From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WordSeventeen

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

24 November 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Comments by other users

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

@ Bbb23:If you are saying you didn't check because there was insufficient evidence, can you explain to me what kind of evidence is actually needed to technically check? Because they have both vandalized and disruptively edited the same articles, they have both been sanctioned for edit warring, WordSeventeen might about be topic-banned soon, they both miss-cite WP:UNDUE and they both only use the GNG instead of any other guideline like MUSBIO or COMPOSERS, and they both refuse to use talk pages to discuss issues. More here [1]. In addition to above as well, they both showed up and started being disruptive on this page around the same time. Difs: [2]. To me that seems to meet that their editing is clearly uncivil ( WP:XS, WP:AGAIN, WP:CAST, WP:TIPPING, WP:IDART, WP:EWS, WP:OBSART, WP:SIM); 1.Vandalism; 2.Sock puppetry; 3.Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; and 4.Legitimate concerns about bad faith editing. And on further looking I see plenty of other checkusers with much less evidence that were accepted. Thanks. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 00:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The two accounts are Red X Unrelated. Without confirming technical evidence, the behavioral evidence is insufficient. Closing with no action.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ SanctuaryX: I did check. A CheckUser doesn't say that two account are unrelated without a check.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply

17 February 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

WordSeventeen has been on a six month block for disruptive editing since December 6, 2015.

Evidence is as follows:

  • The DatGuy account was created at 06:55 on November 18, 2015. WordSeventeen started to have visible problems on the same date due to a AN/I report here where a topic ban had been suggested for him in this thread: [3].
  • WordSeventeen essentially stopped editing articles on November 18, 2015, spending the majority of his time in Wikipedia at AN/I and AfD until his block.
  • TheDatGuy account, when it was first created, spent the majority of the time working on their own user space, however, after the WordSeventeen account was no longer editing articles (before their block), the DatGuy account's editing increased significantly at articles. WordSeventeen knew he was in trouble before his block due to this AN/I report and had reason to create an alternate account prior to his block.
  • WordSeventeen and DatGuy have 13 articles in common and 3 user talk pages in common. Intersect Contribs report evidence here.
  • WordSeventeen and DatGuy have 8 of the same permissions and project pages in common (see the above Intersect Contribs report results that show the above):
-Wikipedia:Huggle/Users
-Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
-Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
-Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
-Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer
-Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
-Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants
-Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
  • Both WordSeventeen and DatGuy advertise the use of Huggle and Twinkle with topicons on their User pages [4] [5].
  • This inquiry from DatGuy is strange for someone who is so new to Wikipedia: "I have a question about Counter-Vandalism. I've used the RTRC tool often, however recently when I do my usual settings, there isn't a small indicator that makes a username red with damage probability %. How do I fix this?" [6]. Strange that such a new user would have used the RTRC tool "often" so early in his editing career. WordSeventeen has been a member of the CVU for some time.
  • DatGuy asked for Rollback rights (for the second time) very soon after opening his account [7]. VERY unusual for an inexperienced and new editor (who isn't a sock account). When told he would need to come back after being an editor for a longer period of time, DatGuy's response was, "Is three weeks enough? Since that is when you gave User:Eteethan his permission. [8] Very unusual response for a new user, but not unusual for a sock who has experience in Wikipedia and would feel a need to negotiate. He was approved on December 24, 2015 [9].
  • DatGuy had asked for Pending Changes Reviewer rights and was approved on January 9, 2016. Also unusual for a relatively new account to ask for such a permission.
  • WordSeventeen had asked for Pending Changes Reviewer rights on November 18, 2015, and was turned down on November 19. 2015. [10]
  • The JilllyJo account was created at 17:32 on January 25, 2016 and has 7 commonalities in edits with WordSeventeen [11], 4 editing commonalities with DatGuy [12].
  • Commonalities the JilllyJo account has with WordSeventeen that seem too unusual to be coincidental are:
-808 Mafia
-Wikipedia:Feedback request service
-Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Newsletter/Recipients
The 808 Mafia article is too obscure to be a coincidence, the notification signups seem a very strange choice for a brand new user.
  • Commonalities the JilllyJo account has with DatGuy that seem too unusual to be coincidental are:
-Atripliceae
-Mary Anning
-Talk:Billy the Kid
Both the Atripliceae and Mary Anning articles are too obscure to be coincidence - especially since it is even more unlikely for it to be coincidence considering Jilllyjo had so few edits at the time that account was at both articles.
  • DatGuy showed up out of the blue on February 9, 2016 at the talk page for the Billy the Kid article - which is really strange, because he had never edited it [13]
  • Jilllyjo had been editing the article for six days, since February 3, 2016 when DatGuy showed up at the article talk page.
  • WordSeventeen had a bad habit of following me around Wikipedia and reverting my edits, !voting opposite of how I would !vote at AfDs and RfCs, suddenly appearing to comment at talk pages where I had communicated with other editors. The harassment at my talk page and articles I was editing along with the hounding had gotten bad and obvious enough that he had been warned on more than one occasion by at least one administrator to stop. , [14], [15], [16].
  • Jilllyjo has been hounding me, in the same manner as WordSeventeen and has now been warned by an administrator to stop [17], [18], [19]. Intersect Contribs report showing the articles we have in common here. I have never showed up at an article or talk page after Jilllyjo, that account has always shown up, out of the blue, after I was there. This is the same as it was between me and WordSeventeen (and, if you consider the one instance at the Billy the Kid talk page, the same with DatGuy, as well - as noted above).
  • Looking at Jilllyjo's edits, from the earliest on, it is obvious this user is not new. User contributions here. Looking at the edit summaries, it's easy to see that this editor knew Wiki-speak right off the bat. Using "Filled in 1 bare reference(s) with reFill" is also not something a new editor would use or be privy to.
  • DatGuy is also using ReFill (just three examples, there are more) [20], [21], [22].
  • Jilllyjo has become a member of the Italian Wikipedia here. WordSeventeen claims on his user page (via userbox) to have a working knowledge of the Italian language [23].
  • Other editors have noted that Jilllyjo is obviously not a new editor. One example here: see edit summary here.

