Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nguyentrongphu (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 21 October 2021 (→‎AE cases of confirmed sockpuppets). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed

Original announcement
I've just updated the list of clerks, a third of the corps have moved on. I feel I should make an appeal reminding the CUs, existing & new, "we have particular need of applicants who are: ... Interested in mentoring editors who wish to become SPI clerks." Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as moving on - I'm not going to stick my feet on the desk and stop clerking. Indeed, I'd still like to earn my wings properly and get better at advanced clerking tasks - if anyone sees a case that needs manual merging and feels like walking me through the process, I'd be grateful. Girth Summit (blether) 14:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that General Notability has been doing a lot of mentoring of SPI clerks when he was an SPI clerk and one of the many reasons I'm excited about him as a CU was to be able to continue doing so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eostrix Blocked

Original announcement
Request for Adminship suspended
  • Yikes. Thanks, ArbCom and/or CU team, for catching that in time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was... unexpected. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What!? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate, but required. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icewhiz nearly became an admin? Wow. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • !!! Twist of the year, for sure. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel very stupid supporting him. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 01:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don’t please, that was a real deep cover. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am shocked and surprised. Thanks to the people who detected this. I thought that Eostrix was a good candidate and said so at length. I am also deeply disappointed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this is fairly shocking. I can only assure you all that there is ample evidence, which we obviously cannot share as it is both private and would only provide Icewhiz with more information as to how we were able to make this determination. Our investigation was fairly involved, far beyond a usual checkuser investigation, and we did consult with some members of the CU team for second opinions before acting. This was a very determined, carefully planned attempt to fool the community, and it nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox Forgive me if this is too private for public discussion, but is there a need to contact T&S? NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 01:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The T&S team has been alerted by the Committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Three members of the CU team evaluated the evidence and presented their thoughts. Of these, none were willing to give it a "confirmed" ruling, and two of the three emphasized that any potential block would have to be based on behaviour. – bradv🍁 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [This attempt to fool the community] nearly succeeded, probably would have if it weren't for one particular committee member who doggedly pursued this for quite some time, although it obviously acquired a sense of urgency when the account ran for adminship. I gather from this that some sockpuppetry evidence existed before the RfA, and was discussed privately within ArbCom for quite some time without being made public at SPI or elsewhere. It is proper for ArbCom to handle issues that cannot be described publicly, but I am wondering whether there is a "dark SPI" running in the background.
I suppose there is no way to show that the handling of the Eostrix case was justified without spilling much evidence. However I can ask the following question: how many cases of sockpuppetry based on private evidence, with a level of proof similar to pre-RfA Eostrix, are currently in the hands of ArbCom or its members, and how many are there typically at any given point in time? (An approximate number will suffice if the answer is above 5 or so). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 10:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comments that have been expressed above your message, I do not think it is realistic to expect the committee to say more than what they have chosen to say. I'm actually glad to see that the committee values privacy so highly, it prevents rumors from circulating. Once they are sure of the evidence, they act. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general note, I'd like to point out that there was no fault on the part of the nominators or the community. Without private evidence, there is just no way the community could have known. I very much appreciate that HJ Mitchell and GirthSummit put forth their talent as nominators. Neither the nominators or the community should beat themselves up for supporting. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 from me as well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While sad and shocking, I do have to commend ArbCom on acting as soon as they could. -- lomrjyo 🐱 (✉ • 📝) 01:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the saddest aspect is that this incident is likely to lead to increased skepticism and heightened scrutiny at RfA, which is aleady a grueling process. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. I wish I had more to offer in response, besides to point out the ongoing brainstorming portion of WP:RFA2021. --BDD (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this tell us that our current scrutiny perhaps focuses on the wrong things? —Kusma (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. This is making me feel like my crazy suspicions aren't so crazy. Which is very sad. I'd really rather just be kind of crazy. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And honestly, this right here is why working in SPI and the like gets downright exhausting: constantly wondering "is this new user too familiar with things? could this be (sockmaster) disguising themselves? am I just being paranoid/nuts?" GeneralNotability (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is crazy...gives me Archtransit vibes, but I'd never thought we'd nip it in the bud while the RFA was still going on! bibliomaniac15 02:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I voted support for both Archtransit and Eostrix, and now seriously doubt my judgement ... -- Euryalus (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I am guessing this is tongue in cheek @Euryalus. But more seriously I do not think people should be analyzing every RfA candidate through the lens of "is this person an abusive sockmaster?" That is not the way to a healthier community in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Barkeep49:Yes it is tongue in cheek. Fwiw Archtransit was in 2008 and of course Eostrix is today, so two similar cases in 13 years is not a bad record for en-WP. Hundreds of perfectly good RfA candidates have gone through over that time. So indeed, people should not let these two instances obstruct their usual approach to RfA . -- Euryalus (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a shocker and I hadn't even cast a vote yet. I'm glad this came out before the RFA was closed successfully. I am used to reading about this kind of situation occurring 15 years ago but a sockpuppet getting this close to adminship in 2021 is a big surprise. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting that this was not a unanimous decision. I opposed this motion as I don't believe that the evidence presented by my colleagues meets the burden of proof required to overcome the possibility of irrevocably destroying an innocent editor's wiki-career. I'm wary of revealing too much as I don't want to risk compromising Eostrix's ability to appeal, but in my estimation neither the technical nor behavioural evidence presented here would ordinarily be sufficient to justify a checkuser block. Furthermore, to believe that Eostrix is Icewhiz is to believe that Icewhiz is capable of behaving himself for over two years – editing only uncontroversial articles, not getting in personalized disputes with other users, not harassing, threatening, or doxxing his enemies. But Eostrix's edits demonstrate none of the attributes or interests usually shown by Icewhiz socks, and therefore I consider this connection dubious. – bradv🍁 03:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv, FWIW, I worked with Icewhiz on multiple occasions including on contentious articles and found them reasonable and easy to deal with. Icewhiz is absolutely capable of behaving. —valereee (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee I thought that at a point too, but his apparent attempt to manipulate me into opening a CCI on one of his "foes" last year convinced me that any of it is long gone. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Valereee's point is more that Eostrix's lack of interpersonal disputes and other negative behavior is not necessarily a strong indicator that Eostrix is not Icewhiz. