Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:17, 18 February 2016

WordSeventeen

WordSeventeen (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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/WordSeventeen/Archive.

17 February 2016

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• DatGuy (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jilllyjo (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

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: .

• WordSeventeen essentially stopped editing articles on November 18, 2015, spending the majority of his time in Misplaced Pages 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):

-Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Users

-Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

-Misplaced Pages:Pages needing translation into English

-Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection

-Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer

-Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Rollback

-Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants

-Misplaced Pages talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

• Both WordSeventeen and DatGuy advertise the use of Huggle and Twinkle with topicons on their User pages .

• This inquiry from DatGuy is strange for someone who is so new to Misplaced Pages: "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?" . 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 . 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. Very unusual response for a new user, but not unusual for a sock who has experience in Misplaced Pages and would feel a need to negotiate. He was approved on December 24, 2015 .

• 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.

• The JilllyJo account was created at 17:32 on January 25, 2016 and has 7 commonalities in edits with WordSeventeen , 4 editing commonalities with DatGuy .

• Commonalities the JilllyJo account has with WordSeventeen that seem too unusual to be coincidental are:

-808 Mafia

-Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service

-Misplaced Pages:The Misplaced Pages 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

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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. , , , .

• Jilllyjo has been hounding me, in the same manner as WordSeventeen and has now been warned by an administrator to stop , , . 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.

• WordSeventeen has used ReFill to fill in bare references quite frequently examples here in WS's user contributions.

• DatGuy is also using ReFill (just three examples, there are more) , , .

• Jilllyjo has become a member of the Italian Misplaced Pages here. WordSeventeen claims on his user page (via userbox) to have a working knowledge of the Italian language .

• 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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

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. 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 Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilllyjo (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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 • ]) 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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_Contribs 12:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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_Contribs 15:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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 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 and WordSeventeen made two minor WP:CLEANER edits in April/May of 2015. . 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. For fun, I checked and found Wordseventeen and I have both edited 96 pages including 49 articles (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 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 with all edits being very minor , tagging and vandalism reversion edits.

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

 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)

Copyedit is an expression dating back 60 years . 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)

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)

@Winkelvi and Chesnaught555: obvious sockpuppets - Ches. The hole is large. Dat Guy_Contribs 16:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Strange comment coming from someone who was just declared to be technically unrelated to the confirmed sockmaster and sock. I'd think you would be grateful, not hateful. Bbb23, could you please close and archive this report as it seems there will be nothing more constructive to come out of it. Indeed, it appears abuse and unfounded accusations are likely to continue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Bbb23 - here's your diff. Same word, funnily enough: --Ches (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• @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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • @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)
• 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)
• WordSeventeen and Jillyjo are  Confirmed.
• DatGuy is  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)

---

Categories:

• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive