Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winterysteppe/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Winterysteppe

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

21 June 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This seems to be an obvious sock of a now-blocked sockmaster. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 October 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

1. Appealed WS' block. 2. Claims to live in New York, just like WS. 3. As per #1, keeps editing WS' user talk page. CU required in my opinion. Patient Zerotalk 11:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my user page, barnstar section, for the barnstar WS gave me which states he lives in New York for evidence. Also, see UNSC Luke 1021's user page for a New York userbox. Patient Zerotalk 11:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please move your comment to the "other users" section. Also, I find it odd that you, a seemingly "new" editor, have attempted to become a Wikipedia lawyer and appeal his block. Nobody else's, like your userpage might suggest, rather just his. Patient Zerotalk 11:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, also on his user page: This user will serve in the army when he is old enough. This implies that he is a minor, much like WS claimed to be (he was in college, ostensibly, at the time of his CU block). Patient Zerotalk 12:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Bbb23. I don't know when the last time he socked was. I'll try and find out. Sorry if this report seems over-the-top, if you think this is the case feel free to close it early, I will not object. By the way UNSC Luke 1021 I live in the UK so we are in different time zones. Patient Zerotalk 16:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patient Zero: In the end, I guess you did catch a sock puppet. Congratulations. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
UNSC Luke 1021: That would be GAB and Mike V's findings, not mine :-) Patient Zerotalk 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

New York City has a population of almost 9 million, not including the immediate surrounding area, where I live. If I wanted to help a person out from getting banned, and we both happen to live in the NY Metro area, is that liable grounds for an accusation that I am sock-puppeting? Or just a coincidence that two people living in an area of 20 million both happen to use Wikipedia and run into each other? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I really just did this because I'm a big supporter of everyone receiving a fair trial and a fair hearing and stuff. Hell, it makes up three of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. I'm just doing what the law would do in real life. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Patient Zero, I'm in high school, making me too young to be the sock puppet for a college student UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How long does it usually take for the bot/admin to check the IP addresses and make a decision? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are we almost done here? Honest question. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I read your talk page, Patient Zerø. We both have a full time education going on right now, so I won't harass you until 3:00 pm (EDT) UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patient Zero: I know that you live in the UK, I just assumed that 3:00 EDT (8:00 UK) would be an open time for us both. Can't really talk now because I have to take a test, but later. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: So is this over or am I still being accused? I don't want to badger you or anyone else, I just never had this happen so I don't know what happens next. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

26 November 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I ran some checks per behavioral evidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 December 2016

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Account immediately mass-starting articles, including the same ones previously started, including by mirroring my own patterns, by starting Scott Glenn (professor), and also immediately following the same Western Europe and New Jersey articles as before, not to mention also starting Draft:Rawr, one of their past usernames. This is WP:DUCK but it's quite high-time we started making regular rounds for this. Same time patterns and MO. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Do not know if we are allowed to bring in evidence from other wikipedias as well, but their edits on Meta-wiki are very Duck-y. Sro23 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 January 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User test-edited User talk:Winterystoppe, which they reverted themselves; the page had previously not been edited in six months and it is odd how they came across the talk page in the first place. Not requesting CU as this is an IP this time. Patient Zerotalk 13:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant special:contribs/95.49.111.234! Looks like they've been blocked as an LTA instead. Patient Zerotalk 13:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to withdraw this investigation if that is OK. Patient Zerotalk 13:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 April 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The suspicion is mainly due to overlap with socks, especially on some of the more obscure pages. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. They have also been mass creating pages such as this. It's just strange for a relatively new user to do something like that. Sro23 (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

If it's any help, The Wonkers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is one non-stale confirmed sock. Sro23 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

29 June 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Behaviorally, this user is similar to previous sockpuppets like User:Uptoniga, User:Pyrusca, etc, mass-creating userspace drafts of China geo stubs (especially of Harbin). Example of one would be Jianguo Subdistrict, Harbin. StellarDrift writes the article here while the sock on Wikidata, User:MechQuester, adds interwiki links/descriptions there. (MechQuester is another sock that was only used once on the English wikipedia but is mostly active on wikidata). Sro23 (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Writing email to functionaries. Please read before doing anything. There is a massive explanation there and I will keep off wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.75.37 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

