Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Surely a sock; the most likely operator is suggested. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 7. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * See also, . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Wow. It must be difficult to have so many unpleasant interactions with people that you don’t know who you are fighting against, Andy. Sorry to disappoint but this account isn’t me. I’m not using a sockpuppet account. I wouldn’t know how to edit differently and I’m sure it would be clear who I was if I even attempted it. But I haven’t. This isn’t me. Thanks for giving me a chuckle. Sorry to ruin your fun! — Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the editors in the below bullet points for clarifying this situation. I really appreciate it.
 * That said, the comment about editors not getting "to play games with our boards and our good faith and stay unblocked" is a bit of a shocker to me, personally, as the few times I have had significant unpleasant interactions with En Wiki editors has been when they have used the boards for their own purposes and had their friends join in in support of the attacks. That or the editors who have used the boards are filibustering to such a degree that I personally have given up any sort of defense. There seems to be no consequence when this happens. Defending yourself doesn't seem very embraced here anyway, no matter how "fair" the boards purport it to be. It's not really a democratic or fair thing at all. Not for newbies and not for people without their packs of editors supporting them. So I think that the statement below is problematic as it is both self-righteous and not that accurate. Honestly, this investigation instigated by Pigs here, who is currently using the boards against me as he very happily links to, is an actual reflection of this abuse and personal attacking. So maybe not the best argument here on the comments section of this sockpuppet accusation. That said, again, this account was/is not me. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know is a fairly active editor and  is not exactly unknown for causing controversy, so a far more likely explanation to me is somebody else created a random account to troll Andy, hoping that Erika will take the blame for it. (I note that somebody on a well known Wikipedia criticism website has also said as much). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  08:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I can't see anyone with any reasonable editing experience being so clumsy as to do such an obvious bad job. My first thoughts were that this is likely to be a Joe job, and the more I look at it the more I think it's likely to be a past troublemaker trying to stir things up. It might be interesting to see if CheckUser turns up any other matches, though covering one's tracks is easy enough if you know what you're doing. I think the best thing to do is block the obvious troll, and leave the community to decide on the content issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing drama at Wikidata in which this plays a role as well. It has come to my attention that Brill Lye has been warned that she will be banned forever unless she tells the world what a bad girl she is. I have objected before to the behaviour that was given to her. She objected to a controversial property that was created that is no longer functional for me as well. This was countered as if she was a malignancy.
 * I am interested in the outcome of this inquiry, I do believe she was framed. It will probably be interesting how the timing of events here and there line up. Never mind the outcome the way she was treated was imho uncalled for and probably a power play. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , sophisticated editors recognize that the "sockpuppet" is likely some 3rd-party troll; we will soon know for sure. BrillLyle has exhibited a determination to turn over a new leaf, and we all wish her success in that. However, you are not helping by continuing to defend her past actions, which were indefensible to the point that it's remarkable she wasn't banned from enwp, if not all WMF projects, completely. See, for example, . Please, just let her begin afresh without forcing others to keep reviewing the past. EEng 20:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a difference.. to be brutally honest I am not involved in the en.wp politics and hardly care. I do care what happens at Wikidata. I have commented before on the way she has been treated. The situation discussed here is used to paint her in a corner and was considered enough to abuse her verbally. Nothing to do with what happened here.
 * I have worked with her in the past on multiple projects over a long time and I have experienced first hand how she has been treated. This included the promise that any project she would work on will be actively boycotted never mind how valuable. The result is that one project with a notable organisation was shelved by me. What I find is that there is an ongoing deplorable situation and what I have seen is that this abuse moved easily to Wikidata. I learned from this situation only today and I do object to the way this situation has come about and has been resolved. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You force me to say it: anyone who thinks she is justified, not matter what the provocation, in posting in public something like –
 * I think a lot of folks from the @Wikimedia & @Wikipedia communities think this is funny but the editor working on  has severe mental health issues
 * – deserves to be boycotted, full stop, and that has nothing to do with any kind of "en.wp politics". Her victim pose is ridiculous. Now I think you better just leave her to start building her reputation over from scratch, and stop forcing such stuff to be stirred up over and over. You make yourself look like a naif. EEng 21:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Folks, this here is only about whether the two named accounts appear technically to be socks, and it's got nothing to do with any other part of the dispute. How about we all respect Bbb23's request below, and just wait for the result, eh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While still waiting for CU, I've blocked TammyBri as obviously the sock of somebody, and here purely to make trouble. People don't get to play games with our boards and our good faith and stay unblocked. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC).
 * . Just a heads up that my response will take longer, so please be patient. Also, I think it would be better if in the meantime others forebore from commenting, but that's often a difficult thing to prevent on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For those people who are (impatiently) waiting for me to post results, I am consulting with another CU. After I hear back, I will post my findings. I can't prevent editors from feeling what they feel, but nothing here needs urgent attention, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The two users are ❌. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

