Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElizabethCB123: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FuFoFuEd (talk | contribs)
2,697 edits
No edit summary
Line 139: Line 139:


I doubt [[User:Racconish]] (currently on wikivacation apparently) is either sock- or meat-puppet of anyone else here. He or she is a long standing editor who has fashion among his/her interests. Tao2911 has made unsubstantiated accusations against other long-standing editors like [[User:Drmies]]. The "suspected sockpuppet" template should be remove from Racconish's user page. [[User:FuFoFuEd|FuFoFuEd]] ([[User talk:FuFoFuEd|talk]]) 15:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt [[User:Racconish]] (currently on wikivacation apparently) is either sock- or meat-puppet of anyone else here. He or she is a long standing editor who has fashion among his/her interests. Tao2911 has made unsubstantiated accusations against other long-standing editors like [[User:Drmies]]. The "suspected sockpuppet" template should be remove from Racconish's user page. [[User:FuFoFuEd|FuFoFuEd]] ([[User talk:FuFoFuEd|talk]]) 15:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

:I didn't accuse Racconish of anything specific (or flag editor's page), to be perfectly clear. I added editor to the investigation list as someone who made a lot of edits to the the Deluna page, that's it. It was a wide net, because as is discussed by reviewing admins, this was a complicated mess, and there were/are clearly a lot of socks and collusion. Let Racconish speak for itself.[[User:Tao2911|Tao2911]] ([[User talk:Tao2911|talk]]) 15:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->
<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 15:53, 14 August 2011

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

ElizabethCB123

ElizabethCB123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
10 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

page marisol deluna has some serious notability questions. User ElizabethCB123 is likely sock of subject of page. Comments on my own talk and on page talk by suspected sock and IP said to be from Deluna are similar, in argmuent, tone and style. Looking at page history and other talk pages, it is almost certain they are the same user. I'd like an IP check, and a block if shown to be the same. Looking further, we have discussions of deluna's husband being a lawyer in Chicago (as gleefully discussed by e123 for some reason), and we have both of them making legal threats against another user, and we have a user called "legaleagleusa" also making threats against said user, and admitting to know deluna. We have E123 (who claims to live in Txas in Deluna's hometown) making unbidden excuses for why she will have IP's from Chicago and New York (both towns Deluna claims to live in). C'mon here folks. Let's get on this.Tao2911 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECB123 has a history of inserting Deluna in pages where she doesn't merit mention like in this list: "Over the years it has boasted an elite membership of politicians, diplomats, businessmen, and writers have included Henry Kissinger, Casper Weinberger, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Henry Luce, Alexander Haig, Paul Volcker, Tom Kean and Walter Cronkite to mention a very few." She added Deluna to THAT list!Tao2911 (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen of the City of New York which I also edit and have disclosed I own a scarf designed by Mrs. Deluna for the GSMT is the home of the Pilgrim Society and a number of other organizations she either belongs to or have designed items for that do not advertise. On the book cover that can be seen online on Amazon and here: http://www.paperbackswap.com/Pilgrims-United-States-Anne-Pimlott-Baker/book/1861977263/ The Pilgrims of the United States: A Centennial History (Hardcover) 2002 - Anne Pimlott Baker, ISBN 1-86197-290-3 is a scarf she designed on the cover, which was created for its members. The book can found in library of the GSMT at 20 West 44th Street in New York City, which states clearly that she is a member. To the point of what you cannot find much on Marisol Deluna online, the Pilgrim Society is just as difficult. I am not advocating to have her added to their Wiki page as it will be reverted. Simply stating "fact" as stated in the book.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

