Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikethewhistle-original/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Splitting case from Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2020 (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 ✅ to :
 * (see list above)


 * . Please create a case for Mikethewhistle-original with this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Please bear with me. Mikethewhistle-original (and their socks) and I had long been involved in multiple content disputes until they were CheckUser-blocked for operating multiple accounts. One of these disputes involved, which led to multiple RfCs. Since then, there had been a content dispute involving a supposed divorce between Wallace and her husband, which has only been verified via unproven and/or unreliable sources. I explained in this edit summary that said sources are not sufficient for including exceptional claims such as divorces. SailedtheSeas, who has never edited Wallace's article, opened a discussion at the Teahouse–something Mikethewhistle-original and their socks frequently did–about divorces being exceptional claims. I believe that says it all. I'd like to request CheckUser to determine whether there are sleeper accounts. KyleJoan talk 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I'm not this other user, so please check. This is the 3rd retailatory complaint made by KJ with both other's closed without action including another sockpuupet closed with the comment "bad-faith, retaliatory SPI with no action" at here where the only similarlity is that people disagreed with KJ. Incidentally, after the sockpuppet issue was dismissed KJ went back twice to further argue for it.

I submitted a sockpuppet investigation this morning for KJ, and this is yet another example of retailiation (See here. Seven hours after KJ started a rfc an ip user made their first contribution with 2 of their 5 contributions being about the rfc and supporting KJ's vigorous advocated position. Then the KJ and the suspected sock replied within 3 minutes of each other to the sockpuppet inquiry.

And yes my teahouse question related to the Wallace's as I went to her page because her MSNBC was just expanded and I was curious about her and then her husband and saw material that's been on Mark Wallace's page for years removed by KJ by stating that divorce is an exceptional claim (See here. At the teahouse, and not my first visit, I was trying to get some clarity, but I've made no edits to either page despite wanting to. The link KJ gave on Wallace's page has nothing to do with divorce, so I'm not sure of the overlap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * User:KyleJoan shows a pattern of filing deliberately false, malicious sockpuppet and 3RR complaints. Admins immediately shot down her harassment filings against me here and here. I believe this editor is out of control.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * All sockpuppets are stale, so CU would be of no/little use. However, the out of nowhere wikistalking of KyleJoan, the writing style, it's all the same. Not to mention this sock registered about 2 days after the previous socks were all blocked. Sock blocked, tagged, closing. Sro23 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)