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that there was basically no point to my comment, since I didn't mean to comment on Eostrix or anything, it was just an observation. I'll just strike it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PMC, yes, that was exactly what I intended, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is the aspect that surprises me the most, that Icewhiz could edit as productively and responsibly as Eostrix but chose not to in the past. I understand there is still some question about this identification but it I think many of our project's general conclusions about editor misconduct is that leopards don't change their spots and here, one did. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a more apt animal metaphor in this case? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will note that I share Bradv's concerns about the strength of the evidence and also did not support this motion. Part of this is because, as he notes in a reply elsewhere, our independent secondary CU assessments all sounded notes of caution and part of this is because a lot of the work here seems to be tied up in very Icewhiz specific analysis. That said I do respect that the overwhelming majority of ArbCom feel the evidence is strong and feel good about this decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I deeply appreciate Barkeep's and Brad's role in expressing their misgivings and their institutional role in holding us accountable, but let me go on record to say that I am one of those arbs who feel the evidence is strong (very very strong) and feel good about this decision. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like if it is actually Icewhiz, they will probably not bother to appeal, since the mere indication of a possibility that they are an Icewhiz sock would ensure that, even if they come back and succeed at RFA, anything they do in the ARBPIA topic area would attract scrutiny, which if this is Icewhiz would almost certainly defeat the purpose of running such a bizarre sleeper strategy. --Aquillion (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Icewhiz and why are they blocked? User:Icewhiz doesn't say. Banedon (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banedon Icewhiz is globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the kind of severe behavior that gets one globally banned. Real harm was caused to real people by Icewhiz and I 100% believe Icewhiz has no place on enwiki or any other Wikimedia related project. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy crap. What's really weird is I was working on the Icewhiz SPI earlier today and playing with https://masz.wmcloud.org/. Eostrix kept popping up as a possible Icewhiz sock in the masz output. I kept saying to myself, "That's stupid. Just another example of how these kinds of analysis are BS". Hmmm. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I wouldn't put much confidence in that tool. Icewhiz/Eostrix show a 0.48 connection, which is solidly in the realm of unlikely. If you look at your own results, for instance, you'll see 19 accounts with a score above 0.86. Do you have 19 socks? – bradv🍁 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I know. The first experiment I tried with the tool was running myself. But, you gotta admit, it was right on this one. Or at any rate, came up with a result consistent with ArbCom's finding. I'm still trying to figure out what to make of it. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my point is that the tool isn't right on this one. Or perhaps, that it is right and there's about a 48% chance that these accounts are operated by the same person. Either way, the data produced is quite useless and no one should ever be using it as evidence for a block in place of actual behavioural analysis. – bradv🍁 04:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I don't know enough about the tool to have formed an opinion. I descriptions I've read only give the vaguest details of how it operates. I am a scientist at heart. I want to see data. All I have now is one observation that makes me say, "Hmmm, that's interesting". Don't worry, I'm not blocking anybody based on what the tool says. But I'm also not discarding it as "quite useless" until I know more. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Bradv, that the tool did not give anything but a "huh, that's interesting" point of view. The similarity at 0.48 is small, especially since Eostrix had such a high level of automated edits. But, equally, it is interesting that no one else appeared higher than Icewhiz for Eostrix. I'm sure there is a potential tool there, and while I'm uncomfortable with the bigger picture which needs some thought - in this particular case, the link did not influence my opinion.WormTT(talk) 07:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm letting you know that Icewhiz has more likely sock puppet accounts. I keep a record of them and will let you know about them when the time is right and evidences are solid. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Known sockmaster has multiple socks: More at 11." --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's been caught with another sock (Astral Leap), bringing the total to 'seven'. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why Eostrix and Geshem Bracha are "arbcom blocked" while Hippeus, 11Fox11 and Astral Leap are CU blocked? Just that they were never voted on and blocked by the individual arb as CU? nableezy - 04:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, basically. As {{ArbComBlock}} indicates, the template is placed when a block is issued as a Committee action, usually the result of a case or motion. Logically, that does only apply to accounts for which the Committee explicitly decided as a body to block them. I think that's also why the template says "this account", not "this editor". Regards SoWhy 07:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I—oh my god. that's—quite the plot twist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope it goes without saying that I had no idea about these concerns when Eostrix approached me about running for RfA. I have not been involved in this investigation, and while I'm aware of who Icewhiz in general terms, I have no personal experience of them or any of their socks, so I have no view on the conclusion of the investigation. However, I thank the committee for their vigilance, and for the speed and sensitivity with which they have handled this situation. Girth Summit (blether) 05:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: I do not think anybody here blames you at the slightest. This was a good nomination, seemingly a good candidate with a clean record. Please keep looking for and nominating good candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I can see no way how you could have seen this when vetting a seemingly good editor for RfA. I really hope it won't deter you from making more nominations in the future. Regards SoWhy 07:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit - That person (Icewhiz) is an outstanding manipulator/fabricator and they are intelligent at the same time. Please do not feel bad for being deceived by them. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sincere thanks to those who worked on this investigation. I interacted a lot with Icewhiz when he was involved in ARBPIA. His almost unique combination of deep knowledge and total lack of integrity made him an extremely dangerous editor. I'm not at all surprised that he had the patience and sweet-talk ability to become an administrator. If Eostrix had been successful, his status as "uninvolved" in his real areas of interest would have severely damaged those areas. Probably Eostrix is not the only sock he has on that track; please be vigilant. Zerotalk 05:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who wasn't super active here during Icewhiz's editing tenure, is there something particularly bad about Icewhiz controlling this sock as opposed to any other LTA? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to Barkeep49's comment above and Zero0000's comment just above yours. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just say that Icewhiz is one of our worst harassers, right up there with GRP and Grawp. All three have caused severe damage in their victims' real lives. JavaHurricane 06:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JavaHurricane For those of us with less than perfect memories, who are GRP and Grawp? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Roy, both have LTA pages – Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Projects and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis, respectively. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just thought I'd weigh in here, as I have a bit of a unique perspective. Firstly, the support for this motion was not unanimous as Bradv has in no uncertain terms pointed out, but it had the majority of full committee support, and shouldn't be re-litigated here where not all the evidence is available. Now to my unique perspective - I make no secret that I dislike the "whack-a-mole" style of sock hunting, I do believe in an open encyclopedia and that chasing after many banned users is not worth our time. To be clear, this is no sleight on the checkuser team, or those who work at SPI, as I believe you are all excellent editors
    It is in that spirit that I wrote User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return, the pragmatic approach of live and let live. The encyclopedia gets a productive editor, the community can stop chasing, win-win. There are, however, editors who need to be shown the door and that door should not be revolving. I was around and involved during the Icewhiz case but it was the behaviour that came after that was beyond the pale. I was painfully aware that Icewhiz would quite happily act very differently on different accounts, and on one particular off-wiki account, I saw some dreadful harassment.