When you look at ECB123 edit history, you see that out of hundreds of edits, every single one (save 2 or 3) has had something to do with Marisol Deluna. I only wondered about Deluna's connection to the Society above, since ECB123 had (for once) not inserted Deluna on the page - now we see that connection too.Tao2911 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION As this was stated incorrectly by TAO: My 66.65.66.144 IP Address and Wikipedia User History clearly show that I am a "New Yorker"- Not a "Texan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethCB123 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Don't be confused by this disinformation. It will take more than an IP check. Check histories. Deluna herself admits to having homes in different cities, and to have her husband and/or lawyer friends involved here. She is not working from one IP alone. She knows better than that at this point.Tao2911 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION As this was stated incorrectly by TAO: BbBlick commented as "fact" from the reference http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/13/style/weddings-marisol-deluna-jonathan-cole.html that her husband is an attorney during one of our edit disputes. This information is public record that can be found online not "inside" information. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION As this was stated incorrectly by TAO: As noted below, on "Talk Pages" comments are either made to support or detract. From 64.134.242.78 IP Address edit history, there are three inclusions on one day. One to me, one to you and the other on Mrs. Deluna's article's talk page. You were likely not hard to locate- Especially after your comments. And further- How do you know every classmate of this professor and their personal relationships with students? Do you know Mrs. Deluna personally? She went to art school and you are an artist. This could link you by your own admission.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one recent example, from my talk page: "As for her connection or lack there of with "Dale Eldred", (I read his Wiki article), Mrs. Deluna gave a talk recently whereas she mentioned a nameless sculpture teacher with whom she spent hours with while at art achool. He taught her beyond the basics of fashion to work within a square space (scarf) and garment construction from a textile/ rug collection he kept in his studio. Was it him? No idea. I found this interesting. This is not worthy of an inclusion in his article with verification I agree. Sad loss regardless. ElizabethCB123" then this a few lines later, a few hours later but right after another comment by E123, from Deluna herself: ""Dale Eldred- I never knew I was included in an article about my late mentor until you made mention of it. My relationship with Dale and his family was relatively common knowledge to those who knew us. I was a fashion student who spent more time in the sculpture department or his private studio off campus. I flew back for his memorial service and have kept in contact with his son Ean in Portland through the years after he attended school in New York. I was encouraged to move to New York in part by Dale's advisement as a result to is son's time spent at Cooper Union. Does this merit being included in his life's history according to Wikipedia? Only if one were to include every student he ever taught. He was a brilliant man. If you knew Dale, you of course know Stretch. He opened his studio to me recently and has a stunning photo above a door of Dale that leads him into his work space. He is sorely missed." E123's profile/talk page is pretty clearly a front for Deluna.Tao2911 (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E123 says she lives in San Antonio (deluna's hometown) and spends countless hours researching deluna at the public library. She claims to have attended multiple "talks" by deluna making her privy to information as above. she claims to call and speak with deluna's 'assistants' and both make mention of legal proceedings against another editor. They use virtually the same tone. They both sign posts the same way, with their actual names, as in a letter. E123 is already making excuses for why she will have IP addresses from different cities (including Chicago, which is where deluna's husband lives, according to E123 herself "quoting sources" she's been trying to insert.) Can I get an admin to move on this?Tao2911 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I suspect LegalEagleUSA is also part of this sockpuppet team since they all possessed obscure insider info on the subject of the article, use similar language, and have both made verbatim legal threats against people who edited the article. Thank you.BbBlick (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another page E123 has inserted Marisol Deluna, and engaged in edit war to include, evidence on talk page: [[1]] Tao2911 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The mentioned edit war was with an editor (with a 208 address) who reverted my edits. Your own edit history reflects the same behavior. I do not make a habit of edit wars.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In June [re: deletion of page], possible further evidence of socks/meats (user Mrbrown highly suspect, along with open IP calling herself "Elizabeth Brown".)Tao2911 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, you go run a check user on me and accuse me of being a sock puppet. Look in the phone book - there's about 4 pages of just Browns in any given city. I've been a Wikipediaian a lot longer than you (4+ years by just a quick look at the edit history)! And I have nobody in my family named "Elizabeth"... not even close. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
a lot longer? Really?! Gee, I'm sad now. And not one name even close in your family? A lot of names can be close. Beth? Bess? Betsy? Betty? Bette? Buffy? Eliza? Elle? Elsie? Elsa? Izzy? Liz? Liza? Lizbeth? Lise? Liddy? Libby? C'mon! look closer! I really want there to be at least one. My hopes are absolutely pinned upon it.Tao2911 (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be the least bit respectful towards anybody? I'm not a sock or a meat puppet, and I'd be glad to add my OWN handle to this check user to prove that if you're so damned adamant about it. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not related nor have I ever met this "Tony Brown". You will find no conflict of interest or link other than our mutual interest in this subject. Further, if I were linked to the subject personally, do you really think I would purposely identify my name as "Brown" if we were one in the same or working in unison? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Please check the IP Addresses for me, "Legal EagleUSA" and Mrs. Deluna herself. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the sock/meat/tag team took the necessary steps to ensure they would not be technically caught. Language and possesion of insider info tell a different story.BbBlick (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BbBlick- You contacted me earlier today and asked to erase a post on my page that you thought put you in a poor light. Out of respect to make a gesture of good faith, I did. Now you are doing this to me? ElizabethCB123 (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your removal. Thank you. However, I am suggesting the admins check everyone INCLUDING myself since the accusations have been flying back and forth for months now. Nothing comes out of the suspicions and franly, I look forward to someone putting an end to this nonsense. Haven't you noticed how unbelievably long the talk page has gotten primarily with accusations back and forth? Sure, check us all! What's there to lose if there are sockpuppets they'll be smoked out if not it clears the air.BbBlick (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bblick- Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tao2911? You have added many names to the list of other suspected "Sock Puppets" on this page. I have identified my IP Address above as I am one in the same. My daughter has an account and we may be found to be on the same IP Address yet she claims to have not added to the Marisol Deluna article.

