Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Archive

Evidence submitted by 71.57.8.103
Sockpuppetry from extremely disruptive accounts with a history of edit-warring and blocks. Typical behavior is to revert once or twice using a named account, then switching to an IP puppet account to avoid a 3RR warning or violation, and to give the impression of a stronger consensus (with more editors) in favor of their own position in content disputes. For example: In particular, LotLE has been a highly disruptive and combative SPA for years, with multiple reports at 3RR and ANI. His modus operandi is to immediately revert any new edit that contains negative information about a left-of-center political figure or organization, with an inflammatory edit summary that falsely accuses the editor of soapboxing, ranting and/or sockpuppetry. Xenophrenic also reverts, but focuses on an unreasonably strict and draconian interpretation of Wikipedia policy, demanding citation of a reliable source of New York Times caliber after every period or comma -- previous edits failing to satisfy these demanding standards that sing the praises of left-of-center political figures or organizations, often coming from the subjects' own self-serving websites, never seem to attract his attention.

This pattern of abusive editing centers around the following article: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and generally, any article that may involve Ward Churchill or Barack Obama. This sockpuppetry may also be present at Jacques Lacan and Reductio ad Hitlerum.

71.57.8.103 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the claim offered below by LotLE, "In any case, none of the edits made with those IPs has anything to do with 3RR [or] edit warring ..." the series of edits I've cited above does indeed have everything to do with 3RR and edit warring. LotLE was edit warring and, by using the IP address 149.77.79.116 for the last edit in this sequence, he avoided a 3RR warning. As I explained, it also gave the impression of a stronger consensus (with more editors) in favor of LotLE's own position in the content dispute. By his own admission, LotLE is guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. He now admits, days later, that the edits from 149.77.79.116 are indeed his own. WP:SOCK specifically prohibits the use of multiple accounts to "mislead or deceive other editors." The first example of abuse of an alternate account is "Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists." The fourth example is "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion." At no time, either on the ACORN Talk page or in one of his many edit summaries, did LotLE identify the IP account 149.77.79.116 as his own alternate account. He says, "I do not recall why I was not logged in when those edits were made... probably because of some weirdness with Wikipedia not keeping the login cookie when I use the SSL version (I've found this annoyance lately)." If he had inadvertently edited without being logged in, a quick follow-up edit while logged in (to claim the edit as his own) would have satisfied WP:SOCK. Unfortunately, LotLE's failure to acknowledge that the edit was his until now, under CU scrutiny, indicates deliberate deception. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

The edits made under the IP addresses 149.77.79.116 and 76.171.26.63 were indeed made by me. From the dates, the 149.* one seems to be from a hotel I stay at on business travel. The 76.* one looks like a local IP address, I think. I do not recall why I was not logged in when those edits were made... probably because of some weirdness with Wikipedia not keeping the login cookie when I use the SSL version (I've found this annoyance lately). In any case, none of the edits made with those IPs has anything to do with 3RR, edit warring, AfD votes, or anything else remotely connected to sockpuppet issues.

User:Xenophrenic is unrelated to me. I have edited some pages in common with him/her, and have generally been impressed by the quality of his/her edits, but that's the extent of the connection. I have never communicated with Xenophrenic, other than on talk pages on WP, and know nothing about him/her other than some of his/her edit history. LotLE × talk 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I'll comment here, since the unregistered IP user submitting this request doesn't appear to be accusing me of sockpuppetry. I do see he accuses me of reverting his edits; following Wikipedia policy; insisting on reliable sources; and failing to be attentive to every single edit on Wikipedia. Guilty as charged on all counts; but why are such observations made on this SPI page? Not only is he fishing, but he is doing so without bait. I don't even get the courtesy of totally irrelevant 'diffs' like those presented against LotLE. This would be a good time for the disgruntled unregistered IP user to retract my name from this harassment. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, since LotLE is jumping on the grenade (by accepting responsibility for both IP puppets), Xeno is off the hook. I'd like to compare this to the recent case of Noroton. He made a good faith effort to WP:CLEANSTART and ran afoul of a WP:SOCK technicality. No harm had been done to either the Wikipedia project or any other editor and he was still blocked for an extended period. In this case, LotLE was edit warring. His use of an IP puppet at ACORN deceived other editors into believing that his position in the edit war had greater support. He made no effort to correct this false impression until now, and I agree that his actions were therefore deliberately deceptive. His actions are more offensive than Noroton's technical violation, so his block should be at least as long as Noroton's, and I believe it should be longer. I suggest a 30-day block, followed by a one-year topic ban on all articles related to politics, like Grundle2600. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
IP account being used to create an illusion of support: to give the impression of more support for a position (in a content dispute) than actually exists. Requested by 71.57.8.103 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The IPs have admitted to be those of LotLE, and even the behavioral evidence and editing patterns for Xenophrenic are weak at best. I have to agree that such a check would amount to a fishing expedition more than anything else. MuZemike 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Case filed properly for the IP. NW ( Talk ) 21:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
Nothing to see here. Brandon (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)