    To those who supported the RfA in good faith - you did nothing wrong - nor is your judgement in question. This was a tough decision, but I firmly believe it is the right one. WormTT(talk) 06:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse my irony in commenting to say this, but let's not platform this too much more - what more is there to say? I don't think they deserve any more of our time ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 07:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks to ArbCom for their intervention here, and I agree with others that any potential result at the RfA really shouldn't be seen as the voters fault. ArbCom dealt with private evidence of socking as they do, and it just so happened that the candidate ran for adminship in the middle of it. Personally, I think it seems as if the system is working well. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 08:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is frightening. This account was the subject of a snowball RfA. Now we know that the puppetmaster was Icewhiz, whose work focused on advancing a tendentious agenda in articles in two topic areas under active arbitration (WP:APL and WP:PIA). It it therefore likely that the puppetmaster’s reason for a sudden interest in owls in his new account was as a cover to advance his ideology at WP:AE once accepted as an admin. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC) moved from Special:Diff/1050854322. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Bradv's comment above ...to believe that Eostrix is Icewhiz is to believe that Icewhiz is capable of behaving himself for over two years. I had the pleasure of working with Icewhiz for most of his two year history - he is intelligent and polished, but also devious, dangerous and obsessed. He would have revelled in this deceit. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahn! This is quite the plot twist! Princess of Ara 08:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your vigilance. Icewhiz caused much damage to Wikipedia and harmed numerous editors, while scaring away others from editing with his aggressive tactics and racism. I shudder at the thought of him gaining admin tools.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worm. Re 'I dislike the "whack-a-mole" style of sock hunting.' Of course, that pursuit can be read as nasty. But consider that long term I/P editors have had to quietly put up with, assuming agf, 560 socks, often tagteaming, as they endeavour to build articles constructively. Most are apparent from the word go, etc. I can think of a dozen solid and constructive editors hounded or banned from the area, after a sock made an AE/ANI mountain out of a picayune molehill. In that area we have 5 known (reported in RS newspapers) declared intents to organize and influence I/P editing so that it will favour one national actor in the conflict. So the socking is not aleatory, random, a matter of some guys out there acting independently to alter articles they personally dislike. Sock-hunting is almost mandatory for the place to remain minimally workable.Nishidani (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani, I understand the need for sock hunting, especially in LTA and tag-teaming, and this is probably not the best place for the discussion, certainly happy to continue at my talk page or yours. WormTT(talk) 10:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Is going on? A sockpuppet of Icewhiz? Are you sure Eostrix isn't just sharing an IP address? What did Icewhiz even do that made him so terrible? If it is truly terrible, it should go on the long-term abuse noticeboard. And you closed a 99% RfA as unsuccessful! Chicdat (talk • contribs) 10:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, Icewhiz is a ArbCom-banned and later WMF-banned user. For more info, see Barkeep's comment above, or the ArbCom ban discussion. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Giraffer: Barkeep said: Icewhiz is globally banned by the Wikimedia Foundation due to the kind of severe behavior that gets one globally banned. What, if I may ask, is that severe behavior, in Icewhiz's case? Chicdat (talk • contribs) 10:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki harassement of multiple Wikipedians. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [EC] As an editor in the ARBPIA topic area, I interacted with Icewhiz and played a part, though perhaps not significant, in his being banned. Hippeus, one of the sockpuppets banned today, raised this AE request about me on 25 September, which concerned talkpage comments stretching back some years. As regards deviousness, Hippeus/Icewhiz first shredded the talkpage comments using what look like bogus justifications, so that the context of my comments could not easily be seen, then presented a highly skewed account of them at AE. Geshem Bracha and 11Fox11, two other Icewhiz sockpuppets banned today, were then used to make statements in support of the request in the Discussion section. One result of the request was that Nableezy was given a caution for commenting about "garbage accusations" and "socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries." In the light of the latest sockpuppet investigations and also of one of those accounts having subsequently raised a request against Nableezy himself, I think that it's worth thinking again about the justifiability of what Nableezy wrote.     ←   ZScarpia   10:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, ZScarpia, my caution was much more geared toward Nableezy's multiple subpar follow ups than that original comment, per se. I don't think I knew any of those Iced Cream users prior to that request at AE (possibly). In fact, I'm not sure I ever encountered you, at least prior to my great insights on Zero's talk page (diff). Anyway, I don't think this is place to relitigate that AE complaint. El_C 12:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a description of what I was trying to do, the word 'relitigate' is a poor choice. I appreciate that, in areas such as ARBPIA, admins are caught between deeply entrenched sides. However, I think that they should have their eyes open to the various ways that Wikipedia is manipulated to favour particular narratives. Something to think about is that we may have just avoided a situation where sockpuppets of a banned user raise administrative requests, then comment on them in the discussion, then arbritrate on them in the result section (or perhaps that is already happening, we have no way of knowing!).     ←   ZScarpia   13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking too much, ZScarpia. Short of omniscience on the part of the, what, less than 20 admins who frequent AE, what do you expect to happen, in practice? An emphasis on a vague stance like that, if anything, might just reduce the number of AE admins even further due to a damn-if-you-do, no-good-deed, etc. But, more specifically, my point to Nableezy wasn't against that description per se. (of which I had no knowledge). Rather, it was about them saying it just declaratively, without any accompanying substance or evidence (even most basically, about whom it concerned). And, I'd have left it at that had it not been for the multiple subpar responses that followed on their part. El_C 13:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few thoughts from me (for those who don't know, I was - still am - one of the main targets of Icewhiz harassment on and off-wiki, and I occasionally spot and report some of his socks when they stumble upon "our" old battleplaygrounds):
    • Wow. Eostrix was not on my radar. But as can be seen from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz/Archive, it is clear he pursued the strategy of "going legit" often. This is probably a side-effect of 500/30 protection, which he needed to do anything serious in some of his favorite TAs anyway. I guess he figured out that if he goes to that much trouble anyway, making a few hundred "innocent and helpful" edits over a few months, why not double up on them and try to go get an admin sock too? And yes, this also illustrates a flow in the RfA system related to what I raised in the recent RfC here. Old hands are often too controversial to pass, so we increasingly look for "new, perfect editors". This can and obviously is gamed, but at the same time, it's not like we have a good solution. People who endorsed this candidature were just duped by a master, wiki-savvy manipulator. Praise goes to the vigilant few who caught this in the proverbial nick of time. What can we learn from this? IMHO that Wikipedia's enemies are becoming increasingly "weaponized" and sadly, we need to more vigilant. For example, I'd endorse CU on every RfA candidate, and frankly, I'd also endorse a requirement for them to disclose their real life identity either to ArbCom or Trust&Safety. This was TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT, folks - particularly when we consider various other recent wiki-scandals such as the Chinese chapter takover/fight, etc.
