Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca/Archive

Evidence submitted by Tre=poi
I attempted to upgrade the article Ed Gein from an amateurish, sensationalistic style of writing that makes the grisly details of prime importance to a cool, detached professional level of writing that eschews such unencyclopedic writing and was dogged by LaVidaLoca who is using a sock to agree with me about the article's faults then claiming that her sock is actually me and sending me warnings about "sockpuppetry". She indicated a report is in the works about my "socking" though I've found no evidence of such a report. Claiming to file reports to the entire community can be disruptive. LaVidaLoca is now following me around to my other articles reverting my contributions in what I find to be a "Little Miss Smarty-Pants" style that is annoying and disruptive. She is now telling me one of my articles doesn't belong under the Kansas Project, and, while this may be true, I'd rather someone from the Kansas Project tell me rather than someone I suspect is trying to drive me from Wikipeidia because I advocate a professional style of reliably sourced writing rather than an amateurish, sensationalistic style which apparently is her preference. I left the Ed Gein article because "the old crowd" hanging out there seems to prefer the laugh-inducing, titillating Halloween House of Horrors grue style of writing rather than an objective, cool, professional style. While I appreciate learning the details of Wikipedia's style and policy, I wish it would come from someone other than she who appears to be dogging me in an attenpt to drive me completely from the premises. Check this user. While I want to assume good faith, I think User:LaVidaLoca is gaming the system with a sock to make it look like I'm the sock. Tre=poi (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
This is a specious accusation that amounts more to a fishing expedition to deflect questions I raised about an IP that has never edited here before. The IP 64.252.140.1 traceroutes to Waterbury, Connecticut while I live in Ohio. The IP popped up immediately on Talk:Ed Gein to post support for Tre=poi on the talk page and then went straight to User talk:Tre=poi to post there, both postings by User talk:Tre=poi and the IP use similar language and descriptors. Fourteen minutes after the IP made those postings, Tre=poi posted a good article nomination notice on the talk page for a new article he had written. Given that at the time of those postings, User talk:Tre=poi had only been posting on Wikipedia for 4 days, this appeared very suspicious to me, and thus, considering WP:DUCK I confronted the editor about this. Of course, he denied it, but since the IP did not return to make other postings, I decided to drop it rather than pursue a sock investigation. When a brand new editor and an IP end up raising questions like this, it is not inappropriate to check other edits that were made by those editors. I have not reverted edits made by this editor inappropriately. I did remove excess project postings and left the relevant ones and I did so appropriately, in a non-confrontational manner. Since User:Tre=poi does not own the artice he wrote, it is ridiculous to claim that I am dogging him in an inappropriate manner. However, today, he deleted my posting explaining the rationale for removing the project banners from the article talk page, which is extremely inappropriate. Then again, how curious it is that an editor who had only been editing on Wikipedia for 4 days has written and nominated a brand new article for good article. Were I dogging him, I would have quick-failed the GA nomination because it does not meet GA criteria. This, though, is so much subterfuge that has nothing whatsoever to do with sockpuppetry, or in my case, the specious accusation of such. What a convoluted logic to claim that a long term editor on Wikipedia would go to the trouble of editing from an IP in order to "set someone up" or drive them away from Wikipedia. It's a ludicrous and fairly paranoid theory that is not based in any type of reality. This is a fishing expedition with no supporting evidence and I would request that this specious and ridiculous accusation be closed as unwarranted. LaVidaLoca (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, User:Sift&, there is no organized attempted to shut down that user or any other that I know. It has little to nothing in specific to do with that article. It has everything to do with what I outlined above regarding a new editor, a previously unused IP suddenly posting a support for the new editor and similarity in writing styles. It raised sock questions in my mind, and really, it is even more suspicious that the IP has never posted again. Posting this case is a fishing expedition to deflect questions and afford an opportunity to complain. There has been no evidence at all to support a sock accusation. Regardless, I live over 600 miles from the location of the IP, so this is a specious and ridiculous accusation. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
This clearly has more to do with shutting down Tre=poi's efforts to edit the Ed Gein article than with any sockpuppetry. There seems to be an intolerance to making any improvements to that article. -- Sift &amp;  Winnow  22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Tre=poi made his/her first Wikipedia edit at 16:16 16 November 2009. This sockpuppet investigation page was created by Tre=poi at 01:12 24 November 2009.  At 18:30 24 November 2009, Tre=poi announced on his/her user page that he/she was "permanently leaving Wikipedia".  [Adjust for your time-zone.]  In my opinion, someone who has had a Wikipedia account for seven and a half days, makes an accusation, and then resigns from Wikipedia seventeen hours later is not a credible accuser, regardless of any other facts involved. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith. Tre=poi said he was hounded out of Wikipedia. Considering everything I've seen from the involved editors, I believe him. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  03:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And in regard to assuming good faith, that does go both ways. Tre=poi did not say he was hounded out of Wikipedia, he first said "I am permnently leaving Wikipedia because of certain issues and concerns. Best wishes. Tre=poi." and changed that to simply "I have permanently left Wikipedia. Best wishes. Tre=poi. 11-25-2009." There are no specifics given. For transparency's sake, Sift&#x26;Winnow showed up at the Gein talk page mostly after Tre=poi had stopped posting there or on the main page, after only making one edit prior to that, in July 2009. Does that mean Sift&#x26;Winnow is Tre=poi? I don't think so, nor is there any more specific proof to support that than there has been offered here. Regardless, the dispute at the Gein page has nothing to do with a specious, unwarranted and unsupported sock accusation. There has been no proof offered, nor is there any proof in existence, that I am related in any way to the IP. For that matter, Sift&#x26;Winnow, this is not a dispute page, nor does it further that cause. Even if Tre=poi was hounded off of Wikipedia, that has nothing to do with accusing me of sock puppetry, and it doesn't support that I am linked in any way to an IP orginating in Waterbury, Connecticut. I am from Ohio, I am visiting family in the Chicago area this weekend. Please explain how any of these comments support, in any way, the sock accusation. It doesn't and anything extraneous to whether I am also that IP is not relevant here. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and there is no pudding. If you have nothing to contribute in that regard, your comments have not added anything of value to that end. LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read Tre=poi's submitted evidence above. Sounds like he was describing being hounded. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether he *felt* like he was being hounded or not is beside the point. He did *not* state he was leaving Wikipedia because he had been hounded out, which is specifically what you falsely claimed above. He did *not* say that, as the diffs for his postings show. That, however, is completely beside the point. He accused another editor of sock puppetry then left. It is not improper to look at other edits by a new editor and make corrections if they are necessary. He did not post a complaint about alleged hounding in a venue where that *possibly* might be discussed. This is not evidence at all for a sock puppet accusation and discussing anything else is a smokescreen. One does not file a serious accusation such as this specious sock puppet accusation in response. Outside of that question, the rest is non-sequitur commentary that is irrelevant to the one and only point on this case. Any comments regarding anything else besides that question is irrelevant.