I think the behavioral evidence overwhelmingly shows a definite connection between these three accounts - it says "duck" to me. The case is quite complex, and I may have left something out or have been unclear at some point. If anyone reviewing this has questions or needs more evidence, clarification, please feel free to let me know. I am requesting CU and check for other active accounts as well as sleepers. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Note Interestingly, below, Jilllyjo states they have "edited before at another site for children's articles that uses this same wiki software", however, when told previously by at least three editors that they are obviously not new to Wikipedia, they never responded with anything remotely like the explanation below. In fact, they never responded at all. A truly new editor, when being told they are a sock account, would have responded the first time (and all consecutive times) with that explanation if it truly were the case. But now, when an SPI has been filed, suddenly they have an excuse for why they don't look like a new editor? I'd also like to note that I did not inform any of the three accounts named here in the SPI of this report. The only way Jilllyjo could have known about it is to have - once again - followed/hounded my edits. They made a plea at SlimVirgin's talk page regarding this report here. Responses and closing of comments by SV can be seen here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bbb23, Ches has provided two diffs for you below, as requested. Do you need more? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Just for everyones information I have edited before at another site for children's articles that uses this same wiki software. This is just the next step in her campaign of harassment and hounding against me. Please see the harassment and hounding that winkelvi by starting with these three diffs. [24] [25] [26] I have asked her repeatedly to leave me alone and to stop her harassment of me. Thanks. Something should be done to stop all winkelvi's disruption to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilllyjo ( talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

In response to the note above by winkelvi she said "The only way Jilllyjo could have known about it is to have - once again - followed/hounded my edits." This a baseless allegation and or lie just to try and make me look bad. I explained at the page of SVv that I have been searching my own user name since her campaign of harassment toward me has been increasing. If I get hits on my name I go and check them out. She read that yet tries to say here I am following her. Wrong, no following. You need to stop telling lies winkelvi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilllyjo ( talk • [[Special:Contributions

