Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

 * Note - the editor filing this report is now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. The suspected sockpuppet, Life.temp is also blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy, not of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (who remains an editor in good standing).  Wikidemo (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets

Fovean Author (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

user:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters making edits with the usual sarcastic comments, then stops. user:Life.Temp account immediately appears and begins an edit war with user:Kossack4Truth, an editor which user:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has demonstrated a problem with. user:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters immediately disappears.
 * Evidence


 * Comments

It wouldn't be an uncommon practice for one person to accuse another of behavior which that person is, him or her self, engaged in. Such examples of transferance serve the dual purpose of protecting the actual culprit, as he or she then refers to the legitimate accusation as a vindictive attempt at revenge.


 * You're accusing two accounts of being sock puppets because they both edit warred with Kossack4Truth, right? Could you provide some diffs to back up your claim and explain why they would indicate sock puppetry?  Also, it is not clear what you are getting at in your comments about reciprocal sockpuppet accusations.  I take it this is a reference to Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth, the earlier sockpuppet report in which you and Kossack4Truth were listed,   Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In this series of events, LuluOfTheLotusEaters makes an edit, K4T makes one after, then Life.Temp appears to take on an edit war with K4T, during which Lulu makes no appearance of any sort.


 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []

Fovean Author (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Lulu admits here that he is currently travelling, giving him access to multiple IP's, and on his personal page demonstrates his access to an offshore (Christmas Island) account: http://gnosis.cx/

Fovean Author (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't it considered polite to put a notice on my Talk page? I happened to see a reference to this in the article's Talk page (where it doesn't really belong). I've made two edits to the article in spirit. My first was broken in two parts only because I edited by section instead of by the whole article (would have been laggy, due to the size of the article). Then I did one revert. So saying I began an edit war is a distortion. I've made one edit and one revert. I've discussed the point in Talk, and it is grounded in established Wikipedia guidelines: . Fovean Author seems to be trying to "win" by harrassment via bogus admin complaints. He previously tried to turn this into a 3RR report: . A good solution would be to block him for harassment and disruption and generally wasting admin & editor time. Life.temp (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As truly despicable as the behavior is for all parties involved here, I do not see enough evidence to conclude there is sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (response to Life.temp) Yes, on the face of it User:Fovean Author's filing this report might seem to be some kind of payback directed against user:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for his having reported Fovean Author as a possible sockpuppet of User:Kossack4Truth( report here).  However,  assuming good faith we should hear Fovean Author out (in my opinion), let him / her make their case, and let any administrator reviewing this decide whether the allegations are reasonable or in good faith.  Fovean Author does seem to be upset about something and is lashing out elsewhere as well.  Blocks are normally to avoid future disruption, not for wasting time.  However, a look at Fovean Author's block history, and recent contributions may convince administrators that he/she is a long-term problem.  There is a recent warning of a long-term block by a concerned administrator, over the very issue of abusive conduct in the related sock puppet hearing.


 * Conclusions