I erased the addresses you requested. Should they be checked?ElizabethCB123 (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my previous and current IP addresses are all being checked as we speak and yes, from what I gather, it is an inexact science especially with WiFi involved where anyone can use your signal but these checks are only for Wikipedia editors so it shouldn't affect your daughter. Checking my own IP address history, I noticed the IPs have been used before and after I edited under them by others sometimes months apart. This is even creating problems for me but I accept it can and does happen. I added to the list of names because those users are "unclaimed" and only made one edit and often from the same city. BbBlick (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother. Dude, the jig is up. You created socks. Let it go - you'll likely be blocked soon anyway. And you are scuttling my own inquiry here with your crusade. let the process work itself out.Tao2911 (talk) 05:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. It has already been determined that it's more than "mere coincidence". Same user agent, same IP address on both accounts. The jig is up, dude. It's time to park it. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get too high and mighty there bub.Tao2911 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think I'm a sock puppet, there's this page, Sockpuppet investigations, where you can go and report it, just like was done here. Unfortuantely, I'm coming into this thing with clean hands. You can also refrain from the personal attacks, by the way. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what personal attack? honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I never once have said you were a sock. A meat puppet, sure, but sock? Nah.Tao2911 (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have a valid case, then ask for an investigation. I am more than confident that I'll come out clean. I don't have time to coordinate or participate in an effort to drum up support for an article, either on or off Wikipedia. --Mr. Brown (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the Record

I had added several user who I believe are related to the user in question yet they were removed. I will not re-add them but I would like an admin to check them since they are way similar. BbBlick (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you aren't blocked, you can follow up with another inquiry later. For now, let this get sussed out.Tao2911 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as I looked more at this I see the complex web of IP's likely 2-3 people working on deluna's bequest. Sorry I pulled the IP's - I put em back.Tao2911 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added User:Alteran1 based on edits to Marisol Deluna, e.g., [2], EditSummary: Updated main picture of Marisol Deluna to keep it current, by her request JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant Ongoing Investigation