/Jilllyjo|contribs]]) 05:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

DatGuy here. Didn't log in because phone is messed up. Anyways, I am currently on vacation and a checkuser is checking, however I feel uncomfortable by the amount of bad faith Winkelvi is showing. He has accused me of WikiHounding on a users talk page when I was trying to help him. The incident in question is about Billy the Kid. I thought that the article was promoted, however I was mistaken. Chess (forgot username and horrible internet here) explained to me that it wasn't calmly, however Winkelvi had a tone of "Why is it so urgent?". Then, I was reverting vandalism and noticed a page vandalised, so I used Twinkle to request page protection. Twinkle redirected me, and I noticed Billy the kid there. I checked the article's history, and I saw the user that reverted him has also restored warnings on his talk page once. I gave the user that restored the warnings a tip that according to Wikipedia:Blanking, you actually are allowed. The user thanked me, but then I was pinged by Winkelvi with the hinted accusation. Will confirm I am DatGuy when I go back to my house (Tomorrow noon, GMT). 185.21.163.244 ( talk) 11:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, I have previously edited under another name, a fact only one other editor knows. User:Bbb23, I would prefer that account to remain private since it did not break any policies. 185.21.163.244 ( talk) 11:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Confirmed, it's me. Managed to log in. Finally, 'filled in x bare references using reFill' is the default edit summary. Please check your facts before making accusations Winkelvi. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 12:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Stop digging yourself a hole you can't get out of User:Winkelvi and User:Chesnaught555. You'll see it when the CU results come back. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Jilllyjo alerted me to this report because we've both been a target for Wikielvi recently. I'm not an expert at SPI but 4-8 page commonalities seems VERY low. . Looking at the linked intersection between Jilllyjo and WordSeventeen's activity [27] we see a very different story then WV paints.

  • There is only one article in common 808 Mafia where Jillljo made one edit this month to remove a social media link [28] and WordSeventeen made two minor WP:CLEANER edits in April/May of 2015. [29]. These are non-substantive edits that suggest no shared interest in the 808 Mafia topic.
  • There are 4 editor talk pages in common WV's plus three of WV's enemies - WordSeventeen, User:MaranoFan, and mine. Some of this interaction could be because of WV harassment - I've not dug into that.
  • The other commonalities are 3RR (WV likely dragged both editors there), newsletter signup and Feedback Request Service.

The complete lack of other intersections seems to prove they are definitely NOT the same user for they obviously have very different editing interests, and are doing nothing that would suggest they are in anyway connected.

In contrast, the intersect tool suggests that WordSeventeen and Wikielvi are 10 times more likely to be the same user with 82 commonalities including 47 articles. [30] For fun, I checked and found Wordseventeen and I have both edited 96 pages including 49 articles [31] (and before anyone gets an idea we are related, it looks like Word17 likes adding cruft to pageant articles and I enjoy removing cruft) based on a few difs I checked.

Allegations against User:DatGuy look equally absurd. For example there are 40 intersects between DatGuy and Winkelvi [32] with many obscure articles in common that "seem too unusual to be coincidental" (to use WV's phrasing) compared to just 5 intersections between DatGuy and Jilllyjo covering only two articles [33] with all edits being very minor [34] [35], tagging [36] and vandalism reversion [37] [38] edits.

This was all good for a laugh though :) Legacypac ( talk) 08:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

  Looks like a duck to me - obvious sockpuppets. Jilllyjo's first edit included the summary "copyedit". Strange how she knew what that was on her first day. Also seems suspicious how a group of relatively new users have all requested PCR and RB early, and use Huggle (which isn't recommended for new users at all). DatGuy, my name is Chesnaught555 for future reference. -- Ches (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Copyedit is an expression dating back 60 years [39]. I find it more suspicious that you too see it as some sort of a red flag; maybe you're socks. 107.107.57.82 ( talk) 16:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
And now both JJ and DG have misspelled your name in the same manner and each of them have used British or Canadian spellings of particular words. These are more tells. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

No problem, Bbb23. But it will have to be later today, as I am busy at the moment and will be for the next several hours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bbb23 - found one - "behaviour": [40]. Best, -- Ches (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

BethNaught, I'll agree with you to a point. In successful SPIs I've watched and been involved with previously, more often than not, such requests actually end up being tells for socks. In this particular case, you can add the aggressive seeking of these permissions, just days later, after being declined. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

BethNaught, happy Wikibirthday fellow user with "naught" for a suffix. I understand your point - I was an early PCR requester myself (I did start WP in 2014 but didn't become active until December 2015). However, it seems peculiar that the editors involved in the SPI have all done this, and of course, they share other similar behaviours (yes I'm British too, but I digress). Best, -- Ches (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Posting sequence is out of order now so harder to see, but User:Jilllyjo noticed the report, responded, and emailed me upset. I posted and pinged DatGuy, who is on vacation and struggles to log in and respond to this report. Obviously my ping is the first DatGuy has heard of the report. I can also see from her real gmail address that Jillljo is a female, while it is a good guess DatGuy has boy style parts from his user name. Legacypac ( talk) 16:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

IP comment removed by WV [41] Legacypac ( talk) 16:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Bbb23 - here's your diff. Same word, funnily enough: [42] -- Ches (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Due to the analysis that Legacypac has revealed in his comment above Bbb23 where he saw that Wordseventeen and Winkelvi were 10 times more likely to be socks of each other and they have 47 articles in common that the user Winkelvi be added to the case as a possible sock of WordSeventeen. I also request that Winkelvi be CU'd as well so that you would see the full picture. Thank you. deja vu Jilllyjo ( talk) 17:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, that was a fun moment of comedy relief. Suggesting I'm a sock of the person I'm reporting as a sockmaster. <insert laugh track here> -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
To say that Winkelvi is a sockmaster is hilarious to say the least. Legacypac - just saw your comment, sorry. Many sockpuppets create accounts with male/female names in an attempt to disguise their sockpuppetry. Not going to name and shame here, but a recent sockmaster Winkelvi reported did this: he was male and used accounts with female names, or names which were suggestive of a female user. You probably know who it is, based on that description. -- Ches (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
good that you think it is funny Winkelvi, so I am sure you will have no problem being CU'd. It is the type of thing you might do to carry on you campaign of harassment toward me. How many alternative accounts do you have here Winkelvi? Have you ever socked before? deja vu Jilllyjo ( talk) 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
I was going to take time to explain to you how CU isn't just done on editor accounts, just because and because someone wants to retaliate. But I've decided to not waste my precious time to go into it further with you. Besides, I think you already know full well how the process works. I'll let Bbb23 explain it (if he wants to take the time or feels a need to do so). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
I did not venture into "Suggesting I'm a sock of the person I'm reporting as a sockmaster" rather I showed that it was 10 times or more likely then the first allegation. Sure people can lie about their genders, edit completely different topics, and pursue very different objectives, but spelling English words correctly is a dead give away of socking behaviour Ches :) Legacypac ( talk) 18:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to say, but Jilllyjo asked me to come here and give what information I may know or have observed. For those who don't know, I was a GA reviewer for the Billy the Kid article. Winkelvi's claims of harassment I find largely unfounded. He has accused Jilllyjo of "hounding" his edits, but the fact that they both have an interest in the BTK article does not mean that Jilllyjo is seeking him out, as he seems to think. During the review process, Winkelvi harassed other editors by baselessly accusing them of attempting to sabotage the GA review or editing based upon an "agenda." This played a major role in my decision to close the review. He also suggested that yet another user, Shootseven, a relatively new editor with whom Winkelvi had major disagreements, was also a sockpuppet. I may disagree somewhat with Jilllyjo choosing to leave posts on the talk pages of MaranoFan and Legacypac, but Wineklvi has a tendency to blow these things far out of proportion. Display name 99 ( talk) 22:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply

"by baselessly accusing them of attempting to sabotage the GA review", "He also suggested that yet another user, Shootseven, a relatively new editor...was also a sockpuppet". While this really isn't place for such discussion, I'm going to ask: Display name 99, can you please provide diffs to support your claims here? If you cannot, you really need to strike these comments as they are not only off-topic but big accusations that need to be supported by evidence to stand. "Wineklvi has a tendency to blow these things far out of proportion". Exactly what "things" are you referring to? I'm reporting three editors as part of an SPI/sockpuppetry investigation, I'm not filing an AN/I about editing or editor disputes. The evidence I posted above is exactly that: evidence. Which is required for an SPI to be considered and for a CU (when requested) to be performed. With such evidence (if truthful and provable), there's nothing to blow out of proportion. Either it is accurate or it is not enough. One last thing, DP99, you're here because Jilllyjo canvassed you in regard to this SPI, which is against policy. Jilllyjo also canvassed Legacypac, Floquenbeam, and an WP:LTA IP vandal who has been harassing me and others for a long time. You try to make me look like the villain in this but have no evidence to support that I've violated policy or guidelines. The person you are defending, however, has been violating policy and you say nothing about it. That's your right and I'm all for good faith, but are you really sure you want to be on record defending this person? Just asking because you just came of an indef block after three years of being absent. Are you sure this is how you want to restart your editing career here? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

