Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Comments by other users: @User:MarioGom @User:Nableezy: hatting most but not all of the timestamps Mario requested
Line 304: Line 304:
*While I did make an unlikely determination, I've reviewed it again. I looked at it again, and it probably ought to have been a {{possible}} at the time. These cases are fairly complex, such that CheckUser is unlikely to return anything strongly conclusive. (And in general, {{pixiedust}} is something to keep in mind.) I'd say that CU evidence doesn't rule out a connection, and if the behaviour is compelling, then a block is justifiable. As for the second account, it's almost stale, but from what I have, it's another {{possible}}. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
*While I did make an unlikely determination, I've reviewed it again. I looked at it again, and it probably ought to have been a {{possible}} at the time. These cases are fairly complex, such that CheckUser is unlikely to return anything strongly conclusive. (And in general, {{pixiedust}} is something to keep in mind.) I'd say that CU evidence doesn't rule out a connection, and if the behaviour is compelling, then a block is justifiable. As for the second account, it's almost stale, but from what I have, it's another {{possible}}. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
*Free1Soul is clearly not new, and has clearly gamed the 30/500 requirement, which in this topic area normally means they're evading a ban. Not entirely convinced they're Icewhiz, though there are some similarities. PRL Dreams has also gamed the 30/500 requirement in a remarkably similar way and has an interest in Poland, which is common to previous Icewhiz socks. I'm inclined to block both, though possibly not tag, but I'd appreciate any more admin/CU eyes. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
*Free1Soul is clearly not new, and has clearly gamed the 30/500 requirement, which in this topic area normally means they're evading a ban. Not entirely convinced they're Icewhiz, though there are some similarities. PRL Dreams has also gamed the 30/500 requirement in a remarkably similar way and has an interest in Poland, which is common to previous Icewhiz socks. I'm inclined to block both, though possibly not tag, but I'd appreciate any more admin/CU eyes. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
**Sod it. Nobody else has chimed in, which makes this more difficult, but I've blocked both accounts. There's ample evidence that they're not new editors and they've gamed the 30/500 restriction, which in this topic area almost always means they're evading a ban. Whether they're Icewhiz specifically, I'm less sure (probably 60% convinced versus the 90%+ that they're ''someone''{{'}}s socks). [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 21:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
*Nyx86 is {{possible}} to {{likely}} related to other Icewhiz socks based on technical evidence. With the behavioural evidence, I've blocked the account. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 19:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
*Nyx86 is {{possible}} to {{likely}} related to other Icewhiz socks based on technical evidence. With the behavioural evidence, I've blocked the account. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 19:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
*Droid I am has the same {{possilikely}} technical determination as Nyx86. With the behavioural similarity, I've indeffed the account. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
*Droid I am has the same {{possilikely}} technical determination as Nyx86. With the behavioural similarity, I've indeffed the account. '''[[User talk:Maxim|<span style="font-family:Arial"><span style="color:#FF7133">Maxim</span><sub><small style="color:blue;">(talk)</small></sub></span>]]''' 14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:36, 14 December 2021

Icewhiz

Icewhiz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive.


03 December 2021

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

Suspected sockpuppets

Previously blocked sock-puppets of Icewhiz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) utilized changing "a" to "an" and vice versa to reach 500/30 status. See:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc, etc, dozens more of the same

Recurring such edits can be seen in the edit history of Viking Drummer -->[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] etc, etc, dozens more of the same.

Recurring such edits in bulk (one after another) can be seen in the edit history of Astral Leap --> [20]

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

Recurring such edits in bulk (one after another) can be seen in the edit history of RCatesby --> [29]

Then !voted here -->[30] after Free1Soul.



Free1Soul !votes in line with recently blocked RCatesby at the same discussion:

  • Free1Soul -->[31] - (Notable authority on antisemitism..)
  • RCatesby-->[32] - (..highly regarded antisemitism expert..)

Free1Soul utilized the same tactic as the previously blocked sock puppets, which is --> changing "a" to "an" and vice versa to reach 500/30 status: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] etc, dozens more of the same.

Recurring such edits in bulk (one after another) can be seen in the edit history of Free1Soul: [47]

I believe this is just another sock puppet of Icewhiz. They most likely used a VPN service to make those edits in line with most of his sock puppets. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the administrator who just examined the latest report -->@Maxim - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thepharoah17 --> Please notice new behavioural indications such as !voting at the same discussion with the same substance (the same argumentation - antisemitism expert/authority). I’m aware of the previous report but this time please notice behavioural. I have no doubts these 4 accounts are connected and operated by the same person or pair of banned editors. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Additional note: (reacting to Sro23 remarks)

What are the chances of two entirely unrelated editors to inaugurate accounts on the same day 6 hours apart?

