pays a few at the top rather well while it has thousands working for nothing which is what I call the non-profit scheme. Many IP's have many good/valid reasons to remain unknown and contribute a great deal and should not suffer abusive slander simply for doing what registered users do. Many registered users abuse Wikipedia as Lightbreather's talk page has shown. Again I may be wrong but the record weighs heavily against Lightbreather's integrity. I do hope prejudiced assumptions do not trump looking at the evidence. My concern may be wrong but I believe the evidence warrants due diligence. If a check user proves to be false then I apologize for taking up time of busy editors. If the concerns are valid then I will let the community discuss the ramifications and stay out of it. Attacking an IP for no valid reason for reporting it however is a canard to avoid dealing with the concern. My free time is limited and I believe I have sufficiently addressed the mud slinging to discredit the report based on sound evidence. As I do not enjoy rolling in the mud do as you believe is proper and I will go back to the area I was addressing previously. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For every IP like you, there are dozens of the type I mentioned. Checking an IP is quite harmless. Fact is you came here and leveled what appears to be a questionable allegation. Of course the first step is to examine you and see whether you might be somebody with an axe to grind. Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Again faulty logic and extreme prejudice and weasel wording. The first step would to see if the evidence supports the claim. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Report from editor interaction analyzer. A neat tool that shows interactions between editors in this case the accused and Jehochman. Some evidence of a possible COI issue but let the results speak for themselves. http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=Lightbreather&user2=Jehochman&user3=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=

I rest my case. Check user please do your thing. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement with Jehochman, the IP(s) appears to be a registered user avoiding scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm closing this case with no action taken. The case seems to have some merit on the surface (given the past socking concerns and the similar views on the same topics) so I don't think this case was opened entirely in bad faith. However, after looking through the contributions, I think it's more than likely the accounts don't belong to the same individual. For example, if you look at the contributions from around June 24 - 26, 2014 for DN and Lightbreather there are a number of chronologically interwoven edits that span many hours. While yes, it's possible to contribute to 30+ hour straight and structure the edits as such, it's very, very unlikely. Also note that that was before Lightbreather was topic banned for 6 months, so I don't think there would have been much to gain from such alleged behavior. Also, if DN was an account to bypass LB's topic ban, why the account stop editing from August to January? It doesn't make much sense to me. As one of the editor's that helped provide evidence for LB's original case, I don't see a significant amount of similarities here and it doesn't match up with LB's modus operandi. As such, I don't think a checkuser is warranted here.

• A few last notes: 208.54.38.226 - On the English Wikipedia, checkusers will not perform checks on a user to prove his or her innocence. (This is most likely to prevent coercing users into agreeing to a check, as well as the fact that checkuser is not a be-all and end-all tool. It needs to be taken in consideration with behavioral evidence.) Jehochman - Checkusers are very unlikely to check and publicly connect an IP to an account in this situation due to the WMF privacy policy. If you are confident enough that the IP is a user who is editing while logged out to evade scrutiny, you're welcome to open an SPI case with supporting evidence or you can take administrative action, provided that you're willing to adequately justify your rationale. Mike V • Talk 05:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Lightbreather (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Felsic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Darknipples (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 162.119.231.132 (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

