LuvGoldStar
- LuvGoldStar ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date June 19 2009, 23:36 (UTC)
- Suspected sockpuppets
- LuvGoldStar ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Evidence submitted by SlimVirgin
I believe that LuvGoldStar ( talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet account, possibly one of the users topic-banned during the recent Israel-Palestine ArbCom case.
The account is more or less an SPA editing from a right-wing Israeli POV, with a few irrelevant edits thrown in for disguise. It was created on February 14, 2009, and has been used only sporadically for specific purposes: 39 times in February, 26 times in May, and 13 times in June. [1] For example, it was used on May 2 to oppose a "did you know" posted by Tiamut that was unfavourable to Israel. [2] It wasn't used again until June 16, when it again turned up to oppose a "did you know" posted by myself, also not favourable to Israel. [3]
He also mysteriously knows exactly when to turn up. For example, I moved a page title at 22:27 June 19 to a title including the term "Al-Nakba," a Palestinian term that several Israeli editors have opposed in the past. [4] Twenty-two minutes later, LuvGoldStar arrived to move it back [5] though he had not edited for 24 hours.
In case there's a connection, the account seemed to be editing in conjunction with Hadashot Livkarim ( talk · contribs) (also used sporadically e.g. nothing from August 2008 until June 2009), who was blocked a couple of days ago as a sockpuppet of NoCal100 ( talk · contribs). The person behind the accounts was topic-banned during the recent I/P case. [6] LuvGoldStar has focused on some of the same pages that NoCal100 focused on e.g. Exodus from Lydda and Ramla and Did you know?.
I requested a CU by e-mail a couple of days ago which turned up no technical evidence. This is a request for a checkuser for look again to see if a link to another account can be found. Even if no technical evidence exists, I see this as a sock- or meatpuppet so obvious it should be blocked, because it's being used only to cause problems. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by accused parties See Defending yourself against claims.
SliMVirgin has violated policy by not notifying me she has started this request for investigation. Her evidence here is non-existent, and amounts to "I believe this is a sockpuppet". The "problems" I am supposedly causing are my insistence that SlimVirgin edit in accordance with policy, e.g: by not falsely labeling her reverts] of other editors as "combining paragraphs", or that she take controversial page moves to Wikipedia:Requested moves rather than unilaterally moving them and edit warring over those moves. LuvGoldStar ( talk) 17:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comments by other users
- CheckUser requests
- Checkuser request – code letter: A + F (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and another reason)
- Current status –
Declined, the reason can be found below. Requested by
SlimVirgin
talk|
contribs 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
-
Clerk note: SV, if another account was operating on the same IP/range as LuvGoldStar, the CU you requested by e-mail would have turned that up. In order to compare other evidence, a CU will need specific accounts to check against. In your request did you cite specific editors that you think might be connected to LuvGoldStar? If you did, I'm not sure there is much more to check here - tossing in random accounts from the IP dispute would be classic fishing.
Nathan
T 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps the best thing would be to post a request for clarification. The ArbCom seemed quite keen to stamp out this kind of thing in the I/P arena, but we can't do that if we can't get CUs done. I hope you'll also take my point that, in my view, no CU is needed, because it doesn't really doesn't matter who is behind the account. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do take your point that the account might be blockable without a confirmed CU result. That would be a determination based on behavior, and more suited to an administrator noticeboard. In the absence of additional information linking LuvGoldStar to another, specific account (while you noted a connection to Nocal100 above, if a checkuser were likely to connect the two it would have been done in a prior case) and given that a CU has already been performed by off-wiki request, the request in this case is
Clerk declined.
Nathan
T 13:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do take your point that the account might be blockable without a confirmed CU result. That would be a determination based on behavior, and more suited to an administrator noticeboard. In the absence of additional information linking LuvGoldStar to another, specific account (while you noted a connection to Nocal100 above, if a checkuser were likely to connect the two it would have been done in a prior case) and given that a CU has already been performed by off-wiki request, the request in this case is
- Conclusions
- A browse through Special:Contributions/LuvGoldStar is convincing. Without going too far into WP:BEANS territory (though I will elaborate upon request), the likelihood that this is a genuinely new account is very close to zero. Couple the contributions of this specific account with the agenda-driven nature of its edits and the volume and breadth of sockpuppetry afoot on the topics of interest, and I think we're well past the line where administrative action is appropriate. I've indefinitely blocked LuvGoldStar ( talk · contribs), and asked the editor to use their main account, in the event that it has not already been subject to sanctions on the topic of interest. MastCell Talk 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
|
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. |
Sy n 23:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)