  • Free1Soul - Feb. 08/2020 [48]
  • Astral Leap - Feb.08/2020 [49]

What are the chances that Free1Soul performs 100's of identical edits changing "a" to "an" before reaching 500/30 status (one after another) in line with other blocked sock puppets of Icewhiz. These kinds of edits end when they get to the confirmed status. Again, perfectly in line with other blocked sock puppets of Icewhiz.

What are the chances that all of them eventually end up at WP:PIA or WP:APLECP with comments matching the same POV?

  • Free1Soul -->[54] - (Notable authority on antisemitism..)
  • RCatesby-->[55] - (..highly regarded antisemitism expert..)
  • Astral Leap -->[56]
  • VikingDrummer -->[57]

I believe it is logical and safe to conclude that we are dealing with abuse here and I encourage the administrating team to act on shown pieces of evidence to prevent additional disruption. If a deterrent step isn't taken again, the Free1Soul account will become legitimized and further disturbance/confusion are to be expected. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum:

Free1Soul account may also be connected to/shared with Yanniv -->[58] (meatpuppetry) since both master accounts cooperated occasionally. Icewhiz was highly engaged in defending Ynniv's block[59] to the point of calling it a shameful episode -->[60] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum numerus duo:

Free1Soul resumed editing [61] 8 minutes after Sro23 posted his/hers remark ..I'm not saying I personally believe a block would be appropriate at this time. In this case, I'm inviting Free1Soul to explain and answer my accusations --> @Free1Soul please defend yourself. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@User:Maxim and Sro23:

Okay, so we have a response from Free1Soul now. Please notice the composition, English abilities and Wikipedia formatting skills. Notice intentionally dropped "a" and "the" in the writing etc. Notice the way the diff's are presented etc.


I dont understand problem. User:Maxim checked almost same evidence on 20 October.

Over year ago I fixed a few dozens errors in nationality. It "a Jordanian", not "an Jordanian". It is "an Israeli" not "an Israelian" or "a Israeli". I fixed also other errors than just a and and an, like:

Iraqian; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_culture&diff=prev&oldid=974526506 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Amnah&diff=prev&oldid=974526028 and more

Arabian; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sameer_Abdulshaker&diff=prev&oldid=974708457 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohammed_Al-Husain&diff=prev&oldid=974708643 and more..


Now compare the above with one written by Free1Soul on October 16 [62] which is clearly those of a fluent English speaker, with excellent knowledge of Wikipedia formatting.

Icewhiz has a history of faking poor English abilities to avoid detection. Please take a look at my conversation with one of his now blocked sock puppets KasiaNL (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) here --> [63] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


(update)

Free1Soul corrected the bad gramma now:

−
I dont understand problem. [[User:Maxim]] checked almost same evidence on 20 October.
+
I don't understand the problem. [[User:Maxim]] checked almost the same evidence on 20 October.
−
Over year ago I fixed a few dozens errors in nationality. It "a Jordanian", not "an Jordanian". It is "an Israeli" not "an Israelian" or "a Israeli". I fixed also other errors than just a and and an, like:
+
Over a year ago I fixed a few dozens errors in nationality. It is "a Jordanian", not "an Jordanian". It is "an Israeli" not "an Israelian" or "a Israeli". I fixed other errors, not just a and an, like:
−
This is not the most of my editing. Most of my edits were to food articles. Probably most editors here fixed some a and an errors, it is common error.
+
This is not most of my editing, most of my edits were to food articles. Probably most editors here fixed some a and an errors, it is a common error.

Full changes can be seen here -->[64]. I'm done here for now. I might add more pieces of evidence later if required, but I believe those presented so far are satisfactory. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Post scriptum:

Perhaps one more piece of evidence will help:

  • Here is Free1Soul accusing user of introducing a hoax into Wikipedia:

In one case in these mass changes Nableezy introduced a hoax [65]

  • Here is Icewhiz doing the same:

..Wikipedia was one of several outlets in which the hoax was promoted.. [66]

Icewhiz is famous for unjustly accusing editors of adding hoaxes into the Wikipedia -->[67] - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

@GizzyCatBella: This has already been checked before. It was the last case in the archive. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepharoah17:, not entirely accurate. The CU was checked for F1S before but no admin ever made a definitive comment on the behavioral evidence, which GCB has presented in even more stark terms. There can really be no doubt at this point there is sock or meat puppeting. That makes this report ripe for evaluation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the problem. User:Maxim checked almost the same evidence on 20 October.