    • While 4 of the 5 blocked accounts are pretty much unknown to me, one, Astral Leap, has. I called it a likely Icewhiz sock long ago. I presented behavioral analysis here but at that time it was to all appearances ignored. I do wonder if the Committee was aware of my analysis or did it fall into the cracks. If so, I think we need a new system to "record" concerns/evidence/etc. I'll also add that as someone who spent many hours - perhaps 10+ collecting and submitting behavioral evidence about Icewhiz socks to SPI/ArbCom, I am quite dispirited that almost always the outcome is a "black hole". While some (come to think, almost all...) of the accounts I report I eventually blocked, I don't recall that I was ever told even "thank you", much less "your evidence was helpful", and of course, I received zero suggestions on how to improve my evidence, if it was lacking. I still don't know if my occasional analysis to SPI/Icewhiz are appreciated or seen as a total waste of time and ignored without being read. From my perspective, this is not an efficient use of community resources (in this case, non-admin inputs). LTAs like Icewhiz are an obvious threat to the community, but at least some tools we have access to in theory (i.e knowledgable editors like me) are not treated properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our tools and available horsepower for dealing with this sort of threat are very weak. Requiring a CU on every RFA might help, as would identifying to T&S (please don't go the route of ArbCom with that; they are decidedly abusive as is, and have had significant leaks in the past). However, there would be even fewer RFA candidates, and we're already at historic lows. The tighter we squeeze, the more sand slips through our fingers. Sadly, we cannot catch everyone. The route ahead likely isn't to beef up efforts to catch every existing and future LTA that has become an admin, but figure out ways to prevent or at least minimize such an account from causing damage. Otherwise, in some sense, Icewhiz 'wins' by virtue of throttling RFA even more than it already is. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a requirement to provide real names would work, because (1) neither ArbCom nor T&S has the facility to check them, (2) a real name would mean little unless it is a public figure (what's the use of knowing that someone is called "Joe Blow"?), (3) real people can make socks too. Arbcom should consider whether having a routine CU requirement for RfA candidates is a good idea. Zerotalk 12:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, don't think that would work. Would likely just run off people like me who don't think that essentially outing their identities to ARBCOM is a great idea, and it's too easy to David Ashley Parker from Powder Springs something like that anyway. Hog Farm Talk 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy shit! What da... jp×g 12:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geshem Bracha and 11Fox11 were Icewhiz socks? I'm totally astonished. (I'm not at all astonished, in reality.) Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope T&S get law enforcement involved. I've been told off-wiki about some of the abuse Icewhiz dished out to people, and recently looked at this report (and the related Panorama episode). Some people think it's okay to dish out sick and threatening abuse, that ought to have got at least a police caution in the pre-internet world, but now get the police shrugging and saying they can't do anything about it. The Murder of Hannah Foster happened on what was my regular route to the pub for ten years previously. If Esotrix isn't Icewhiz, he needs to appeal now. If he is, my thanks go to Arbcom for catching it. For anyone who supported the RfA (like me), don't worry about it. I wrote in to Jim'll Fix It aged ten, as did thousands of other children. You live and learn. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't going to be an appeal. An editor being gone from Wikipedia during their RFA is a very unusual thing. It has happened (medical issues usually), but it is quite rare. The RFA is a time of their choosing. At this point, we're ~12 hours past the block being applied. If there were going to be an appeal, we would have heard something already. The silence is deafening. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have ArbCom said they haven't appealed yet? Perhaps, no one has asked them yet. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We've received no appeal. But it's been less than 12 hours. If Eostrix is considering an appeal it might take days for him to put it together. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see suggestions of CUing RfA candidates and requiring identification, and on Discord there has been discussion of random CUs of advanced perm-holders. These suggestions are well-intentioned, but frankly, I do not think these will help. They're in the same category as several airport security measures (particularly thinking of "take off your shoes at security"): they would prevent the exact same tactic from working again, but the "bad guys" are just going to try a different tactic next time and it'll just inconvenience everyone else. I also note that some of our more advanced LTAs and sockpuppeteers already know how to evade CU, so I would expect this to actually be a net negative from the false sense of security we'd get from a "clean" CU result. I can't speak as much to identification, but I'm skeptical of how useful it is (considering that the Foundation accepts pseudonymous signatures on non-public information agreements). Assuming the majority of ArbCom is correct that Eostrix == Icewhiz (I haven't seen the data involved, so I am not making a judgment there), we've had one LTA manage to keep up a facade long enough to make a nearly-successful run at adminship in recent memory. One. Any changes we make need to be made thoughtfully and with clear heads, not as a knee-jerk reaction to an emotional incident. We should remain vigilant, of course, but we cannot act hastily due to fear and paranoia. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one note. There is one that we know of. Not necessarily just one. I think the people who have found themselves on the receiving end of Icewhiz's on and off-wiki, ummmm, shenanigans find just how close he became to becoming an "uninvolved admin" in these topic areas more than just a little concerning. And yeah, I would like some sort of safeguard against that. I had to give my finger prints so I could stop taking my shoes off at the airport. Seemed like an ok deal to me. nableezy - 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't an audit show that TSA's procedures were basically entirely ineffective? [1][2] Seems like security theatre, esp in light of what Maxim wrote here ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only security we have is closing an unlocked door, you would just say they can open it anyway, just leave it wide open? If the only security we had is locking the door, you'd say they can pick it anyway, just leave it unlocked? If the tools we have are not sufficient then we should be looking for better tools. Not saying eff it nothing works just leave it how it is. nableezy - 13:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Things do work: proper targeted investigations, like the one seen here. What we shouldn't do is implement indiscriminate invasive measures to 'help' prevent extremely rare cases, especially when those measures don't even help. See: politician's fallacy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is much easier to take that position not having been on the receiving end here, and the comfort in that he was blocked two days before being promoted to admin is tempered by holy crap he was two days from being promoted to admin. nableezy - 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This. Regardless of the systems we have in place, whatever they may be, there will always be people who try to abuse and circumvent them. But they worked here: Eostrix was under investigation before and during the RfA, and action was taking to prevent him becoming a sysop – he wasn't only detected as an Icewhiz sock halfway though. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 13:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strenuously oppose requiring identification for simple adminship (it's far too much and we need a lot of admins; having many admins reduces the impact of any possible shenanigans anyway.) But I do think that having someone at least glance at the CU results for an admin candidate to see if there's any glaring red flags is reasonable. Yes, it has some slight privacy implications, but to my understanding CUs are already permitted to check results as they wish and are strictly bound to not reveal them; the privacy impact is slight, affects a relatively small subset of users, and is a reasonable trade-off for requesting advanced permissions (whereas "completely reveal your real life identity" simply for adminship is absolutely not.) I'm generally in support of privacy, but the amount of stuff a CU sees is something that you flatly reveal to any website you visit; as long as it's kept strictly confidential among CUs themeslves, it is not a huge tradeoff. --Aquillion (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I have had some off-wiki communication from Eostrix, who denies flat out that he is Icewhiz, who he calls a "despicable person". However, he is stuck on what to write as an appeal, as he has enough experience of SPI cases to know that simply saying "I'm not Icewhiz" won't work and hasn't got a clue how to prove his innocence to the satisfaction of Arbcom.

Eostrix, the only way to appeal is to email arbcom-en@wikimedia.org and give as much information as you possibly can. I can't help you. It has been further suggested that it may be possible to appeal to Jimbo Wales. I'm not sure that'll be successful, but just putting this out there as a further option. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Just thinking out loud) If arbs and CUs weren't all sure that the evidence is conclusive, perhaps you could have just let things go on and see what the editor does with the admin tools? Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Therein lies a problem. We could see what the editor does with the admin tools, but at this point I cannot see how that individual would attempt to use admin powers in Israel-Palestine or Antisemitism in Poland arb enforcement. It would be the equivalent of wiki-suicide, even for a completely innocent user. A smart puppetmaster would also know this and avoid those areas like the plague (at least for enough time so as to build credibility, and that may be a while). If they are prepared for a long con, as ArbCom concluded, then this wouldn’t actually resolve the issue. The other problem is that Icewhiz is blocked by the WMF (for off-wiki shenanigans f I understand correctly), so if the evidence meets the (implicit) burden of proof for sockpuppetry, then ArbCom’s hands are tied. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Some things an admin can do (i.e. deleting pages or blocking users) can easily be undone. The loss of confidence and goodwill these actions can cause is much harder to undo. Admins also have the ability to see deleted (but not supressed) material; this leakage of information can never be undone. For somebody with a long-term agenda and the patience to run a multi-year campaign, it's not hard to imagine that gaining access to a particular deleted edit might be their goal. As far as I know, viewing deleted material isn't even logged anywhere unless it's actually undeleted (maybe it should be?) so this would be undetectable. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just about the tools. Editors are encouraged to seek help from admins. For example, we recommend that in cases of off-wiki harassment, "A better option may be to directly email an administrator you trust, via the link on their user page. This ensures greater discretion." Above, we're told that "Icewhiz is one of our worst harassers, right up there with GRP and Grawp. All three have caused severe damage in their victims' real lives." Imagine victims unwittingly sending their email addresses and concerns to Icewhiz. NebY (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an odd dissonance with the 'personalities.' Take for example 11Fox11's amateurish attempt to weaponize AE and contrast that with Eostrix' long, tempered course. Granted, once '11Fox11' realized the tide was decisively against them, they quickly withdrew their AE complaint. Possibly, it's just a gap of knowledge about AE and I'm reading too much into it. Still, eerie. Because on the one hand, we got said long view by Eostrix, and on the other, we have 11Fox11's I am writing up the AE report beginning 5 minutes from now — which is a major self-own. El_C 14:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing eerie, surely, in theory about the possibility of a single person creating two different profiles, one for ground warfare in controversial articles, all aggro, and another groomed with singular concentration to put across a profile of equanimity gauged to win votes in an eventual bid for adminship. I say this having no opinion on the present editor's relation to Icewhiz. In any police duet, roles can be changed according to which of the two will play one part in a 'good cop/bad cop' grilling. There's a whole literature on how people project different identities according to the contexts they separately frequent. Urbane men have killed their wives. Impossible mothers can be viewed as marvelous company in adult social groups etc.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as I mentioned above, Jimmy Savile did an extraordinary amount of charity work, was praised by the Prime Minister, had long-running TV and radio shows, and was knighted, which is about as high as award as you can get in British society without being in the aristocracy. Then look what happened.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For you Americans out there of a certain age, like me, grew up watching The Cosby Show. You may have heard a choir sing I Believe I Can Fly at a graduation ceremony. And look where we are now. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I will note, now that I look at it, Eostrix's XTools shows pretty mechanical behaviour (userspace: 2,090 edits to CSD log, next most edited is just 54; projectspace: 1,339 to UAA and 140 to AIV, then no other projectspace pages with more than 100). Very little major activity outside these few areas, which admittedly does seem strange for two years tenure. Though it does make sense if the sole purpose of the account, since creation, was to build towards adminship. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the personality dissonance would be more confusing if Eostrix had been involved in I/P editing or dramaboard participation: keeping consistently cool in such a situation would be very difficult, I imagine. Keeping a totally clean account, especially while controlling other more openly tendentious accounts, seems doable. signed, Rosguill talk 15:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Icewhiz, the original account, was invariably cool in the I/P topic area. I dont think he was ever actually sanctioned once under ARBPIA for that matter. nableezy - 15:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That wasn't what I was pointing to, Nishidani. What I tried to highlight was the contrast between how poorly thought out 11Fox11's crude attempt was and the near-flawless sophistication of the Eostrix execution. And then we also have Astral Leap, somehow, who acted just plain unhinged at times. So, it is eerie to me. But maybe I'm just emoting. I dunno. El_C 15:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In one of the discussions it was strongly pointed out as likely that Icewhiz does lend his sockpuppets to some trusted users that are working with him together. I believe one sockpuppet account changed back and forth from poor grammar to quite advanced English during its edits.There were also cases where users with problematic behaviour in Polish area topics, with poor English skills created edits or whole articles suddenly in quite good English with "Icewhiz style" content(ie. bashing Poland, showing it as equal to Nazi Germany etc)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that probably answers that, then, MyMoloboaccount. In that case, those individuals are likely to have some tactical agency, which would explain that misstep. El_C 15:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What MyMoloboaccount pointed out re Icewhiz is well known in the IP area. There is one eminently respectable long term editor whose grasp of English varies dramatically from inept to flawless depending on context. No names. One lives with it. There is no reason to suspect, in that case, socking, though copy-and-past meatpuppetry might come to mind as a possibility. But then again. I manage to do both myself, depending on time of day and drinking rituals. The bother is minimal and one learns to live with it.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani, RE: There is one eminently respectable long term editor whose grasp of English varies dramatically from inept to flawless depending on context — I'm not eminently respectable! El_C 17:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I believe Nishidani is referring to a well known editor in the I/P space, whose language shifts between B-minus-high-school-level-English-as-a-second-language, and flawless-native-speaker. I have wondered for a long time about that particular editor, but have not acted on those suspicions. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zero point bringing this up here, probably negative point, @nish and once. nableezy - 19:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well weren't they effective? 11Fox11 was used to get one user topic banned and agitated for others and stoked a handful of edit-wars. Hippeus got a logged warning against another long term Icewhiz target as well as an exceedingly wide topic ban imposed on another. There a couple of things that make me think that Eostrix is indeed Icewhiz ([3] and some obsessive use of parentheses), but honestly havent spent a ton of time looking. But the idea that each sock was not effective to me is inaccurate. nableezy - 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying those accounts were ineffective (or effective), though in a deeper sense they are. As I've told multiple Icewhiz socks: ultimately, he's damaging his own POV position. A POV position which actually largely mirrors my own POV — at APL, that is, at ARBPIA my view is more nuanced. About ARBPIA, the overwhelming majority of the Icewhiz socks I've encountered were APL SPAs rather than ARBPIA ones (though there is overlap), but again, MyMoloboaccount's answer might account for this recent influx. El_C 15:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I haven't seen the evidence and can't come to a conclusion but I took a spin through contribs and this edit, to take one example, is pretty damning in my view. There are very few people who would make that edit (and I'm one of them). Levivich 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Very few people'? That diff points to a sensible revert, and it is irrelevant whether Icewhiz or whoever did it. There is nothing POV about it, but a sane summary of the facts. Many socks make good edits at times.