 * A checkuser, if it were even warranted, would also show the same evidence I offer - I am not in Connecticut or anywhere near it. However, I would suggest that if a checkuser were run between the filing party and the IP, the outcome would likely be much different. I would suggest that is more to the point of why the user left. If you have no evidence to support his accusation, something you could not possibly have since it is baseless speculation, then you are also attempting to cloud the issue. Let me repeat the point: The only thing in question or of merit on this page is whether I am also IP 64.252.140.1. I am not, therefore, there is nothing to be gained by not closing this investigation as specious and unwarranted. I do not intend to bandy about anything other than that question on this forum. Please reserve your commentary to the sock puppet accusation and leave any other personal issues you have with me or any other editor off of this case. It is irrelevant to the case. LaVidaLoca (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Stay classy, SPI, stay classy.


 * is.
 * is the banned user along with the following socks:
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My conclusions on are the same as Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie. Brandon (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
The following administrative (non-)actions have been taken (either by Brandon or by myself):
 * 1) The abovementioned socks of User:ItsLassieTime have been indefinitely blocked and tagged by myself.
 * 2) User:ItsLassieTime is now indefinitely blocked (and hence permanently banned) by Brandon.
 * 3) No admin action taken on User:Sift&Winnow as there is no evidence of abusive sock puppetry despite the positive CU result.
 * 4) No admin action taken on User:LaVidaLoca on good faith per Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhartlivie.
 * 5) The following pages have been deleted per G5 (created by banned user) by myself:

As with ItsLassieTime's previous SPI, these deletions are open to (community) discussion if need be. See the following relevant pages for reference and previous discussion:


 * Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive
 * User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3
 * User talk:MuZemike/Archive 3
 * Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15

MuZemike 06:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks solid. NW ( Talk ) 15:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)