To the administrators: If it helps, I answered a question from one of the editors here: Wikipedia:Good article help#Requirements. Prhartcom ( talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for answering the question, Prhartcom, but the issue I brought up there really had nothing to do with what's been happening here, regardless of how a couple of commenters here (including the confirmed sock) tried to make it about the GA nom. The only way this SPI tied into the GA nom was that my suspicions about the sock were heightened as a result of their behavior at the GA review page and the article nominated. That behavior and attitude was, as the now blocked and tagged sock said in their messages so many times, "deja vu". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks; I was referring above to a different GA help desk question. There's often a lot going on at that place. Cheers. Prhartcom ( talk) 15:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @ Winkelvi: Can you please provide diffs of Jillyjo using Canadian/British spellings? Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Winkelvi: No rush. But when you do get a chance, please provide any diffs of British spellings for WordSeventeen as well.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Chesnaught555, thanks for the two diffs. Winkelvi, thanks for pointing it out (although I didn't get the ping), as I probably wouldn't have noticed anything helpful among the chaotic unhelpful comments.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 05:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Not going to get deeply involved here, but I wanted to say (speaking as an admin who watches WP:PERM) that it is not actually uncommon for new users to request rights early, or before they are ready. I registered my account on 17 February 2014 (happy wikibirthday to me!) and got PCR on 2 March 2014 and rollback on 13 March 2014. My second edit was a user warning template because I had been doing anti-vandal work as an IP. While it is a commonality, Winkelvi shouldn't assume that new, innocent accounts knowing about such things is automatically suspicious. BethNaught ( talk) 16:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ Winkelvi: That's a fair point, and like I said, it is a commonality, and a significant part of the evidence base. (No comment on the truth of the claims.) But I felt I wanted to say it because on their own such suspicious are a particularly counterproductive form of WP:BITE. Just as an aside to the SPI, really. BethNaught ( talk) 16:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Folks, the discussion about gender and usernames and CU'ing Winkelvi will go nowhere. If you wish to waste your time, knock yourselves out, but please don't do it here. Any more comments along these lines may be reverted as unconstructive.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 20:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WordSeventeen and Jillyjo are  Confirmed.
  • DatGuy is Red X Unrelated.
  • I've blocked and tagged Jillyjo and increased WordSeventeen’s block to indefinite along with a tag. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply

25 July 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Diffs as follows courtesy of Winkelvi: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Noel_Neill&diff=prev&oldid=731304589

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Noel_Neill&diff=next&oldid=731304589

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fouett%C3%A9_rond_de_jambe_en_tournant/Archive#11_July_2016

http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Zpeopleheart&users=Fouett%C3%A9+rond+de+jambe+en+tournant&users=&startdate=20060101&enddate=20160724&ns=&server=enwiki

/info/en/?search=User_talk:Only#Winkelvi_is_edit_warring_again_causing_disruption_by_GRAVEDANCING_and_edit_warring

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=731442686#July_2016

WP:DUCK seems to apply here - prose used is very similar to the sockmaster's. Zero talk 14:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry if there are any mistakes. See also discussion on Oculi's TP Zero talk 14:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Oh, thanks for reminding me Bbb23 - I'm wondering if WS might've changed IPs for whatever reason so a block based on behavioural evidence may be a good idea if CU is negative? Obviously up to you but the behavioural links really point towards the accounts being controlled by the same user. Zero talk 16:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you Lemongirl942 for taking this to AN/I, Oculi for your help, and L235 as well for offering to help. I personally think that when ZPH added everyone's names to the SPI it was not too dissimilar to what Jilllyjo did back in March, and if behavioural evidence is anything to go by then this is important. Zero talk 09:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Maybeparaphrased now added to this report.
    • Suspected sock account created February 18, 2016 here [43], the same day and just hours after WordSeventeen was blocked indefinitely here [44].
-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