1. http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=lightbreather&user2=darknipples&user3=Felsic&startdate=&enddate=&ns= 2. http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?user1=lightbreather&user2=Darknipples&user3=162.119.231.132&startdate=20140101&enddate=20150201&ns= The above 2 interaction analyzers show the interactions between all four socks. What is striking is how a new editor Felsic who admits to recently editing as IP 162.119.231.132 on her talk page was able to bring user Mike Searson to arbitration so quickly as a new editor here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=644029770#Mike_Searson That is pretty impressive for someone claiming to be a new editor and at the same time taking these actions to defend Lightbreather who has often used WP:AR and WP:ANI to go after many editors who oppose her edits. It is also impressive that Felsic is editing the same articles as Lightbreather and Darknipples. Then four days later Lightbreather uses the WP:AR to go after Eric Corbett. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=644035814#Eric_Corbett Another interesting thing is how Lightbreather came to defend the SPI concerning the IP and Darknipples. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Darknipples Darknipples began editing in June 2014 and surprisingly has almost exclusively edited as SPA concerning 2nd Amendment issues of which the IP/Felsic is doing the same and practically the exact same articles at nearly the same time. Lightbreather brought ScalHotrod to ANI to get him topic banned so she could essentially own the 2nd Amendment issues it boomeranged and she was topic banned for 6 months in July 2014. Then the IP/Felsic shows up in December with extremely sophisticated knowledge of how to bring the experienced editor Mike Searson to arbitration and feigns in her talk page about how unaware she is about all the Wikipedia in and outs. Interestingly Lightbreather and DarkNipples have also used this same behavior of feigning ignorance. Darknipples and Lightbreather also use the "poor ole me I do not know what I am doing" routine and then strike with precision in ANI& ARBCOM against editors who opposes their POV editing style concerning 2nd Amendment issues. Darknipples did not take long (she started editing in June 2014) as a new editor to have her guns a blazing against those who oppose her agenda pushing concerning 2nd Amendment issues. That behavior pattern is the same as Lightbreather and now the IP/Felsic. I do not believe the pattern of aggressive legalistic enforcement knowledge and intimidating warnings and templating of other editors who dare enter the 2nd Amendment articles they are editing is just a coincidence. It seems as if Lightbreather has decided if she cannot get consensus she will create her own by raising up an Army of socks to do her bidding and further her agenda. Lightbreather has already been previously been banned for sock puppetry which she vehemently denied until the evidence overwhelmed her. Lightbreather edit record demonstrates her agenda warrior style (see her topic bans and her lengthy record of dragging editors into ANI and Arbcom) who will do whatever it takes to further her agenda which has included sock puppetry in the past which she was caught for. However it appears her older sock Darknipples escaped the closing ring and then right after the temporary block she began IP editing with a Android 4.4 device using a Chromebook at a Kaiser health facility http://ns.myip.ms/info/whois/162.119.231.132 Now I could be wrong and lightBreather has a very SPA fan club WP:FANCLUB following but I really think that possibility is way out there. The very least is that Felsic and Darknipples are socks. Felsic extremely advanced knowledge of wiki lawyering and self portrayal as newbie do not jive. And that goes for Darknipples as well. Lightbreather may have just come across some very helpful idiots to do some bidding for her but I believe that scenario to be the least likely. I have to say Darknipples and Lightbreather complain, accuse and play the poor ole me I feel so intimidated editing around these aggressive males that I am scared and need some help and protection, card like they are the same which most likely they are. 174.25.212.163 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC) 174.25.212.163 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• With respect to the named accounts a checkuser could be a good idea however my concern is that Lighbreather's location is well known and the last Ip sock was located in Tempe/Phoenix, Kaiser Permanente doesn't have facilities in Arizona so the chances that LB ran into California to do these edits are slim but it is possible. I do think the puppetry is possible although not likely, but I always follow the policy once a liar always a liar and that's a consequence of their deception. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darknipples where DN and 162.119.231.132 were reported, and where LB involved herself (for some reason). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Unrelated,  No comment regarding IP --Guerillero | My Talk 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 172.56.6.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.8.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.8.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.9.123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.15.36 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.15.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.16.85 (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

1. Prior history = user has history of one block for socking and one block for block evasion see block log.
2. User Lightbreather said the IP's actions should "get an award". Please see DIFF.
3. A lot going on here at 172.56.0.0/18.
4. Possible trolling, IP user 172.56.9.123 (talk · contribs) had prior activity at sock investigation of this user DIFF.
5. IP user 172.56.8.170 (talk · contribs) is first to show up to deletion discussion created by user, possible dup voting DIFF.
6. Current search of ANI page reveals multiple places this IP user seems to be showing up, see admission of block evasion at "I am evading a block but not a sock for which I was blocked Self Reported".
7. Here at ANI page at link "IP violating WP:CANVASS and the spirit of WP:SPA", we have multiple editors raising sock concerns, including: Lugnuts, CombatWombat42, Baseball Bugs, and GoodDay.

Requesting Checkuser investigation into above IPs, and range 172.56.0.0/18, and any associated accounts to get to the bottom of what's going on here. Thank you. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Okay, Salvidrim!, no worries about the decline, thanks for looking into it. And Mike V, thanks for the rangeblock on 172.56.0.0/18 for a week, that helps things, at least a little bit here. — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It would make sense this is Lightbreather however I will raise one more sock possibility, it could be Neotarf. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing sensible about this SPI. I can't speak for whether or not the IP was canvassing, but if the editors listed above think that notifying one project[15] about a discussion is canvassing, they need to read WP:CANVASS. Lightbreather (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the IPs are an editor attempting to avoid scrutiny or attempting to evade its block/ban? Then we must find out. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike V it just reminded me of this [[16]], it's flimsy but it does fit. Also point of fact Cirt opened this SPI. ON a related side note I understand what you are asking with why it could indeed be Lightbreather and I'm not entirely convinced the ip is, I think it is some sort of coordination with respect to it and it could be to enhance the victim complex we've seen and or good hand bad hand editing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is not Lightbreather. That it is someone editing while logged out or perhaps even banned seems very likely, and off-wiki organising is pretty obviously going on in this general topic area, but the rangeblock addresses the current issue to the extent that is reasonable. I don't think there is much mileage to be gained by trying to link to Neotarf at this stage, although if the stuff returns then the situation may change. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with Lightbreather or Neotarf. The IP editor is someone with a strong interest in Cultural Marxism from a rightwing point of view. I see a very clear candidate for who this may be; not a banned editor, but one who is currently actively editing the topic area. Iselilja (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IP range belongs to a guy with many names such as The Marciano spammer and previously in the past as George Reeves Person (page deleted by god himself), his real name is Jan Lubek, a person obsessed with boxing..--Stemoc 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What caused this to be connected to Lightbreather? It's obvious from the AN/I thread that it's someone involved in the Cultural Marxism dispute. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 7 point list why Cirt requested it above. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this in case you aren't involved with spis often...I've seen people create socks to pass their articles tyo FA status, to make them look like a victim, vote stack or many other reasons. It is odd that LB is telling an IP they deserve a reward when they started not one but 2 spi on LB in the past. it's little things like that which certainly can be gamed but they paint a picture and seldom are they truly creative. I suspect Lightbreathers past history of socking and resulting denials etc also makes her more susceptible. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled about why one (not two, but one) of the IP addresses above is an address that started an SPI against me. Is this part of some elaborate joe job? Lightbreather (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly if it is a joe job why on god's green earth would you take the bait? In the banning policy arb case I told Tarc that he was being used like a dog that was being set on a path...seriously if you have no involvement with it don't let another person (me included) control the path you take because if it is you are sacrificing a lot of control. Modify the message so that others can't distort it or use it for their own purposes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks to Mike V from me too. Also the ip range of 208.xx.xx.xx range is the same t-mobile hotspot, the same editor has used at least one of those ips here. Dave Dial (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk declined - Checkuser doesn't publicly comment on the relationships between registered accounts and IP addresses. This will have to be investigated on the basis of behaviour only. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: I've blocked 172.56.0.0/18 for a week, as there's been much disruption from this IP range and not only from whomever is operating it as shown here. I doubt that it's Lightbreather, as there would need to be an explanation as to why she would open up a sockpuppet investigation on herself. 1 @Hell in a Bucket: If you think it is Neotarf, I'd like you to support that statement with some evidence, please. Mike V • Talk 22:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The range has been blocked and most commenters agree this is very unlikely to be Lightbreather, and while it does appear to probably be a banned editor, there is no solid evidence that it is Neotarf. I'm marking the case as closed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Felsic (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

Most of the evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lightbreather/Archive#01_February_2015. The two editors have a history of tag teaming, and Felsic is obviously an experienced editor's alt account. The Felsic account edited from an open proxy (User_talk:162.119.231.132#Not_a_proxy). It also abruptly stopped editing in late February, after racking up over 300 edits in February alone. Given Lightbreather's history of socking, and the collaboration between the two accounts, I suspect Lightbreather messed up and edited from the proxy, or that she edited as Felsic from her real IP address and decided to drop the account. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: Either way I believe the puppet master for the Felsic account accidentally edited without a proxy (or edited with the proxy on their main account) shortly before the Felsic account stopped editing on February 26 (after the prior SPI had concluded). Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Looks like I was wrong. I still think the Felsic account is a sock, but based on the evidence you presented it's probably not LB's. Thanks. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: Understood, thanks. I guess it could also be a WP:CLEANSTART account that just happened to stumble into gun control. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oh, give me a break. And I write this as someone who disagrees with Lightbreather as often as not. Can't we disagree with people without accusing them of high crimes and misdemeanors? Can't we let the strength of our arguments carry the day, not personal attacks? First, Felsic hasn't edited since February. It is now May. What exactly makes this a burning issue? I suspect it's the fact the Lightbreather is before arbcom, and so it's "let's pile on more mud" time. Second, just compare editing histories. Felsic Lightbreather. Both edited quite actively on February 3, starting about 10:00, including, Felsic:

