Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

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.

24 April 2020

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Pestilence Unchained (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

I don't go out of my way to look for Icewhiz socks, but few hours ago I had a run in with a new account that looks mighty suspicious. Short version of this report: recent account (Feb'20) that is a very quick learner of the wiki-ways, 100% of edits are innocent and SPA about coronavirus... then today it suddenly jumped into an obscure Polish history topic with fringe antisemitism arguments. Effectively looks like a sleeper account which build up credibility with a bunch of simple edits / comments and now is revealing its "true colors". Here is the more in-depth analysis with diffs:

• 1st Feb 2020: account created. In his first few edits on the talk page he "doesn't know" how to WP:SIGN but...
• 4th Feb 2020: first red flag: he pings an editor. He would not do it again later - I think this was an accident, too much knowledge shown, that didn't fit the 'I am a n00b learning the ropes' pattern
• he makes few dozen of innocent minor edits and simple talk page comments, nothing too time consuming, all minor stuff.
• late MArch: he clicks through Wikipedia:Adventure. The account then lies dormant for a month (might be worth checking if this coincides with wide range blocks affecting known Israel VPNs which are likely related to a bunch of his previously reported sock going offline)
• 31st March: comes back and now he now signs his talk properly. Good job retaining the WP:ADV skills from a month ago that he never had the opportunity to put in practice :>
• same day: he correctly formats a vote in a RM and indents it using a *: [1]
• same day: he posts in a WikiProject talk discussion, indenting it with a : [2]. As someone who has taught many new editors through educational and outreach initiatives, I know that it is very rare for a new editor to even know about WikiProjects, much less to engage in talk page discussions or such. Or RM votes...
• April 11: now he discovers template talk namespace [3], another strange place for a new editor to stumble upon. Oh, and he uses the wiki-term stub. Another slip.
• same day: he also knowns how to link to a subsection of a talk discussion: [4]
• April 24: [5] proper formatting of an EL in a discussion
• same day: comments in another WikiProject talk discussion: [6]
• same day: [7] He adds controversial content (but it is referenced, I believe this is the first time he made such an extensive edit and used references). Also uses the blockquote template, another advanced skill.
• here is where the plot thickens further: I revert him (no undo, just edit old version). A new account with no history of revert warring or such, new to a topic area, would likely take several days before checking... but our 'genius n00bie' knows this is not how things work here. He reverts back within an our, I revert him the second time and mention BRD, and he reverts back within two minutes [8] and posts on talk [9] within another two minutes. Even through I didn't link WP:BRD in my edit summary, he knows what is expected - engage in discussion, another sign of experience (or intuitive wiki genius...?). As he is reverted once again by another editor this time, our young genius 'evolves' again, [10] this time not reverting, no, he wouldn't want to get to 3RR, right? Instead he adds another controversial claim to the article, as well as, lo and behold, {{POV}} and {{unreliable sources}}
• then I got to file this report per WP:DUCK :) Extremely unlikely to be a new account and fits patterns of previous likely socks of Icewhiz.

Do note that it just takes him a few edits to learn a new advanced trick. Having taught hundreds of students, well, if he is not a sock he is a rare wiki genius. Anyway, the above shows that 1) he is not a new editor but 2) he is trying to pretend he is. Through of course we can AGF and assume he is a rare 1% genius but... the problem is why this editor, interested solely in cornavirus (where he build up his edit count with minor edits and short talk comments) suddenly becomes interested in a niche Polish history topic? And how he discovers that there is a recent discussion (inside a Good Article review too boot) related to antisemitism (which is a major area of interest to Icewhiz's)? The odds of a new editor stumbling into such an esoteric area are abysmally low. Further, this account fits the pattern of other suspicious accounts reported here which I'll note I was told, privately by several Checkusers, are very likely Icewhiz but due to privacy reasons (or because they don't want to publicly disagree with another CU) they cannot admit it here: all created recently, making few dozens of minor 'good' edits in short spurts lasting a day or so with several days of break in between (alternating with another sock account, possibly?) before suddenly veering into a topic area that Icewhiz was interested in. All also stopped editing shortly after being reported here (burned...?) or after being hit by a wide range block covering Isreal's VPNs. How much WP:DUCK coincidences we need before someone will say openly those are likely Icewhiz socks? For what it is worth, I had spend dozens of hours before he got his indef talking to him and became familiar with his pattern of edits, and what topics I can expect him to appear, and what kind of edits/arguments he will make. This is classic Icewhiz, adding UNDUE claims about subject's antisemitism.

Lastly, I will inform several other editors familiar with Icewhiz pattern of edits and ask them to comment here, so let's see if others familiar with that editor will think I am over-reacting, or am I right about the behavioral pattern discussed here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

---