BrillLyle was globally banned on August 8, 2018. The account 1940CStreet was created on October 7, 2018, or about 90 days later (outside of the checkuser window). 1940CStreet was blocked by but, per their advice, I'm filing this report for future use. I don't know if there are any sleeper accounts. I think that the behavioural evidence linking the two accounts is strong, namely: Thank you for your time. Ca2james (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * many, many, many small edits to a single article in a short period of time: compare, for example, BrillLyle's edits to Debra Granik with 1940CStreet's to Shoshana Bean
 * use of edit summaries like "nit(s)" for minor changes: BrillLyle, 1940CStreet
 * use of edit summaries like "smooth/smoother/smoothing" for wording changes: BrillLyle and 1940CStreet
 * reference naming formula of "(Name of publication)-(short version of title)-(year published)": examples from BrillLyle's edits and 1940CStreet's
 * removing the accessdate parameter from existing references: BrillLyle and (starting in July 2018) 1940CStreet
 * Including lists of discography/filmography that are unsourced and filled with minor UNDUE mentions: examples from BrillLyle's The Hideout Inn discography and 1940CStreet's Folake_Olowofoyeku (article has since been deleted)
 * Wikidata editing related to concurrent article edits:
 * BrillLyle Laura Jane Grace edits August 1-4, 2018 and Wikidata edits (I captured edits outside that date range to show that edits to Laura Jane Grace were only made between August 1 and 3, 2018)
 * 1940CStreet Ann Sarnoff edits June 25-29, 2018 and Wikidata edits (again, I captured edits outside the date range to show that edits to Ann Sarnoff were only made June 25 and 26, 2019)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are ✅ to each other and somewhere between and  to the master:
 * . The master is globally locked. Please globally lock the three socks (1940Cstreet has made many edits at other projects).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since this user is WMF-banned, I would prefer to let them handle it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably best to email CA, I doubt they will check for a ping. --Rschen7754 18:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping -- The SandDoctor Talk 18:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Rschen7754 means for me to e-mail CA, and I believe they are correct. I will take care of it sometime today.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed the Foundation at the CA address. I don't know how long they'll take, so I am closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the accounts here are now locked. WMFOffice (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Rschen7754 means for me to e-mail CA, and I believe they are correct. I will take care of it sometime today.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed the Foundation at the CA address. I don't know how long they'll take, so I am closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the accounts here are now locked. WMFOffice (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I was performing checks in connection with suspected socking at Articles for deletion/Seen in NY. The similar comments, and the SPA status of Eduser us, justified a check. ST47 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The following accounts are all ✅ to each other:
 * The first two are . The remaining accounts were already blocked and globally locked.
 * is to the above accounts - same ISP but different IP ranges, and not quite the same device. Eduser us is also  to each of the following:
 * I'd recommend evaluating the behavior of Eduser us and Ryanhanwu, the others don't have enough history to make any real judgement. ST47 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Eduser us and Ryanhanwu both have editing histories that go back a while. Eduser looks like somebody associated with the university, so probably there's a missing WP:COI declaration (or, at least they could make the semi-declaration on their user page more explicit), but I'm not seeing enough to convince me of outright socking.  Much the same story for Ryanhanwu.  I'll drop Template:Uw-coi on both their talk pages and suggest we leave it at that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two are . The remaining accounts were already blocked and globally locked.
 * is to the above accounts - same ISP but different IP ranges, and not quite the same device. Eduser us is also  to each of the following:
 * I'd recommend evaluating the behavior of Eduser us and Ryanhanwu, the others don't have enough history to make any real judgement. ST47 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Eduser us and Ryanhanwu both have editing histories that go back a while. Eduser looks like somebody associated with the university, so probably there's a missing WP:COI declaration (or, at least they could make the semi-declaration on their user page more explicit), but I'm not seeing enough to convince me of outright socking.  Much the same story for Ryanhanwu.  I'll drop Template:Uw-coi on both their talk pages and suggest we leave it at that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend evaluating the behavior of Eduser us and Ryanhanwu, the others don't have enough history to make any real judgement. ST47 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Eduser us and Ryanhanwu both have editing histories that go back a while. Eduser looks like somebody associated with the university, so probably there's a missing WP:COI declaration (or, at least they could make the semi-declaration on their user page more explicit), but I'm not seeing enough to convince me of outright socking.  Much the same story for Ryanhanwu.  I'll drop Template:Uw-coi on both their talk pages and suggest we leave it at that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