Over a year ago I fixed a few dozens errors in nationality. It is "a Jordanian", not "an Jordanian". It is "an Israeli" not "an Israelian" or "a Israeli". I fixed other errors, not just a and an, like:

Iraqian to Iraqi; [68] [69] and more

Arabian to Saudi or Arab; first in [70] and then fixed [71] [72] and more

Israelian; [73] [74]


This is not most of my editing, most of my edits were to food articles. Probably most editors here fixed some a and an errors, it is a common error.

I voted in Collier deletion just like I vote in other Israeli deletion like Isaak Hayik recently

36 editors edited the Collier deletion page. The word expert is 14 times on the page, including first keep and first delete votes.

I just watch the Israeli deletion listings, how is that wrong? Free1Soul (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Free1Soul you are saying above that: Probably most editors here fixed some a and an errors. Editors such as PRL Dreams (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)? They did a lot of such edits, one after another. Exactly the same as you -->[75] I'm sorry Free1Soul, perhaps that was a bad example. That one might be another sock puppet of Icewhiz. -->[76]


  • @GizzyCatBella: is absolutely correct when they say that the user Free1Soul appears to have few issues with their grammar when they don't want to, such as when making statements about other users, when they tend to be highly fluent and coherent, see any of [81], [82], [83] ... or just look for any instance where Free1Soul is engaged in a dispute and you will find little trace of the apparent language issues above.Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Self-striking following a complaint about my TBAN) Iskandar323 (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, unconvinced. Might be wrong, the KasiaNL one would have had me unconvinced as well. And apparently would have been wrong there. nableezy - 04:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy - You think it's Yaniv, I know. Icewhiz used to compose writings for Yaniv such as this Block Review that Yaniv later posted as written by him --> [84] <-- see? %100 written by Icewhiz. So I would not be astonished if Yaniv composes things for Icewhiz to post. But this particular sock-puppet is Icewhiz. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a bit more convinced. nableezy - 03:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do think that somebody can have both a good and bad hand account at the same time. Why is he running them? Well, look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_337#Jewish_Chronicle. By using so many accounts he was able to shift "consensus" on a topic he cares about. So no, not "obviously not", but "obviously yeS", because he has influenced RFCs, and AFDs, enforcement requests, with these so called throwaway accounts. By keeping Eostrix clean, and on its path to admin and CU, he would have been able to further influence the coverage of those topics that he cares about. Am I more concerned about the next Eostrix than I am the next Hippeus? Yes. But let's not forget that as Hippeus and 11fox11 and and and he was able to get a number of users topic-banned and warned. All these accounts serve the same ultimate purpose, that he uses different tactics with each does not change that. Im not entirely sure the point of this rant though, this page has a specific purpose, that being to investigate abusive sockpuppetry by a banned editor. If you dislike striking a sockpuppet's comments then you can raise that at some project page and give your argument for why a globally banned user's comments should be retained. I for one will continue striking the comments and reverting the edits of any sock of a banned editor I see, and I have a policy that supports that. nableezy - 17:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: Leaving the first few replies in this thread (15:38 12 Dec. – 17:47 13 Dec.) since they relate to identifying Icewhiz sox. Hatting mostly off-topic continuation. Please keep comments related to the topic of Icewhiz and his sockpuppets. There are any number of other venues to discuss the general philosophy of countering LTAs. Thank you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Levivich; as I said when the Eostrix. +++other accounts were unmasked; "I was 90%++ sure that Fox and Geshem were socks; but I thought that, say, 11Fox11 was far too stupid/emotional to be Icewhiz: he has either "loaned" that account out to others, or Icewhiz is really good a "dumbing down"."
And yeah; Icewhiz is good at "dumbing down"; I recall thinking about Icewhiz, that sometimes he acted like he had an IQ of 60; other times he edited as if he had an IQ of 140: I don't know any other contributor in the IP area who have had such a -varied- set of contributions. And yeah; stopping him and Nocal is the work of Sisyphus, but the alternative is worse: it is leaving Wikipedia to them. Huldra (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz has engaged in straight up harassment accounts, like their session from the 15 February 2021, where they created multiple accounts like WhizICE that posted material outing VM (since oversighted). Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that I actually posted my comment in the wrong SPI, I had both open, it was in relation to NoCal100 like Special:Contributions/Inf-in_MD, however both were open when following tracks of some recent events, not completely randomly. But IRT WP:BE, if LTAs can simply create more socks and resume where the last one left, what do these already less than ideal and repetitive processes serve? —PaleoNeonate – 04:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a functional difference between one lta and the next? "What do these already less than ideal and repetitive processes serve?" is the same question I have, and it applies equally to any lta but just to take one example from inf-in_md, who was an obvious sock, looking at Talk:Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign#Yet again?, I don't see the benefit of striking all those comments, it only draws more attention. Rather what I see is experienced editors arguing endlessly