Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ilovepitts/Archive

09 April 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Showed up in MfD Sara Jay which User:Ilovepitts has been vigorously defending. Has the same unusual habit of signing comments with no space after the period. Claimed on another user's talk to have created the Sara Jay article, and has a writing style similar to ilovepitts. Possibly a "fresh start" that was revived as a sock for MfD? Gigs (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Not so and I vigorously deny this.   Ilovepitts (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Viucky Vette is a separate and individual person — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPasoWalt (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Compare this edit by Ilovepitts and this post by Vickyvette . The tone, the way both editors drop into ALL CAPS, and, especially, the FACT-shouting add up to a pretty loud quack. And those three [update: now up to six] SPAs turning up at the MFD in quick succession don't do anything except reinforce suspicions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This "sockpuppet" request is simply too ridiculous to believe. Vicky Vette is no "sockpuppet"; she is merely the lead webmistress for the network of adult websites (the Vette Nation Army network) of which Sara Jay is a member model of. She is also a close personal friend and fellow performer. And all of the other commentators defending Sara Jay in opposition to the attempt to delete her Wiki page are merely fans of Sara who simply do not think that the attempt to censor her page is warranted or even justifiable. Interestingly enough, none of those who scream about Sara Jay's lack of "notability" would ever challenge Vicky Vette's right to her own Wiki page. Where's the beef, guys?? Anthony JKenn (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I added new single-purpose accounts encountered at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sara_Jay to this SPI checkuser request. jni (delete)...just not interested 09:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Is jni implying that anyone who posts to defend Sara Jay's right to a Wiki page is innately a "sockpuppet" account? Merely because they are motivated to defend Sara? This is the height of absurdity. We are NOT "sockpuppets"; we are fans of Sara Jay who feel that she is worthy of a Wiki page; and this attempt to downgrade our legitimate concerns as "sockpuppetry" and "single purpose accounts" simply smacks of heavy handed abuse of moderation. Anthony JKenn (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I am finding this ridiculous.  I assure the admins that in no way shape or form did I create any accounts other than this one. I am not sure what the significance of the signature thing.  It says   "Sign your posts on talk pages: Ilovepitts (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC) " ... I click it and hit save. What is so strange about that?  I am about to do it again.Ilovepitts (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)  There. I did it again.Ilovepitts (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC).  If you take any action against these users you are banning REAL people with REAL opinions.Ilovepitts (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This just made my day, especially after a rather sad few days. Also, the prose is the same between the users, so that is a dead ringer for similarities. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I just added, for obvious reasons. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And this exchange is also something to note, as I suspect that the users may be linked (similar prose, calling us anti-porn editors). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Enough evidence here (just the suspected sock's posts on this page alone) to warrant a check for confirmation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I have blocked User:ElPasoWalt thanks to their claim to have edited the AFC entry, when in fact, it appears some of his socks did (see WP:REFUND) D  P  16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All ❌ as far as checkuser goes. If someone feels that this is meatpuppetry, then that could be grounds for blocking - but I doubt it. These accounts are not even from the same city. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 20:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-clerk etc request. Can this be given a closer look? ilovepitts has acknowledged editing from IP 166.170.21.193, which geolocates to Philadelphia, PA, and from IP 173.168.180.131, which geolocates to St. Petersburg, FL. The behavioral evidence is strong, and one of the accounts involved has identified themself as a commercial webmaster with considerable technical resources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another non-clerk comment Seeing how these are very similar in their argument, I do suspect that the user is either sending people instructions on what to do here, or we have a sockpuppeteer with a very smart mindset. Regardless, it is very concerning, so I would support taking a second look if possible. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've had another look, and I might be able to say that it's ... but not much more than that. As a a result, I've it for someone else to take a look. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 13:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We should consider the possibility that meat puppets are being rallied on an email list or forum of some sort, which would explain their geographic separation. Gigs (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with chase me. It's seemingly random. NativeForeigner Talk 21:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a really old case and I think it deserves closure. The CheckUser results as given suggest that these aren't sockpuppets. The disclosure given above about these being fans who are involved with adult web site forums supports the conclusion that most of these accounts were single-use SPAs created to sway a deletion discussion. The discussion is long over, the page was deleted, and just about all of these accounts have since gone inactive. Of the two accounts that weren't created solely to participate in the MfD, Vickyvette appears to have gone inactive again, and Hillary Scott`love may have been drawn to the discussion based on their interest in adult entertainers and continues to pursue that interest. I don't see any need to hand out blocks here and I'm marking for closure to help clear out the SPI backlog. --  At am a  頭 23:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)