DoRD, letting you know that there is an email sent explaining a lot of things. Included is a request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.112.75.233 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

30 October 2017

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

This user is a highly active vandal-fighter. Well, so are lots of editors. But when I tried saying "this is Winterysteppe", everything just made sense. The anti-vandalism, the China stubs ([20] [21] [22]), and the cross-wiki activity. Winterysteppe socks were often active on other projects; for example, Pyrusca would chase sockmasters like User:Nipponese Dog Calvero or User:Szm020730 on different wikis: [23] [24], and I see that PlyrStar93 has been engaging in this same behavior: [25] [26]. However I would appreciate a second opinion from someone who's familiar with Winterysteppe. This account is a little different from past socks in that it slept for a very long time before re-activating again recently; it's actually much older than the master. I believe that there are no non-stale socks by this point. Sro23 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Winterysteppe occasionally go on trips to China? But given the results, the evidence isn't strong enough to warrant blocking. This case could probably be closed. Sro23 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Well, no dramas, I didn't really know Winterysteppe exists until this SPI happens - if I have ever come across them, I must have forgotten. Also, I only know about this particular SPI because Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi sent me a message at my talk page. I engaged in NDC because I read about the LTA case at zhwiki (literally describing them as the most severe vandal at zhwiki that ever existed), which links to enwiki as well, the level and range of disruption they caused (gross personal attacks on and off-wiki, cross-wiki issues), and in the meantime zhwiki CheckUsers have been dealing with these socks. As for Szm020730 the flag vandal, I only knew they were using IP's to disrupt articles here, and didn't know they have named accounts until a global lock request popped up on meta very recently, and then the global block on 120.37.163.75, which I reported to AIV here first, so I decided to put up some basic info here to allow easier AIV reporting and processing, as a recent AIV report about this vandal got declined presumably because the handling admin did not know about it. I am afraid that I don't see any real purpose of opening this investigation except for putting pressure on me, but if anyone has any questions for me, please do let me know. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. ← 15:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

11 December 2018

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Admittedly I'm not very familiar with AK however Hayholt had some very distinct behaviors that are not that of a new editor, specifically, their tenth ever edit to enwiki was uploading appropriately licensed non-free images for one of the last articles AK worked on. Following that, there is significant overlap and excessive use of iabot. Praxidicae (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added another for the same reasons I originally outlined and will email functs upon request. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bulk of edits (to the tune of 1 million!!!) for the last one are on commons, but their only edit here is to Hayholt's crap. Praxidicae (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

03 April 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Edits the same articles as, and makes a similar move to, Hayholt. First edit made a week before the last block. Nardog (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

07 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This user edited a few pages I have on my watchlist and I noticed their behavior suspiciously resembles that of an older sock (Hayholt). For instance, Hayholt created a draft about a potential DCEU film before being blocked [27] (it's been deleted though), something Faromics did recently as well [28]. Furthermore, an Editor Interaction Analysis shows a significant amount of overlap between the three accounts. Seems sorta WP:DUCKy to me. JOEBRO64 21:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

27 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


I just spotted this account (which was created in January but did not become active until last month) and saw similarities between previous socks, like the creation of poorly written draft articles about films that have not been confirmed to exist ([29][30][31]). Sure enough, Editor Interaction Analysis shows tons of overlap. JOEBRO64 01:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

30 August 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Deleted contributions of 70.21.198.191 appear to indicate a fairly strong connection. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This IP address has most likely been reassigned given that 15(ish) days have passed, thus a block is most likely too late. If this re-emerges at that address, I would recommend a block. Closing. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 March 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

$uperFan32 has shown an interest in very similar draft articles as Disappeareduser102020939 (talk · contribs) (CU confirmed sock) - what are the odds, especially with drafts?. Please also check for sleepers, considering we're dealing with a chronic sockpuppeteer here. MrClog (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I overlooked the fact that almost all interaction seems to be $SuperFan32 performing maintenance on the draft articles, not really significant interaction. Consider this request withdrawn. My apologies to you for wasting your time and $uperFan32 for the false accusation. Best, MrClog (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

@MrClog: $uperFan32 is a long-standing editor with almost 10K edits. You're going to need a lot more behavioral evidence to justify any action.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I was discussing the whole "making blank drafts to get credit" habit of this user with someone and they said it reminded them heavily of Winterysteppe. This user is a heavy proxy user, so there's not much from a CU perspective to go on, so behavioural analysis will likely be needed (I'm not familiar enough with the case to make that decision, though I'm filing because it seems like a reasonable connection to make). Primefac (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Nick, Praxidicae, and TonyBallioni, who have acted on this case in the (relatively recent) past and are still active. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Outside comment I've noticed Starzoner's behavior for a while now, seemingly starting a "draft" on a user subpage, and then moving that to the appropriate draft name to start something, which I've always felt is a bit odd behavior versus what I'd consider "normal" practice of simply going to the intended name and simply making a first edit there with whatever content is needed. I have no knowledge of the sock master's work, but simply wanted to echo Primefac's feeling based on my own observations of Starzoner's actions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have also noticed a weird sequence of moves, seemingly intended to deprive the true creating editor of the credit of being acknowledged as the article creator. I discussed this with Praxidicae and Primefac. That discussion may have been the final weight in the scalepan for the filing of this SPI. It imterests me that this is sockpuppetry. I can't see the benefit to anyone. least of all to Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I have decided to comment here because on countless occasions I had problems with Starzoner. I want to leave this request as proof where he go to request that deleted editions be restored pretending not to know that there were deleted editions. And I know it is the same person because if you look at the history of the page that he created and that is currently redirected to my draft, only the administrators will be able to see that his draft was created with the same information as the one present in this link. I take this opportunity again to request the deletion of editions of the blocked user because otherwise it will have achieved its mission. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is heart-breaking if true. I have criticized Starzoner in the past because of ways I thought he/she manipulated their page mover's right to usurp drafts on upcoming movies that were done by other editors, including Bruno. But this week, they came to my Meta Wiki talk page, asking for what they could do to ameliorate problems they had caused and the conflict they had with other editors. I thought it was a sign that they were going to change their strategy of editing on the project and turn things around, putting their productivity to better use and end their competitiveness.
I know we have a strict deletion policy for sockpuppets but I also would hate to see the work they have done on taxonomy deleted. I think despite the huge quantity of pages they have created, we have to look them over and not just mass delete all of the stubs they started if other editors have contributed to them. Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really necessary to mass delete 42,000+ pages? Other editors might have contributed to them, too. Rules are rules, I know, but what a loss. I think that the bulk of these articles will never be recreated. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This ticks me off. Boy, we are really showing that guy by producing a few thousand redlinks. What's particularly maddening is that this purge apparently bypasses the stubs where Starzoner did something imperfectly and someone else had to fix it up, so now they are no longer G5-eligible - but where they made a good product ab initio it must be removed. If nothing else, we should keep this one in mind as a demonstration of the point where following process runs right over good sense and heads into blindly following process. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elmidae, before this gets archived I think it might be worth mentioning that the deleted pages can be undeleted just as easily (if not more so) if there is a consensus to do so. WP:DRV is usually the location to raise such concerns, but given the scale and scope of deletions it might be worth cross-posting and/or just posting directly at WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can look at taxonomy ones to review/undelete/move on too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho. I didn't know that was easily done on stuff that was not explicitly soft-deleted. I'll bring it up at Tree of Life, and then if there's consensus that way we might pop it over to AN. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how does any one (or a small group) review over 40,000 pages? Scripts can easily mass delete pages but I didn't know there was an equally swift way of restoring them. I'm really stunned that any admin would go ahead with this deletion, on this scale, without some sort of community approval. Even with the Neelix situation, there was a long discussion prior to mass deletions. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle has a d-batch and un-d-batch functionality, so if a list of pages that needed restoration were provided, they could all be undeleted with just a few clicks (granted, it might take a few runs to make sure the dbase didn't lag, but it's still pretty straight-forward). Primefac (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just figured out that between articles, article talk pages and redirects, JJMC89 deleted 68,450 pages in one day. Liz Read! Talk! 20:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, most of those pages were userspace drafts that were mass-created in a similarly short period of time using AWB, there's clearly no point in retaining userspace drafts created by a blocked sockpuppet. Starzoner has created a total of 4,349 mainspace pages. At the time I write this comment, 3,781 have been deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we would be looking at 3000-4000 mainspace stubs, the rest was Starzoner's private... "stockpile" of empties. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that changes things. More information is always a good thing. The edit summary (which I should have looked at first) states they had 35,565 user space drafts so I don't know how that adds up to 68,450 pages since drafts rarely have talk pages. I had no idea that this was possible with AWB but then I don't use that tool. I knew they were prolific but I had no idea. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Starzoner's drafts did have talk pages (containing WikiProject banners), though. The talk pages were primarily created by BD2412 using AWB per a request at User:BD2412/Archive 042#Quick Question, and were deleted by JJMC89 as G5 even though that criterion didn't apply and the correct criterion to use was G8. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to encourage more bureaucracy but maybe there should be some kind of limit of how many user pages an editor can have. Something under 20,000 or 30,000? I'm only half-joking. Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#Starzoner mass page creation: 32,000+ pages created * Pppery * it has begun... 00:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<tangent>After spending most of my first three years here on noticeboards, I visit them infrequently since I became an admin so I wasn't aware that this problem had already come up. When I looked into Starzoner's deleted userpages today, I did see that a fair number of them were deleted some time ago, not yesterday. Thanks for the information, Pppery. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was pretty indiscriminate. A week ago, there were 625 pages in Category:Pandanus, now there are 85. I'm not sure what is considered a "substantial" edit per G5, but I had gone through every Pandanus species article created Starzoner and corrected the family from Gesneriaceae to Pandanaceae (Starzoner apparently used a copy-pasted template with the wrong family and propagated it 500+ times). I also did some formatting in my edits. Starzoner's substubs typically had maybe 4 statements of fact, and I corrected one that was wrong. It wasn't much of a change in byte count, but I'd consider fixing 1/4 of an article substantial. I don't approve of the creation of plant species articles with as minimal a level of information as those Starzoner created, and am not happy when substubs have factual errors. I've long monitored User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult and try to look over every new article. Starzoner's output has been challenging to keep up with and has left me pretty burnt-out on Wikipedia lately (there are other tasks here I would enjoy more). It is really fucking discouraging that I wasted my limited energy cleaning up after Starzoner and have had that effort deleted. Pandanus species are the largest group of Starzoner creations I've edited, but far from the only ones. Transcluded templates created by Starzoner were deleted, which is not allowed by G5. In my opinion, the most harmful pages created by Starzoner are redirects such as Eria dentrecasteauxii; an out-of-date species names that redirects to the former genus rather than the current species name (there are 20 redirects to Eria from species formerly included in the genus, and likely similar Starzoner redirects to other genera). Starzoner articles with edits from other people were deleted. Starzoner redirects with no non-bot edits are still here. What a shit show. Plantdrew (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ As has been mentioned a few times, incorrect deletions via WP:G5 can be restored at DRV or AN; from the sounds of it those pages should not have been deleted and their restoration should be fairly uncontroversial. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

