English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek/Archive

Add links
From English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick


Jacurek

Jacurek (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Report date October 10 2009, 17:09 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by WuhWuzDat

shortly after Jacurek was reported for 3RR, new account "Tommy on Theems" was created, whose first and only edit was to remove the 3rr report. WuhWuzDat 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

Frankly I don't know what this is all about. I have nothing to do with this account. Interesting coincidence....I think that somebody is really after me.--Jacurek (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe this is related? [[1]]--Jacurek (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other users

A year and a half ago, Jacurek was blocked for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. He was a fairly new editor and didn't understand the rules; he acknowledged that he asked a co-worker to make edits for him. Since his return to Wikipedia he has turned over a new leaf; he's been a solid contributor to the project and maintained a clean block log. I would be very surprised to learn that he has been using a sock again, especially to delete an WP:ANEW complaint (!). Jacurek has enough common sense and enough experience on that board—making complaints, defending himself, and defending others—to know that (a) deleting a complaint doesn't make it go away and (b) creating a sock to delete a complaint would create drama and draw attention. This does not seem at all like the Jacurek I have come to know since November 2008. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: F (Other reason )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by WuhWuzDat 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Clerk declined - See below. NW (Talk)
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
  • information Administrator note I have blocked Tommy on Theemommy on Theems (talk · contribs) indefinitely. It does not seem that like that this is Jacurek's sockpuppet; it is more likely a trolling account. Malik Shabazz nails it on the head with his statement "Jacurek has enough common sense and enough experience on that board—making complaints, defending himself, and defending others—to know that (a) deleting a complaint doesn't make it go away and (b) creating a sock to delete a complaint would create drama and draw attention." It just does not seem likely enough to me that the troll account is Jacurek's. NW (Talk) 21:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date May 2 2010, 15:36 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by Pantherskin

The account was created on 25 December 2009, two days after Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list was closed and several editors were (topic) banned. The account started right away with editing the more contentious articles related to Eastern European, and in the words of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise was since then only used for "lame edit-warring over nationalist naming issues", see [2]. What makes it unlikely that this is a new account, and thus more likely that this account is used to evade a ban, is the fact that just three days after account creation the editor figured out who to file a 3RR report, see [3]. The editing is in the similar topic areas User:Jacurek edited, i.e. articles related to Polish history and the German-Polish disputes about nationalities and names.


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I only now noticed this report. I independently decided to block Mamalala on WP:DUCK grounds a day after this was filed. For the record, I don't quite get it why the report was rejected as "stale" – both accounts had been editing in the days immediately preceding the case, Mamalala right on 2 May, and Jacurek on 26 and 28 April, and previously in March. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Checkuser request – code letter: A (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.

 Clerk note: Originally filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mamalala. Auntie E. (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

 Clerk declined – Both accounts are  Stale for CheckUser purposes. –MuZemike 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what I was looking at, but there were indeed recent edits on the account, and they weren't stale. However, CU still declined per clear behavioral evidence, not necessary. –MuZemike 17:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 Clerk note: account tagged, autoblock would have caught the most recent IP, although the disruption might start up again in which case please re-report the case. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 18:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
18 April 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Jacurek is currently indefinitely banned from Eastern Europe-related edits because they engaged in edit wars exactly like those the IP was engaging in now before I blocked it. The earliest contribution of the IP is to WP:AE, removing evidence previously added by Jacurek and making reference to a message I sent Jacurek a few minutes previously, asking them to remove the evidence. This is enough to support an identification on behavioral grounds, but since this ban evasion can be grounds for substantial additional sanctions against Jacurek, it would be helpful to have third party confirmation.  Sandstein  06:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why I cannot see the IP in the diff you linked? And shouldn't Jacurek be notified of this discussion? IF this is indeed Jacurek, then those diffs are highly problematic indeed :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You cannot see the IP in the diff because I myself revdeleted it from the AE page per the normal rules of protecting the identity of people who accidentally edit while logged out. The diff still shows up in the IP's contributions list, though.

The WP:SPI rules say that "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection."  Sandstein  20:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

How do you know what Jacurek's location is? I don't think this has been made public, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not comment on Jacurek's location. I said that the IPs I added match the location of each other and of the IP Sandstein found.
But now that you bring it up, Jacurek was caught socking with a Vancouver IP from Telus and an IP from Shaw in 2008. And here, we have a Vancouver IP from Telus (154.20.89.37) and another Vancouver IP from Shaw (24.85.232.175) — a perfect match.
Apparently, after socking with 96.55.116.112 had worked out, Jacurek became careless. Next time it will probably be IPs and socks from his travels again.
Jacurek has a long history of sockpuppetry, blocks, topic bans, interaction bans, etc pp.; his disruption was/is not limited to the WP:EEML. I propose to finally ban now, something that should have happened years ago. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Where is that "perfect match"? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


No need to do further investigation. All IP's are connected to me. I left measasage with Sandstan and Avraham[4] Cheers, Jacurek (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser needed? This SPI appeared to be a DUCK close, but: As soon as Jacurek knew about a mail exchange between Avraham and me, he posted there and above that there is "no need to do further investigation." The reason given ('it was my cousin!') does not hold water given that Jacurek is a long-time expierienced sockpuppeteer, yet Jacurek's plea to not checkuser him makes me suspicious if there is something in the bushes similar to the sockfarm of his close friend Loosmark? Skäpperöd (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You're trying for a fishing expedition? Didn't your brother or cousin or roommate or someone like that also edit Pomeranian articles until some questions were raised? Or was that somebody else?Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you are talking about or whom you mistake me for, but in any case this is not at all relevant here. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, as more of an observer here (never having directly clashed with Jacurek nor collaborated with him), I'd say his admission looks suspicious and a CU is still warranted. After all, if it's just his cousin concerned, this person - albeit already revealing some of the troublesome traits his relative Jacurek has - might be seen as a legitimate newcomer (and should be encouraged to create an account, instead of editing anonymously). However, if it was Jacurek, I think this shouldn't be taken easily. Given the amount of disruption he's been causing (just take a look at his block log and recall other sanctions), a ban is really in order. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that CU should be carried out to clarify the issue. If Jacurek is lying, a ban should be warranted. But if CU cannot prove he is lying, he should be immediately unblocked, with an apology. One should not be hold responsible for what a family member may do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • In view of this admission I have blocked Jacurek for a month. I'm leaving the request open in the case more evasion can be found by checkuser, which is not improbable.  Sandstein  06:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll add a checkuser here, mostly to see if there are sleepers, noting that the results for the IP likely will not be able to be published publicly. Also, the governing principle here is, from WP:ARBSCI#Multiple editors with a single voice (see also WP:SHARE):

T. Canens (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone succinctly clarify what you hope to learn from a CheckUser investigation? It sounds to me like Jacurek has already acknowledged that the anonymous edits came from his IP, but claims they are a family member. If I were to check the IPs and find that they are indeed Jacurek's, I'm not sure that that changes anything. CheckUser will not actually tell me what particular person made an edit on an IP. Dominic·t 14:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the best we can check is if the UA is also a match? (Not that UA is very reliable...) Also, given the history of this user and apparent socking here, it might be advisable to check if there are sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I am curious whether CU couldn't prove his innocence. It sounds to me like those IPs are not Jacurek's regular IPs anwyay, but he went and admitted his family connection to them, as a show of good faith. Thus CU could be used to prove his good faith instead of bad faith. Of course, I could be wrong, and the IPs could be him, and then we just have his word. But as a number of people are reading his statement as "those were my IPs but not me" I think a clarification would be helpful. Were those his IPs or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I am reluctant to use confidential data on an editor's IP to check a hunch about whether or not his admission was false. CheckUser is about preventing abuse to the encyclopedia, not protecting editors from themselves. The user agents in question here are not enlightening, since they are very common. And I'm not about to check for sleeper accounts when there is not even a hint of any sockpuppet account to begin with. I think the community already has all the information it needs to make the judgment call about sockpuppetry in this case. Dominic·t 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
All the community has as an IP sharing similar location (city) and the editor saying it was a family member. As such, if this is how we end this investigation, I think that it is clear that there is no proof Jacurek was socking. I find one month block for "no proof" and ongoing community ban discussion on such non-existing evidence, to put it most mildly, rather absurd. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear enough from my reading that the reason Jacurek mentioned the cousin was to explain why they shared IPs ("No need to do further investigation. All IP's are connected to me.") and that is the basis of my decline. I think your interpretation of this as indicating only a similar location is odd indeed. But I am declining to offer CheckUser evidence, not ending the discussion. Whether or not this is sockpuppetry is a separate matter, and not one that I am involving myself in. Dominic·t 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Closing. IP and account already blocked. Nothing more to do on SPI's part. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
08 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

These are socks left over from Jacurek's latest topic ban evasion [5]. Other sockpuppets from the same editing spree that have already been identified [6] and blocked on 17 May and subsequent socks identified and blocked on 24 May are listed here for the record:

Requested actions:

  • indef block of the sockmaster, given his record of socking/ban evasion/other disruption
  • indef block of the not-yet-blocked sockpuppet accounts
  • indiscriminate revert of the sockpuppets' contribs to not encourage further socking; many contribs of the blocked as well as the still unblocked socks are still online
  • consider if the IPs are likely to be used again by Jacurek, then block
  • probably categorize/template the sock and sockmaster accounts Skäpperöd (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments by other users