is the same edit, over and over where the user wants to remove referenced material, claiming it is unreliable when the article's talk page has consensus that it is. After discussion, a new account is created, the only edits from that account is the same attempted removal:, , etc. Binksternet, on the article's talk page noticed that User:Tarteàlafraise45, User:Fighttoright123 and User:BlackOpsPom also have identical editing patterns. --Ifnord (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I am not a sockpuppet. I am being target because I am correcting information left by other users that are vandalizing a page.

I never created a new account. I only have one. There is no evidence I have more than one account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormriders09 (talk • contribs)


 * This sockpuppet case falls under Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle because of the connection to previous socks. Here's what I have to add:
 * Back in November 2019, the media revealed that Keanu Reeves and Alexandra Grant had been dating. Through sockpuppets, BrillLyle reacted very strongly against the news, removing it and casting aspersions on Grant., , , and  were quickly blocked as socks.  was also involved with the disruption at that time, but was not blocked. Later, ,  and  appeared as single-purpose accounts to continue the disruption.
 * In the past few days, Tennessee IPs in the range Special:Contributions/2601:842:C100:DC30:0:0:0:0/64 showed up at Grant's biography to remove the Reeves connection, just like back in 2019 and 2020. These efforts were reverted, and Clearwater48 stepped in to restore. New account was created to continue the disruption.
 * Coincidentally, there is a place known as Clearwater in Tennessee near the geolocation of the IPs, generally west of Knoxville.
 * I think the Alexandra Grant biography page should be semi-protected to stop IPs and new socks from disrupting it. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no connection to Clearwater. Like I said before I have only one account. Sounds more like I am being targeted because the other users that keep editing information back do not want correct information to be posted on page. They rather vandalize the page. References used are paid articles and from tabloids and also using name of person that have nothing to do with the information.Stormriders09 (talk)


 * New sock RainJackson added. First edit was to remove the media reports about Grant dating Reeves. Nobody but BrillLyle socks are offended by this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no connection to any of the other Users and will gladly comply with the CU-Investigation. As such I am convinced, that this is a bad faith report, trying to undermine the BLP Policy. --Marcel Augustin (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I recommend merging this into Sockpuppet investigations/BrillLyle. The Clearwater48 account was created on November 24, 2019. Based on the archive, the last check was run on November 15, 2019.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - ✅. Closing SPI...  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * . It seems like the case hasn't been actioned yet, Bbb23 just recommended a merge. Blablubbs (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting a CU, as the filer originally requested but also because I think it warrants one. The CU logs may be helpful, but at a minimum the two listed puppets can be checked against each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, all the accounts are ❌ to BrillLyle and one another. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing since no one has acted on this in almost a month. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)