I'm sufficiently convinced to block - note that between the SPI being filed and my blocking, Starzoner has requested via OTRS a rename. The account is currently at Vanished_user_234523522394 but the user and user talk pages haven't yet moved, so you'll have an absolute fucking nightmare trying to work out what the merry hell is going on. The account is, I'm told by the renamer responsible, being returned to the original Starzoner username when server lag permits. Nick (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't throw out the hundreds of published & reviewed plant species stubs though. They are valid and wanted. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Socks are socks. I would recommend the allegory on socks, and note that we've batch-deleted plenty of mass-creations by problematic users in the past. Primefac (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I am aware that we have an entrenched habit of cutting off the nose to spite the face in these cases, and I suppose the hours me and others reviewers have spent to check and frequently touch up these stubs are just collateral damage. As you were. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if you've "touched up" the pages, then they are likely not eligible for G5. Primefac (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that might save a hundred or so then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to close this SPI as no further action necessary. Any user in good faith may nominate the sock's creations that qualify for deletion per G5 (or another deletion criteria if applicable), but we are not required to delete/revert every single page (see WP:EVASION). To go through and check/delete every individual page would be too much work, and unless the sockmaster is known for really egregious violations (e.g. blp or copyright) it shouldn't be the responsibility of the SPI team to clean up after socks. Plus allowing some articles to stay live might even prove beneficial as honeypots that attract future socks. Sro23 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadn't realized JJMC89 already starting G5'ing thousands and thousands of pages. I think it would be more fair to leave it to the general community to clean up after socks, especially when the mess is this big, rather than the clerks. Enough people have complained that this will end up causing more work in the long run, so I'm not really sure what to do now. Sro23 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Resuming edits on drafts created by confirmed sockpuppet Starzoner claiming "credit was stolen" BOVINEBOY2008 23:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