11:18, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+173)‎ . . Universal background check ‎ (improve intro - don't revert again without talking first)
11:09, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Talk:Universal background check ‎ (→‎"...is a term..."`)
11:09, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+232)‎ . . Talk:Universal background check ‎ (→‎"...is a term..."`: why talk when you can just revert instead)
11:07, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Talk:Universal background check ‎ (→‎Discussion)
11:06, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+379)‎ . . Talk:Universal background check ‎ (→‎Requested move 29 January 2015: wrong name)
10:55, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+123)‎ . . Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association ‎ (→‎Non-partisan: be consistent)
10:53, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . National Association for Gun Rights ‎ (where)
10:53, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Students for Concealed Carry ‎
10:52, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+36)‎ . . Students for Concealed Carry ‎ (→‎History)
10:48, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-162)‎ . . National Association for Gun Rights ‎
10:44, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-23)‎ . . Law Enforcement Alliance of America ‎
10:41, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Law Enforcement Alliance of America ‎ (", non-partisan" - nothing about that in the footnote,)

Lightbreather:

11:10, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m User:Lightbreather ‎ (→‎Some, not so much: m)
11:10, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+180)‎ . . User:Lightbreather ‎ (→‎Some, not so much: vexatious)
10:53, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+337)‎ . . Talk:Women's rights in 2014 ‎ (→‎Opening Sentence: request)

And here's another span, editing some of the same articles, at the same time, even; Felsic:

15:14, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+160)‎ . . Talk:Assault weapon ‎ (→‎Neutral lead: yada yada)
15:12, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . Assault weapon ‎ (less pushy template text)
14:58, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+281)‎ . . Talk:Assault weapon ‎ (→‎Neutral lead: Reply)
14:54, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+70)‎ . . Bayonet lug ‎ (→‎Legality: cosmetic)
14:53, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+76)‎ . . Grenade launcher ‎ (cosmetic)
14:52, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+72)‎ . . Barrel shroud ‎ (→‎Legislation: cosmetic) (current) [rollback] [vandalism]
14:52, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+76)‎ . . Flash suppressor ‎ (→‎United States: cosmetic)
14:51, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+50)‎ . . Pistol grip ‎ (cosmetic)
14:49, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+128)‎ . . Talk:American Hunters and Shooters Association ‎ (→‎Non-partisan: Reply) (current) [rollback] [vandalism]
14:45, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Talk:Assault weapon ‎ (→‎Neutral lead)
14:37, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+377)‎ . . Talk:Microstamping ‎ (→‎More original research: new section)
14:32, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+348)‎ . . User talk:Miguel Escopeta ‎ (→‎Accusations #2: new section)
14:27, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Category:Dysphemisms)
14:26, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+126)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Category:Dysphemisms)
14:23, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+721)‎ . . Talk:Assault weapon ‎ (→‎Neutral lead: no consensus for Miquel's version)
14:10, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-170)‎ . . Microstamping ‎ (→‎Effectiveness: remove unrelated cite (there is no mention of a microstamping in this article)
14:08, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . 2012 Azana Spa shootings ‎ (Clean up)
14:04, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+40)‎ . . 2012 Azana Spa shootings ‎ (→‎Events: an important detail)
14:00, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+125)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Category:American political neologisms: duh)
13:46, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+215)‎ . . User talk:Miguel Escopeta ‎ (Edit warring)

Lightbreather:

15:45, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+230)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Clarification: so...)
15:41, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+397)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Private sale loophole: add)
15:33, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Private sale loophole: page)
15:32, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,407)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Private sale loophole: reply to dn)
15:22, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+139)‎ . . Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎top: expand)
15:12, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-185)‎ . . Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎top: detail for NICS article, not here)
15:01, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎top: wikilink)
15:01, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-569)‎ . . Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎top: Remove WP:SYNTH)
14:59, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1,834)‎ . . Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎top: Remove WP:SYNTH)
14:39, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Help with red links: done)
14:37, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+168)‎ . . Talk:Gun show loophole ‎ (→‎Preserving lead: reply)
14:34, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-20)‎ . . Assault weapon ‎ (→‎Definitions and usage: "primarily" means "not exclusively" - I thought this had been fixed before)
14:33, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+366)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force ‎ (→‎"How Wikipedia Articles Are Biased Against Women": thx, sarah)
14:17, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+568)‎ . . Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch ‎ (→‎"Pejorative" and "term of art": reply)
13:56, February 3, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+433)‎ . . Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment ‎ (→‎Statement by Lightbreather 2: q for ec)