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_from_Tao2911 posted on August 12, 2011. Please note that the removal of the inclusion on this page was done by two editors who have repeatedly reversed my edits in regards to Marisol Deluna. Tao2911 is under investigation for "Harassment" brought on by other editors and AaAa1232011 (otherwise known as BbBlick)was found to be a "Sockpuppet" a few days ago on this topic. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa--I didn't request anything related to this SPI. I have no opinion on socking here one way or another. I responded on ANI because of Tao's editing style, not because of Elizabeth's. Marisol Deluna is problematic from all sides, and I do not have any desire to appear to endorse Elizabeth's edits just because I don't agree with Tao's style. In other words, please leave me (and the ANI thread) out of this. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Elizabeth, you need to check your facts: my account is still usable and wasn't banned AND the edit I made to this page is to add Nycfashion to the list as she also claimed to personally be Marisol Deluna in 2007 when she added four photos to her article and claimed copyright ownership over them. So if added to IP user 64.134.242.78, who also claimed two days ago to be Marisol Deluna herself, and ICMurray who added all the unpublished childhood background info on the original Marisol Deluna article and was the one who started it, I'd say there is a pretty good chance of discovering a long history of socking by "others" around here as well. But as you say, why not let the checkers decide and stop your ad hominem attacks aginst me when I was allowed to remain an editor by a reviewing admin?Aa1232011 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies- AaAa1232011, your sock "Bblick" was blocked. What I wrote was not meant to be an attack. I will be more mindful.ElizabethCB123 (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I do look forward to the results of this investigation and ask you to please stop following me around and launching attacks against me as, with all due respect, I never want to mince words with you again or have to defend myself against your accusations and personal attacks as opposed to having to defend my edits. Thank you!Aa1232011 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • I haven't read the stuff above. There is some overlap in the accounts' edits, though, so I'll endorse to clarify this web of shit. Having said that, I have a feeling these are all friends who are collaborating offline. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Checkuser note: To nobody's surprise, this is messy. For the benefit of those who don't know already, I want to state a few important points up front:

  • Checkuser investigations cannot eliminate nefarious activity. If two or more accounts are listed here as not necessarily being the same user, that doesn't mean they aren't; it merely means that by technical means it isn't considered likely. There are any number of reasons that may be so, and new evidence may well change that answer. New eyes on the same data also sometimes change the answer.
  • This is part art, part science, and definitely part judgment.
  • In the strictest interpretation, a "sock" is a separate account operated by another person, usually for deceptive purposes. However, WP:MEATPUPPETRY is always a valid alternate scenario, and it also largely frowned upon.

So, on to the results, such as they are:

First we have the stale accounts:

Next we have IP accounts, which we generally do not comment specifically on, as commenting typically will reveal information generally deemed private. Having said that, sometimes users reveal IP addresses themselves, and sometimes even purposefully. Nevertheless, there were three IPs listed in this case, about which I have no revealing comment:

Now, on to the remaining users. The following are  Confirmed:

Following is  Likely to be the same user as ElizabethCB123:

Remaining users appear Red X Unrelated to each other and others above:

 Frank  |  talk  18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Alright, so. I've blocked and tagged Tinkerbell1989, LegalEagleUSA and WindyCityGal2011. I've also blocked ElizabethCB123 for a week for sockpuppeting. And I've blocked 66.65.66.144 for two weeks. I think the unrelated accounts are meatpuppets or something. We're done for now, but relist any further developments. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for working through all of this. nice job. Although considering her history, shouldn't ECB123 (and her IP) be blocked indefinitely? I am going to renominate her pet project, the Deluna page, for deletion, and I am concerned that we'll see the appearance of more socks/meats who will scuttle that nomination, as she did with the last one.Tao2911 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt User:Racconish (currently on wikivacation apparently) is either sock- or meat-puppet of anyone else here. He or she is a long standing editor who has fashion among his/her interests. Tao2911 has made unsubstantiated accusations against other long-standing editors like User:Drmies. The "suspected sockpuppet" template should be remove from Racconish's user page. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse Racconish of anything specific (or flag editor's page), to be perfectly clear. I added editor to the investigation list as someone who made a lot of edits to the the Deluna page, that's it. It was a wide net, because as is discussed by reviewing admins, this was a complicated mess, and there were/are clearly a lot of socks and collusion. Let Racconish speak for itself.Tao2911 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ElizabethCB123&oldid=444817483"