with an obvious lta sock. And I don't understand why, year and year, sock after sock, some editors argue with the LTAs, respond to their RfC comments, post in the AEs they start, go to their user talk pages, amass evidence like Perry Mason, and then strike out all the text they just helped write over the past however many weeks/months, only do it allll over again with the next round of obvisocks. How many hours did certain editors spend arguing with jungermanchipsahoy (or whatever that name was), across multiple pages for months, only to later do the same damn thing with inf-in and the others? I've been watching this for years now... why don't we all just try ignoring them? Like seriously, don't respond to their RFCs, don't comment on their AEs, just ignore them. Trust that (legit) voters and closers of RFCs and admins patrolling AE and ANI aren't going to get tricked by obvisocks. Anyway, that's why I don't think striking comments is one of the best ways to discourage socking; I think it might be one of the worst. I think it feeds the trolls. Levivich 05:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.conservapedia.com/Israel_Apartheid_slur <- What you get when ideologues have a free hand.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
why don't we all just try ignoring them? Many editors agree with the spirit of this (so does WP:DENY), but with WP:AGF and the way SPI requires behavioral evidence, it's always a time sink, of course... And when an editor unfamiliar with a particular article immediately notices previously struck comments with a note about who it was, it's clueful to evaluate future discussions by new (or "new") editors. —PaleoNeonate – 13:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I think sowing suspicions like that is counterproductive to building an encyclopedia and is what the trolls want to happen. Levivich 14:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking you to comment or otherwise waste your time on this or any other sockpuppet. This page has a specific purpose, to investigate prohibited uses of alternate accounts, in this case by a globally banned editor. Why do we argue with them? Because until they are blocked as banned editors their comments do impact our articles. You know that as well as I do. You know there are several instances where AE closers, AFD closers, RFC closers all were "tricked", and pretending that we should just have faith that they will not is disingenuous. Yes, Inf-in MD was an obvious sock. I knew it was NoCal from early September. And I reported him, and he remained unblocked, impacting articles, voting at AFDs, and manipulating AE (the game where NoCal reverts a 1RR violation to disallow any self-revert and another editor make the report is an old re-run, and it appears to have new participants). If you have some solution to the "obvisocks" besides letting them do whatever they want without consequence, Im all ears. But somewhere else. If you would like to discuss any topic besides whether or not these accounts are reincarnations of Icewhiz then please do it elsewhere. Can a clerk clean up this unrelated mess? I know User:Tamzin volunteered to aggressively clerk another SPI where users wax lyrical about things that are off-topic to them matter at hand, might that extend here? nableezy - 15:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every comment below 15:38, 12 December 2021 (inclusive) has nothing to do with this SPI report. I requested hat'ing on the talk page. The only waste of time here is this off-topic thread, which should stop. MarioGom (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Clerk declined - CU was already run on this account not too long ago. This investigation will have to be behavior based. FYI, aside from CU sockpuppetry blocks, "meatpuppetry" blocks (when two separate editors behave in the same manner), blocks for disruption, and WP:Here blocks are still all on the table, though I'm not saying I personally believe any of those would be appropriate at this time. Leaving that up to the judgement of the closing clerk/admin/CU. Sro23 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I did make an unlikely determination, I've reviewed it again. I looked at it again, and it probably ought to have been a  Possible at the time. These cases are fairly complex, such that CheckUser is unlikely to return anything strongly conclusive. (And in general,  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust is something to keep in mind.) I'd say that CU evidence doesn't rule out a connection, and if the behaviour is compelling, then a block is justifiable. As for the second account, it's almost stale, but from what I have, it's another  Possible. Maxim(talk) 14:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Free1Soul is clearly not new, and has clearly gamed the 30/500 requirement, which in this topic area normally means they're evading a ban. Not entirely convinced they're Icewhiz, though there are some similarities. PRL Dreams has also gamed the 30/500 requirement in a remarkably similar way and has an interest in Poland, which is common to previous Icewhiz socks. I'm inclined to block both, though possibly not tag, but I'd appreciate any more admin/CU eyes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sod it. Nobody else has chimed in, which makes this more difficult, but I've blocked both accounts. There's ample evidence that they're not new editors and they've gamed the 30/500 restriction, which in this topic area almost always means they're evading a ban. Whether they're Icewhiz specifically, I'm less sure (probably 60% convinced versus the 90%+ that they're someone's socks). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyx86 is  Possible to  Likely related to other Icewhiz socks based on technical evidence. With the behavioural evidence, I've blocked the account. Maxim(talk) 19:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Droid I am has the same  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) technical determination as Nyx86. With the behavioural similarity, I've indeffed the account. Maxim(talk) 14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz&oldid=1060332193"