02 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Creates exactly the same articles like SP Winterysteppe did - see Carex zunyiensis or Stelis pilosa CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New contribution Pleurothallis arctata - also previous done by the Sockmaster. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overseen another one, Pandanus latiloculatus - so all new articles by this user were also previously made by Sockmaster. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And another one, created yesterday Acianthera angustisepala, also previously being created by the sockmaster. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Okay, I think we are going into full quacking country here. It seems that pre-Starzoner block, the editor did five stubs then disappeared for a year: [32][33][34][35][36]. Then post-block, they suddenly become active again and immediately went full Starzoner: as of today, of their 15 16 new stubs since then, 14 15 are Starzoner recreations. It's all across the taxonomy too - there's no existing list of redlinks or suchlike that they could be following to arrive at this collection, other than Starzoner contributions. Not sure how much behavioural evidence is required, but the odds against hitting this set by accident must be astronomical. Style and content are well within what I would describe as "latter-day Starzoner". By timing and behaviour, that's a sleeper sock. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - The articles created aren't quite exactly identical to the ones deleted, please check to confirm sockpuppetry. Also, given this one has been around since 2020 a sleeper check wouldn't be such a bad idea. Sro23 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Static IP usage and no other technical connection, so this one will have to go on behaviour. Primefac (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced - there are several things in their behaviors that don't match with recent Winterysteppe socks. Between that, the changes in article style, and the lack of CU evidence, I am not willing to block. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03 May 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

I noticed Doomslug1 when they moved Naomi (TV pilot) in and out of draft ([37], [38]) and removed the AfD template ([39]).

This article was created by Starzoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is filed in this case (the archive is inconclusive on whether this should be moved, there were calls for a move but it wasn't moved, so filing here).

The editor interaction tool shows that Doomslug1, in addition to the suspicious undraft-draft-removeafd sequence, edited more than 20 common pages with Starzoner, despite having just 170 edits. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  •  Inconclusive Like the above request this one will likely need behavioural analysis (or someone with more CU experience to look) but I'm not seeing anything that would lead to a clear technical match back to Starzoner. If they are Starzoner/Winterysteppe, they might have changed MOs following the last block. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are several cases of Starzoner and Doomslug editing contrary to each other, I don't think this is Winterysteppe. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01 April 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

All active in Draft:Harold and the Purple Crayon (film). IPs will obviously get "No Comment" from CU. All are very "film oriented". A particuar trait of the named editors is the uniliaterla moves of poor film drafts to main space. IPs appear to be simple block evasion, and are included for completeness. IPs are relatively stale.

I see the master is globally locked, If proven may I suggest all relevant accounts have global locks requested? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: It simply struck me as unusual for SDFNC to appear in the article history. You have the experience here, not me. All I would suggest is that we have had long established editors before who have turned out not to be quite what they seem, and none of us is immune from the questions. Being cleared is great too. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An example is Starzoner, a puppet of WS. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Winterysteppe/Archive&oldid=1089540988"