  • I provided behavioural evidence at an earlier request for CheckUser (which found no connection). I still think that evidence is compelling, particularly as WordSeventeen has subsequently been banned for socking. Oculi ( talk) 17:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • [45] - Email at top of report shows that the report was probably emailed to Maybeparaphrased by someone.
  • Mayebeparaphrased declining speedy deletions on article edited/created by Zpeopleheart. (1) [46], [47] and (2) [48]. This article btw, was never edited by Maybeparaphrased and yet the speedy was declined within 5 minutes of tagging. (Both Zpeopleheart and Maybeparaphrased had previously hounded another editor together and are now hounding me)
  • Mayebeparaphrased declined speedy deletions/PRODs on 6 articles by Anthropocene2015. [49]. None of these had been edited by Maybeparaphrased before.
  • Zpeopleheart admitted being in touch with Fouette. [50].("I have corresponded with Ffouette"). In addition, if you look at the last 2 comments, the writing style is somewhat similar to WordSeventeen / Jilllyjo (Compare last comment here [51] with [52] and also [53] with [54]. The tone of the outbursts make me suspect there is some connection.
  • I would request a CU to be done on the group I mentioned above. Regardless, if technical evidence is not conclusive I don't think anything can be done on the behavioral alone (at the moment). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Montanabw doncram I would request a CU be run regarding my assertion that allegedly Lemongirl942, Winkelvi, HappyValleyEditor, Anthropocene2015, and an IP address that starts with 91(will supply diff shortly), and SteveQuinn are with the same person, and or sock puppet s of each other. They are all allegedly acting in concert with each other to try to get me in trouble. Doncram Lemongirl states a group of several users might be working together when in fact Lemongirl and HappyValleyEditor have very similar patterns of hounding Fouetté and now me. [55] since she is awaiting an outcome from ARBCOM. From what I understand Fouetté and another person make a complaint to OTRS about outing attempts toward them by a couple of editors. One of the editors accused of outing has since placed a retired sign on their user page. [56]. After that occurred Lemongirl942 came out strong with the same wiki hounding and stalking toward me [57], [58], [59], [60], [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Historic_Paint_Analysis&oldid=731706934] HappyValleyEditor did to Fouetté before he retired. It is telling that user Winkelvi has directed the starting of this SPI by joint planning on the talk page of Oculi with User PatientZero [61] I suggest could be the same user as Winkelvi. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 22:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Adding more diffs. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 23:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply

doncram please look over all these diffs since you as an outsider can give a fair assessment since you are familiar with the back story regarding some of these editors. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 00:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Now K.e.coffman has joined in concert [62] Lemongirl942 to attack articles edited by me. [63], [64] with Lemongirl. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Surbana_International_Consultants_Pte_Ltd&oldid=731711317 is threatening and bullying behaviour which is being done by at least three socks of which I alledge that HappyValleyEditor may be the sock master or possibly maybe Platypusofdoom could be the master as he and happy attacked Fouetté together in a tag team fashion earlier. It sounds like we have a whole pond of ducks quacking loudly. WP:DUCK. Zpeopleheart ( talk) 01:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
And, of course, Zpeopleheart's spurious sockpuppet accusations have been closed and deleted as frivolous and unfounded. freshacconci talk to me 18:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, please add me to the SPI investigation as well. :-) I think the Speedy deletion discussion speaks for itself. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Kindly another editor warns Lemongirl942 for edit warring over a speedy tag and threatening to go to ANI, and [65] tells it is not appropriate to go to ani for something like this, but instead to just simply open an AFD. [66]. Lemon girl tells editor she is sorry for her outburst. [67]. [User:Zpeopleheart|Zpeopleheart]] ( talk) 01:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
If I may say something without being added to this "hit list" Zpeopleheart is making, I was around when WordSeventeen was originally blocked for his interactions with Joseph2302 and then sockpuppetry. WordSeventeen, like Zpeople, accused all of those involved as being another sock puppet and provided diffs that either did not prove anything or were terrible misused to make the truth a little foggier. I suggest no more editors be added to this list because it only adds to the suspicion in my best judgement. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

L235, please do the right thing and take my name off the list of suspected sock puppets. Zpeopleheart added it as revenge, nothing more. Just as JilllyJo/WordSeventeen added my name to the report on him/her back in February. JJ/WS didn't file this report originally and there's nothing reasonable or evidential that would put me (or the other revenge additions) there. The addition is deflection and disruption and revenge, period. In fact, when JJ/WS did the very same thing in February, an admin had no problem with the names being removed by another editor. Because they had a clue. I'm asking you to also get one on this. (do I sound pissed off? good. that's because I am.) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

L235: Since you did get a clue about who was adding what and that you shouldn't have pinged me, I would say my "get a clue" comment ended up being quite helpful (that's meant to be a little added humor). Thanks for doing the right thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply

  • IMPORTANT NOTE Admins/CUs/clerks looking into this SPI should be aware that Zpeopleheart has started a frivolous and retaliatory SPI here [68]. As mentioned previously in this report, this is on par with the behavior WordSeventeen and his socks have demonstrated in the past: when brought to SPI, blame others for their behavior, accuse of same behavior then accuse the filer and anyone commenting of sock-puppetry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Kevin, a few days ago, you said you were going to get to this SPI "soon". Will you still be working on it or should we ping other clears/SPI admins/CUers? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Checkuser note: I found this account to be Red X Unrelated in November 2015 (see archives).-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Additional information needed - @ Patient Zero: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Lemongirl942: If they are sending e-mails to each other, than it is obvious they are not operating from the same place. CU can't help in such cases. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: @ Zpeopleheart and Winkelvi: There will be no edit-warring on this page. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Zpeopleheart: Wrong place to add those; you're not claiming that those users are socks of WordSeventeen. More importantly, your accusations are not supported by evidence. I'm removing the users you added.
  • @ Winkelvi: I apologize for including you in that earlier ping. Zpeopleheart appears to be the only one who edit-warred (over your removal). The "get a clue" remark was not helpful, however.
  • I will review the evidence regarding Zpeopleheart being a sock soon. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Winkelvi: (from my phone) yes, you're right and I'm sorry. This has been on the top of my to do list. Anyone else should feel free to do this though. I'll do my best to do this within 8 hours but no guarantees. There should be no imminent damage in any case because everything's blocked. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In order to conserve CU time, I am not willing to endorse CU considering that all accounts are blocked. The behavioral evidence does convince me that all accounts are linked. I am especially convinced by the hounding in concert and the now-deleted SPI, akin to Special:Permalink/664345727#Hi_Bbb23_I_need_your_help_and_some_advice_about_possible_sockpuppetry from master. Therefore, I am tagging both suspected socks as blocked socks and closing. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Quick note, I did recieve private evidence by email from User:Oculi. Since SPI clerks aren't qualified to handle private info, I did not consider the email when making the determination that the accounts are linked. I'm happy to forward it on the request of a CU, though. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC) reply

27 December 2016

Suspected sockpuppets

Same hounding, stalking/harassing behavior and repeated, nonsense reversions of my edits as WordSeventeen and all his socks. Suddenly shows up at articles I've recently edited or edited a while back, claiming they are on his watchlist (obscure articles that I edit are on his watchlist when he's only been here two weeks?). Shows up at an AN3 I opened here after adding this to the talk page of the editor being reported. Then suddenly, he comments in an RfC I started [69] at an article he's never edited. It's obvious he's stalking my edits (just as WS and all his socks have done).

Account was created two weeks ago, but user talks and edits like someone who's been here quite a while.

Editor Interaction Analyzer showing same articles edited by suspected sock and myself. [70]. Note that every one of these articles were first edited by me with the suspected sock showing up shortly afterward (Laura Ingalls Wilder is the only short timeline exception).

Evidence:

  • Same use of Userspace with a huge photograph [71] in the manner of WS [72], Jilllyjo [ [73]], Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant [ [74]], Zpeopleheart [ [75]].
  • Uses Twinkle - unusual behavior so early into their editing "career" and for a newbie; this is something WS socks have done as well.
  • Requested notifications from Feedback Request Service - also very unusual for a newbie, but also something in common with WS and WS socks. [76].
  • Suddenly shows up at talk page of editor Lemongirl942, when he has never edited anything she had edited. Interestingly (or coincidentally), LG942 was involved in the last successful SPI for tagged WS socks.
  • Both WS and the suspected sock utilized their sandbox and placed a notation: "article ideas" (see here: [77], [78]).
  • More Editor Interaction Analyzer results:
    • Jilllyjo (note Feedback Request Service) [79]
  • User's 6th edit summary was "add ref" - not a newbie kind of edit summary. Use has been using "wikispeak" right off the bat, just as all the other WS socks have.
  • Suspected sock also uses ReFill to fill in bare references frequently (started at about their 8th edit) - not something a newbie would do and it is something all WS socks also did previously.
  • Interestingly, suspected sock has edited two of the same very obscure articles a previously suspected WordSeventeen sock edited. Editor Interaction Analyzer results here: [80].

Behavior alone screams WP:DUCK to me. If more diffs are needed, please ask. I am asking that a sleeper check be done, as WS creates socks as soon as or very soon after the other socks are blocked. Because it's been a while since a WS sock has been spotted and blocked, and this latest account being reported is relatively new, I suspect there are others out there.

Pinging L235, Bbb23, and Vanjagenije as being previously familiar with the WordSeventeen SPI dance.

Thank you for looking into this.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pauciloquence is  Likely. No other accounts seen. Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply

04 January 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Suddenly shows up out of the blue at the Carrie Fisher article to revert something I had edited, siding with editor who reverted me. This is one of the hallmarks of WS socks and usually happens after they have been editing other articles for a while. I note that this account was created about the same time Paucilioquence (WS's last known sock) had been tagged on their talk page for edit warring. This was also in the same time period their efforts to revert my edits and come up against me as much as possible escalated. For whatever reason, WS feels I am to be targeted and uses socks to do that (beyond editing). As far as similarities, both Pauciloquence and the new suspected WS sock, Xi371n, frequent articles on classical, alt-rock, and foreign music artists: [81], [82], [83].