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it more speaks to the confidence in subject matter knowledge and wikipedia chops it takes to step in on such a sensitive, niche topic and make an NPOV correction. Many people who have the writing and research skills necessary to make the edit would not have the guts to do it and risk whatever edit war or name calling that may ensue. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Also it's a very obscure article, and there's who they're reverting (Piotrus), and the timing of the revert (within three minutes), on an article they've never edited before or since (though IW did). I agree it's a good edit, I'd have made it myself, but there are less than ten people (maybe less than five who are not banned) who would legitimately be in a position to make that edit. Levivich 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich - I understand you changed your mind about letting go "of the Ghost of Icewhiz"[4] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel like one of the worst parts of these sorts of persistent sockpuppets that target a particular topic area is the distrust they sow; it's harder to edit when you have to constantly wonder if the new user is another IceWhiz sock. At the same time, we do have to recognize now that while not every new editor who holds IceWhiz' views was a sock, it did turn out that a fairly shockingly high percentage of them were. Just looking at one recent AE report, 2/3rds of the people who weighed in on one side was Icewhiz. Likewise, here, 2/3rds of the people on one side are Icewhiz. (I will point out that the third editor is the same in both cases - which is important because it shows that Icewhiz was using socks to create the illusion of support for positions that few legitimate editors actually held.) AE is not a vote, obviously, but it's clear that Icewhiz felt that doing that increased his chances of removing editors he disagreed with. --Aquillion (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How the heck is Icewhiz able to create & use sock puppets, if he's globally banned? GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thought that comes to mind is "lol". The second thought after reading a few comments here (tl;dr) is "bwahaha". And the third thought is "damn! That's pretty damming". It also make feel exactly like valereee: makes me feel like my crazy suspicions aren't so crazy. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appealing to Jimbo Wales sounds like a bad plan to me. Imagine the brou-ha-ha if Jimbo uses the "founder" bit, or whatever he has now, to reinstate Eostrix against the wishes of ArbCom. I'd suggest the only route available is to somehow convince ArbCom that Eostrix is indeed nothing to do with Icewhiz. That may be tricky, given that the "evidence" under which they were found out is classified. I'm not even sure what my first course of action would be if I were to somehow end up falsely accused of being a sock of a long-term-abuse account...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, Jimbo explicitly has the power to overrule Arbcom in cases that don't involve his actions, and Icewhiz attempted to appeal a past topic ban to Jimbo, however they were blocked for unrelated reasons before the appeal could be resolved. This has nothing to do with the technical "founder" bit. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no chance that Jimbo will actually do that in the face of the community, arbcom, and Trust and Safety all saying he shouldn't be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, JW prefers to play the figure head role, Swedish monarchy style. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He said in that Icewhiz appeal that in this case, as with all cases, I'm not going to hear an appeal or second guess ArbCom unless there is some very significant reason to do so.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, very interesting. A sort of prerogative of mercy granted to the Lord Protector Sir Jimbo of Wales. I suppose like many figureheads his powers are limitless, but in practice they're almost nonexistent.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the major problems is that Icewhiz and NoCal100 have taken the piss out of the community for so long now that any new-ish account with a certain POV (especially if they get involved with ARBPIA-related issues) is assumed by many admins to have a high probably of being their sock. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's likely a wider issue with editors and admins that have been around a while[5][6]. If you're reasonably adept at editing, familiar with wikis, have IP editing experience, are decent at searching out policy and guidelines, or any combination thereof, many people will assume you're a sock. All of the work that goes into searching for and fighting LTAs also has the effect of scaring off and angering new users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what I mean at all. For example, an editor that makes multiple gnoming edits to reach 30/500, and then goes straight for ARBPIA (or anyother controversial area). Or a editor that edits for a while and then tries to drag certain editors to AE; such editors, of course, being the main ones on the "opposing side" to IW or Nocal. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a specific case, but I think it's part of a wider issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not even a specific case (although one current one matches it). There have been many, especially when you expand the "controversial areas" outside ARBPIA. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're actually in agreement. There are so many LTAs and socks that show up, and so many editors with different experiences with them, that it's easy for an editor to see someone who fits some pattern they recognize, i.e. new-ish account with a certain POV involved in ARBPIA-related issues as a sock or LTA. It's a hard situation because often times it is a sock or LTA, but if it's not you're biting a newbie.
    Luckily I stuck it out, and now that I have a bit more experience I see that there is really a LOT of socks and LTAs all over the place. I don't hold it against the people who questioned me when I had just started my account, or who wouldn't grant an IPBE, because now I see how common the issue is. The more time I spend on Wikipedia, the more of it I see, the more I'm starting to assume new editors may be socks. It's a bad feedback loop, and unfortunately I don't see an easy way out of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way out is to simply be patient, provide the talk page with reasoned arguments, using the best RS available even if you suspect your interlocutor may be a sock. The weakness of sockpuppets is that they don't seem generally to know much about the topics, they concentrate on the POV of leads (apparently not reading further or calculating that readers don't get beyond that) and tend to obsess about a single datum in an attritional manner etc. The more familiarity with the topic, the less cogency much of this rather passive aggressive posturing. This is certainly true in the I/P area where first class academic works on virtually everything abound, thanks to Israeli and diaspora scholarship. In this area, the POV warrior has, in terms of quality sources, very little to go on. And I think that would be true of any other area of historical interest.Nishidani (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a common issue in these topic areas in fact, going over my browser history, I believe I was suspicious of 11Fox11 in the past, since it looks like I spent some time examining their edit history and checking their interactions with various users. Anyone who has edited ARBPIA or AP2 for any significant length of time knows the experience of seeing a new user appear and immediately leap into long-running disputes with strident views, detailed knowledge of Wikipedia practice, an eerie sense of familiarity, and an aggressive willingness to push to the limits of but never beyond the restrictions of the Wikipedia policies that are more easily enforced. This is frustrating because I think not all such editors are necessarily returning socks (the reality is that the underlying culture wars, by their nature, churn out people with very similar views; and sometimes a "new" account can not actually be new while still being legitimate), but enough of them turn out to be sockpuppets when closely inspected that I'm quite certain a large number are ones who I just don't know who to compare them to or who are just being careful enough to avoid obvious overlap and tells. If they were behaving themselves it wouldn't be such a big issue, but many of them feel like they're continuing the behavior that got them banned - the reality is that many things (WP:CIVILPOV in particular, as well as certain specific kinds of incivility) can take a long time to get banned for. Those are the cases where I feel ban-evasion causes the most trouble and wasted time for editors. Right now I'm asking myself "what could I have done to catch 11Fox11 when I first suspected them?" and short of "flat-out guess it was Icewhiz, push for a CU on those grounds and somehow convince someone to run one despite a lack of enough evidence to really convince myself", I'm drawing a blank. Especially since based on what people are saying, the evidence is equivocal enough that it might not have gone anywhere even if a CU was run. --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any updates from T&S? Lomrjyo (publican) (taxes) 17:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lomrjyo: It is unlikely that we will hear from them soon (if at all). They generally don't publically comment on specific cases. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Eostrix weren't Icewhiz, I wonder how they'd prove it—i'm assuming they don't get to see evidence against them, so how does it work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ( Peanut gallery comment) I don't have high hopes for anyone blocked under SPI, hence the need to be absolutely sure when making blocks for sockpuppetry. It is even rarer for those blocked by the Committee or under CheckUser evidence to get unblocked down the road with protestations of innocence; most successful appeals are because the essence of the request was "I made a mistake, a horrible one; please forgive me". Trying to poke holes in behavioural or technical evidence just leads to those reviewing unblocks to say "they're smart, they knew how to avoid their old tell-tale signs". (I realise that this comment shows a great deal of my cynicism, but I think the honest answer to your question is that it's highly unlikely they'll be unblocked). Sdrqaz (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC); modified 20:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the terrifying part. Our policy (somewhere, can't remember where) tells those accused not to panic, that if they aren't a sock not to worry, we seldom get this wrong. But how do we know how often we get it wrong? —valereee (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely (it's at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance § Defending yourself against claims). In many ways, I think the room for administrative error is the smallest at SPI. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Miscarriage of justice is not a Wikipedia-specific concern. The only practical approach is to accept that it exists, and that it is rare enough not to worry about it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's quite right. We do need to accept that it exists and we should hope that it is rare enough to not be a crisis. Except there is definitely high quality research about how it happens and also evidence of things that can mitigate it. We obviously don't have "eyewitnesses" but there is research on how to mitigate the problems with their unreliability that police departments can use. So what lessons are we taking from research into this topic to make such miscarriages more rare? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Eostrix and others have been locked by the WMF as global ban enforcement. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should this be taken as confirmation that the WMF also believe Eostrix to be Icewhiz, or just that they trust Arbcom's judgement?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as one who was targeted by Icewhiz both on and off-wiki; this was too close for comfort. A huge THANK YOU to arb.com for their work on this one. 👏 Please accept some 🌷💐🌼🌸🌹🌻🌺 from me! Some points:
    • Eostrix wasn't on my radar at all, while User:Hippeus, User:11Fox11, & User:Geshem Bracha most certainly were (all were active in the ARBPIA area). 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".
    • Eostrix was clearly gunning for CU status: look at all the CU he commented on; 47+35 of his last 500+500 edits were starting/commenting on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations,
    • In addition to the WP:AE-problems (see below) these socks have caused; WP:RS/N has also become a target these last couple of years. IMO there is a long-term campaign to ban left-wing/Israeli-critical sources; the latest RfC:_CounterPunch resulted in CounterPunch being deprecated, this, while the latest RS/N Arutz Sheva resulted in Arutz Sheva still being WP:RS(!!) Needless to say; Icewhiz socks voted strongly to ban CounterPunch (User:Hippeus and User:11Fox11), while Icewhiz voted to keep Arutz Sheva. This long-term skewing of sources pose a serious treath to the project, me thinks, so more eyes are (desperately) needed at WP:RS/N. And most of all: a consistent standard in what goes for being WP:RS, Huldra (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that sucks. CounterPunch is great. El_C 23:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Huldra, this isn't to diminish from your point that a potentially compromised CU is of paramount concern. It definitely bears repeating. I just really love CounterPunch! El_C 23:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that CounterPunch is banned, while Arutz Sheva is RS: that makes me a just a "tad" frustrated. We really need some consistent standard here! Huldra (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I read both plenty, just for different purposes. The news stories I read in passing on Arutz Sheva (via Hebrew Google News indexing) seems to usually align with other mainstream Israeli publications. Obviously, unlike CounterPunch I find their analyses and opinion pieces to be usually subpar. But for sure, consistent standards, you're preaching to the choir. El_C 00:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing CounterPunch mentioned in the context of a long-term campaign to ban left-wing/Israeli-critical sources, I'm going to jump in here. As the person who started the RfC for its deprecation, no, the RfC being launched was not because of some long-term campaign to ban sources that provide criticism of Israel. After seeing Burrobert and Bobfrombrockley arguing over the source (and another I haven't really any knowledge of) on RSN. While, yes, Icewhiz appears to not like sources with an anti-Zionist editorial line, the substantial issues with the source that I detailed in the RfC didn't really touch upon that sort of stuff. The closest I came to doing that, I guess, was describing that the source has published that WTC-7 was subject to controlled demolition (phrased also as WTC-7 "was bombed") and that 9/11 was a false flag conducted by "dancing Israelis". The editors who closed the discussion (including David Gerard after a NAC close by Shibbolethink was vacated) seemed to think that the arguments entailed its deprecation. By my reading of the conversation, it was myself and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d who seemed to have most forcefully advocated for the deprecation within that conversation. While Huldra is right that 11fox11 and Hippeus did support the source's deprecation, they didn't really seem to add anything substantial to the conversation (their comments feel more like they were voting rather than !voting), so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. If there's evidence of these socks on RSN constantly skewing discussions in a way that influences their outcome, that would be a big problem for our ability to adhere to WP:NPOV, but I don't think that the CounterPunch RfC is an example of that. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest possibly re-running RFCs where multiple Icewhiz socks participated, especially if there's any reason to think a different outcome could occur. (I'll note that in some of those they were closed early and probably would not have had enough comments for those early closures if Icewhiz' socks were removed.) This isn't the place to rehash the arguments, but we do have specific venues for that. I remember that I did think the Counterpunch one in particular seemed unusual and rushed at the time, based more on a handful of articles used as examples rather than the more thorough examination of how a source is treated by secondary sources that we usually require for full depreciation, but by the time I noticed it it had already closed, and I didn't look too closely at the arguments made as a result - nothing would be harmed by putting it through a full 30-day RFC to dispel any doubts about socking. --Aquillion (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE cases of confirmed sockpuppets

Above, Nableezy writes: "11Fox11 was used to get one user topic banned and agitated for others and stoked a handful of edit-wars. Hippeus got a logged warning against another long term Icewhiz target as well as an exceedingly wide topic ban imposed on another." He is referring to Iskandar323, ZScarpia and E-960. He could have added a logged warning against me to that list [7], as well as a topic ban against Jontel,[8] and a warning against ImTheIP.[9]

How do we discourage sockpuppets by ensuring they are not able to have an impact after they are found out? With editing it is easy to undo post a successful SPI. But AE cases are harder, not least because the sock puppet may well have managed to goad their victims into behavior which genuinely needs sanction.