To do that one person would need a spare computer, a split personality and a spare set of hands. Cut it out. --GRuban (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC) (also known as Lightbreather clone #46,753. Lightbreather clones of the world, unite!)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing, GRuban, but for the record (for whomever oversees this request): I. Ain't. Felsic. Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Guerillero ran a CU on the Feb. 1st case -- the case involved Felsic, Lightbreather and Darknipples and the result of the CU was  Unrelated but it wasn't totally explicit (from my perspective) if all three were checked. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I checked all named accounts --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing the case -- CU already confirmed  Unrelated back in February (when both accounts were active); GRuban's evidence highlights concurrent editing periods of several hours making sockpuppetry implausible, and ArbCom have CU tools and I'm fairly certain that they are running their own checks when it comes to ArbCom cases without the need for a separate SPI. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to Faceless Enemy, overall I think it is plausible that Felsic might be a sock, but CU didn't pick up anything "weird" on their previous check, and without evidence pointing towards a specific ban/block evading user, there is nothing actionable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Breathe of Light (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

I think this is probably not actually Lightbreather, but someone impersonating them. Not sure if the name is an homage and sign of support, or someone poking the stick at her. But there is no doubt in my mind this is WP:ILLEGIT one way or another.

Beyond the very obvious name, immediate edits to Gender Gap and Gun Control topics which are LB's core editing area. Also the userpage makes some very solid allusions to LB's history, including journalism, copyediting experience, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it looks like an impostor. Felsic2 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The following accounts are  Confirmed and no doubt  Unrelated to the master:
  • Breathe of Light (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • PinkNipples (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • FATNIPPLES (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• If you look at the archives and the references to Darknipples (talk · contribs · count), who is  Unrelated to anyone, you can kind of see what's going on here. I've blocked the new account without a tag per WP:DENY. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Felsic2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Darknipples (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

Research shows that Felsic admits to once using a proxy that Lightbreather put up a wall of text defended with a tirade of endless jibber jabber here: [17] Lightbreather was well known to use socks and these two accounts are editing all the same articles LB used to edit. They are however staying on separate articles but of the same gun control political nature so as not to trigger the interaction analyzer. The fact that they never edit the same gun control articles is actually amazing being they both push the same gun control agenda. That itself actually appears quite suspicious in itself. They both arrived on scene when Lightbreather facing/in one of their topic bans, etc. A check user is the only way to see if they are indeed the same person. Linking to Lightbreather may be stale due to her being permanently banned for some time. Besides that I believe she has grown more sophisticated through trial and error with previous socks. Check user would show if these two are the same though which would verify a sock account. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment Seems like a lot of random IP editors are attacking me these days. Darknipples (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note DK has not edited in 4 days [18] but they are Johnny on the Spot here. Interestingly Felsic2 has been quite active the last four days [19] and was accused of being a sock by another editor here [20] which motivated me to take action as I too have noticed alarming similarities and even questioned on her talk page. I did not notify Darknipples so how they came to know about this is amazing while Felsic has not commented. Maybe resetting their IP to comment? 205.185.157.11 (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was pinged when my name was added. "Amazing" indeed. Nice try though. I'll be happy to do a check-user, or whatever.... Darknipples (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this as just a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue, since a CU-check almost certainly will find that anonymous proxies have been used, and thus won't be able confirm any link between Felsic2 and Lightbreather, meaning that any and all comparisons will have to be based on behavioural evidence. But gathering all the diffs needed will take a lot of time. What I have seen so far is that Felsic, who was found to (most probably) not be a Lightbreather sock in a previous report here, most probably is not the same editor as Felsic2, based on both subject choices and editing behaviour, in spite of claiming they are, and that there is far more evidence supporting a connection between Felsic2 and Lightbreather, than a connection between Felsic2 and Felsic. I intend to present evidence supporting that assertion, but am not ready to do that just yet because of lack of time. As for Darknipples being a sock I have no comment at all since I haven't encountered that editor and haven't looked at any of their edits. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both accounts have been found to be  Unrelated to Lightbreather when Lightbreather was still active. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]