Also like Pauciloquence and other WS socks, for supposedly beginner edits, they are very un-newbie like: Adding categories, greeting new users via Twinkle, knowing how to create references, use of HotCat, knowing about speedy delete.

Also notable: About 1/4 of their 111 edits (at this writing that is the number of edits they have) were between account creation (12/24/16) and Pauciloquence's sock-block (12/27/16) - the rest (since December 27, 2016), have been since the last WS sock-block: 3/4 of total edits for the new account in a little over one week. The number of edits increased significantly following the Pauciloquence block.

WP:DUCK. Requesting CU and check for sleepers. Pinging Bbb23 as being very familiar with WordSeventeen socks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Note: King of Hearts, the unblock request have been denied here. Per Huon, "I have reviewed the behavioural evidence, and it's a near-perfect match. I don't think this level of similarity is coincidence.". Since the suspected sock has not done anything more to promote or convince anyone of their alleged innocence via evidence, it would seem a fork can be put in this, yes? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Please see the comments left by this user on my talk page. I endorse this investigation. There is no way this is a brand new Wikipedia editor. Brad v 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Just barely  Possible.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 01:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

  •  Blocked and tagged King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Clerk note: Xi371n has just filed an unblock request. While I agree with WV's analysis and find the behavioral evidence sufficient when combined with the possible CU result, I am open to having my decision reviewed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Close. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

18 June 2017

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence:

  • Twinkle usage just like WordSeventeen socks; Huggle usage just like WordSeventeen.
  • Both Stikkyy and FriyMan requesting permissions very early in their short editing careers: Stikkyy = autoreviewer, extendedconfirmed, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed; FriyMan = extendedconfirmed, patroller, reviewer, rollbacker, user, autoconfirmed.
  • Following me to articles (some obscure), noticeboards, and talk pages: Stikky, FriyMan.

The evidence seems pretty clear. Quack, quack. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Pinging L235 and King of Hearts as having dealt with WordSeventeen socks previously. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

FWIW, FriyMan was clearly posing as an inexperienced user on their first day, playing Wikipedia Adventure [84] but a few hours later confidently templating articles as uncategorized [85] and talkpages as photo needed [86]. Stikkyy likewise on their second edit is complaining about copy/paste indiscretions [87], on their next edit adding project templates [88] etc. and a few days later creating complete articles including an infobox and navbox on the first try [89]. No opinion at this time as to either account's connection to WordSeventeen. ☆ Bri ( talk) 05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Agree that both accounts seemed like experienced users when they first joined, but sockpuppetry isn't the only explanation for this. They could be clean start accounts, they could have been IP editors previously, I don't know. I originally thought Stikkyy was User:Turkeybutt JC because of this random and unprovoked tagging: Special:diff/764779368 Special:diff/764779302. Sro23 ( talk) 00:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Cross posted from my talk page: A quick glance provides plenty of likely reasons as to why it has not been acted on yet. For checkusers and clerks unfamiliar with the case a reading of the SPI archives to familiarize themselves is daunting due to the extremely long threads there, the accounts in question have thousands of edits between them, and the master and the confirmed socks are all  Stale. If a clerk reviews the evidence and endorses it for checkuser I will take a look if another CU doesn't get there in the meantime. I will copy this note to the SPI as well.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Additional information needed - @ Winkelvi: - Interaction Analyzer links by themselves, although not insignificant, aren't that helpful (if you looked at, say, mine with some other WPVG members you'd be convinced we're hiveminds), and stuff like "the usage of language userboxes" or "edits AfDs" is so common as to be meaningless. Because you claim both Stikkyy and FriyMan are socks of the same master, implicitly you also claim these two accounts are also being used by the same editor. Can you provide evidence (diffs) connecting the behaviour of the two accounts? Because if so, it might be sufficient to justify a CU check of the two accounts (all previous socks being stale at this time).   Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 06:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm away from my computer for a time (on vacation) and won't be able to get to this for more than two weeks. If you look at my other SPIs on WordSeventeen and numerous others, the type of evidence I've provided above has always been sufficient enough previously for a CU. Because of that, I'm unclear as to why it's insufficient today. -- ψλ ● ✉ 11:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The two accounts are Red X Unrelated to each other and to the master. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WordSeventeen/Archive&oldid=1138481314"