I don't know the answer here, but we need a better solution than we have now, which is along the lines of "oh well those victims can open appeal against their sanctions if they like". At the least we need clear guidance for admins on how to think about exercising their discretion in such situations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to lifting sanctions on any editors, who ended up sanctioned due to a sockpuppet making the AE report. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works. Per WP:ACDS#Modifications_by_administrators:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
I suppose that ArbCom could amend that portion, but I doubt they'd make such a blanket change. Relatedly: an hour ago I was informed that a BLPTALK removal of questionable external links by Hippeus was just re-inserted with a rv sock reasoning (diff). In any case, each case ought to be examined according to its individual merits. El_C 21:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed that this probably wont change from above. And that reinsertion shouldnt have happened. But maybe, just maybe, the admins who imposed sanctions on reports that were created by banned users should consider whether or not those sanctions should stand and allow said banned user to have accomplished his goals. You know WP:ARBPIA2 resulted in several bans; Nishidani, Jayjg (both rescinded by ArbCom later), and then NoCal100/Canadian Monkey (same person), Nickhh, Pedrito, MeteorMaker, and G-Dett. Largely as a result NoCal100/Canadian Monkey instigated edit-wars, both socks of a previously topic-banned and then vanished editor (Isarig/Former user 2). The end result of that case is just that NoCal100 is still editing with a never ending parade of socks, and those four other editors are not. He very much accomplished his goals there, got several opponents banned, and just kept going because the ban that was supposedly equally deserved and equally applied was never actually applied to him as he just started editing with new accounts. So maybe consider if you want to participate in Icewhiz's latest triumphs of said logged warning and topic bans, or if youd rather not. nableezy - 22:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what pool of admins you're expecting to draw from to attend to WP:AE, then, if it's that amorphous. Personally, I don't really recognize any of the names on that list (excluding Nishidani and Jayjg, obviously). I suppose NoCal100 sounds familiar, but maybe it was on account of this lovely exchange on my talk page a few days ago...? Isarig also rings a bell. But that's about it. I don't think having AE reports ignored because they seem 'risky' is the answer, though it may well end up happening just organically. Who knows? El_C 22:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, ARBPIA2 is from many years ago, was just an example of how socks are able to accomplish their goals, and because they are willing to be dishonest about socking to begin with that any penalty (indef block) is only transitory. Im not asking for anybody to ignore a report. What I am saying is that if you allow those sanctions to stand after you know that they were the product of reports from a banned user that you are, wittingly or otherwise, aiding this latest sockpuppet set of a banned user to continue accomplishing his goals. There is a reason why WP:BANREVERT is a thing. Because if you do not reverse a user's actions taken in defiance of that ban that there is no real deterrence to continuing to sock around the ban. By reversing those "accomplishments" you may make the person feel that it is not worth the effort if their actions dont stand anyway. nableezy - 22:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it feels like we've come full circle to my BLPTALK example above. This is a perennial problem. If I, say, block a user for harassing another, but said harassment just happened to have been reported by a banned sock, I'm not going to automatically unblock for that reason alone, prize or no prize. If you're trying to make a more nuanced point, I don't get it. El_C 22:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats my point. Wittingly or otherwise, and one has to think wittingly after knowing that it comes from a banned sock, you're helping said banned sock accomplish his or her goals, and given them reason to continue to attempt to do so. I didnt really expect any other answer from you though. I may have hoped for one that involves maybe Ill go back and reconsider my past enforcement actions in which I was effectively played by a banned editor in to doing his bidding. But didnt expect it. nableezy - 23:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good talk. El_C 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A simple solution would be don't take the bait. Nobody can be forced to take the bait. It's the same as in real life. You can't blame your manipulator if you do something illegal. You can't say something like I was baited to rob a bank, so I'm actually innocent of the act. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned this in more detail below, but the specific case that concerns me is if there's any reason to believe the filer-sockpuppet baited the user. Being baited is sometimes a mitigating circumstance and sometimes is not; I would say that if someone was sanctioned in a situation where it was clear they were baited by the filer, or if it was otherwise a two-sided issue where it's clear in retrospect that the filer was constantly escalating things because they were a throwaway sockpuppet, that should probably be overturned, because that specific sequence of events is clearly abusable by people willing to use sockpuppets to try and get others banned. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing to do is raise it with the enforcing administrator and, if they decline and you still think it's worth pursuing, at AE. It is a complex question; we absolutely want to deny ban-evading sockpuppets any benefit from their actions, but (like starting an RFC) an AE goes beyond just their actions once started and depends on an admin agreeing to go anywhere. If the AE enforcement is blatantly correct - eg. the accused repeatedly breached 3RR, was blatantly uncivil, and did other things that would obviously have gotten anyone topic-banned or worse if it came to AE attention - then there's no real point to rolling it back just because it had a bad filer. But if it was an equivocal case where the fact that the filer had unclean hands might have mattered, then it could be worth raising, especially if it was a two-sided dispute in a situation where eg. this revelation means we want to look more closely at the filer's behavior. I'd be particularly concerned about situations that ended with something like "both people were bad and the accused was baited, but the accused still behaved badly and the filer has less of a history, so topic-ban for the accused and warning for the filer", because that sort of thing would encourage ban-evaders and others to use throwaway sockpuppets to bait and prod people they want to get banned and then drag them to AE when they react. That is to say, the more involved the filer was in the situation and the more uncertain the outcome, the more it seems to me that an appeal based on the filer being a sockpuppet makes sense. But that requires looking at each case, so I would suggest appealing to the admin or going back to AE rather than some sort of automatic get-out-of-jail-free card. --Aquillion (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing that leaps out at me is that in many of those cases Icewhiz used multiple socks to try and get the same users sanctioned (ie. accusing with one sock, then arguing in support of that accusation with another in order to create the illusion of support - see eg. here.) That one particularly sticks out because it is very unusual to have another editor wander in and comment on a WP:3RRN report. Regardless of what is done with those past sanctions, I would strongly advise anyone who has been targeted by Icewhiz and his socks in the past to be on the lookout for that sort of behavior in the future, since it seems like an obvious tell. (It is a bit trickier at AE because it is not uncommon for people with similar views to back each other up there, but it is at least worth keeping an eye out for groups of people who seem to all weigh in on AE reports against people Icewhiz has had previous disputes with. The 3RRN one, though, was such a dead giveaway that it seems unfortunate it was missed at the time - is there any reasonable explanation for how Hippeus could have ended up there?) --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a QPQ-type rule that for every AE you file you have to bring one article in the topic area to GA, and you have to link to it in the template. Levivich 23:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need more GA reviewers. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good problem to have! -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1051023756"