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

  • If Jacurek is socking, after what happened before, he deserves all he gets. But I seem to be unable to find a rationale above as to why the socks are supposed to be Jacurek's. I do not consider myself an expert in SPI investigations, but looking at the archive, I see one sock blocked for behavioral evidence (no IP-proof) in 2010, and another last month, controversially as the user admitted it was an unintentional meatpuppet, and IP evidence was not conclusive (great way to reward editors for being honest). And now there is this weird sock farm. I think we are dealing with some disruptive user who needs to be stopped, but whether it is Jacurek, or somebody else, that is not clear to me. Through FSP seems to have no doubts, I have my own doubts about his attitude towards Jacurek (seeing as he once given him a few months block for a single uncivil comment...). Either way, we should figure out who is being disruptive, and if possible, block some IP range, but let's be open to the possibility it is not Jacurek. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I counted 13 sockpuppets. Again this is if there are actually his sockpuppets. Anyways, Piotrus hit the jackpot, as we cannot block a user without sufficient evidence to support the investigation. ĐARKJEDI10 23:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Fut.Perf.

Also add the following:

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - I'd like a CU to confirm, please. T. Canens (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 On hold pending some opinions from some other CUs regarding this. –MuZemike 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, MuZemike. — Coren (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After conferring with a couple other CheckUsers, the following are  Confirmed as Jacurek:

 Likely as Jacurek:

Yardslikevalid is  Inconclusive based on technical evidence. I already blocked and tagged the confirmed socks. –MuZemike 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the "likely" one as well, same style of edits. Jacurek blocked indef; I'll now go fill out the AE paperwork, but this is ridiculous. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, did you check the socks blocked by Future Perfect previously, listed above? Any CU results related to them? T. Canens (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I had not listed them for CU because they were already identified and blocked due to behavioral evidence (such as continuation of Jacurek's edit wars in a remote, low-traffic wikicorner just after Jacurek's AE topic ban [7]). It would probably be wise, though, to perform a CU nevertheless and maybe retrieve some data for identification of sleepers and future socks. After all,
  • the last three sockpuppets identified per CU (Usingsoap1, Suchbrokex, Mostbadlyrocks) were active after this SPI was filed (and Jacurek informed), showing how Jacurek continues to register and use SPA socks regardless of sanctions/reports
  • for at least two accounts which remained unidentified and unblocked prior to this CU, Jacurek "invented" (i.e. copy/pasted) background stories on their userpages (the page User:LevehandXXX is a copy of the page User:Stijn Calle, and the page User:Lawspath22 is a copy of the page User:Waacstats, both have of course nothing to do with this), showing that they were intended for contineous use (cf. e.g. the "Slovakian exchange student" story created for his Mamamlala sock, which he used to evade his EEML topic ban during a stay in Missouri: that account was used for quite a while and only abandoned when he headed back, not without leaving a note and continuing Mamalala's "work" by socking from inside the airplane). For his first, 2008 socks Ambor and Cvc42, as well as for the multiple throwaway socks created since, he did not create background stories.
  • from the IPs identified as Jacurek's in past SPIs, it is obvious that Jacurek is not editing solely from a fixed IP or relying on one distinct provider only. Though there is a preference for Shaw and Telus in Vancouver (e.g. 154.20.146.225 in 2008 (IP2LOCATION), 70.79.12.228 in 2008 (IP2LOCATION), 154.20.89.37 in 2008 (IP2LOCATION), 24.84.209.134 in 2011 (IP2LOCATION), 24.85.232.175 in 2011 (IP2LOCATION) and others), he has also used other providers (e.g. Whole Food Markets Capers, Vancouver with 24.114.238.202 in 2011 (IP2LOCATION)), or the same provider(s) from a different location (e.g. Telus, London/Ontario with 209.121.225.252 in 2011 (IP2LOCATION)), or a different provider from a different location (e.g. AT&T, St Louis/MO with 99.64.215.189 in late 2009 (IP2LOCATION), part of the Mamalala sockpuppet group).
Skäpperöd (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This IP 89.228.34.222 seems to be his newest (but since it's Polish provider, it might also be some 'pen pal' of his.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
27 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

See comments. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Additionally:

M.K. (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
25 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
Accounts added later

Rapid-fire sequence of similar personal attacks posted on the talk page of User:Skäpperöd: [9], [10], [11]. | Uncle Milty | talk | 13:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Sequence of events

sockmaster account is Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • sockpuppetry since 2008, various topic bans, interaction bans, blocks, WP:EEML; the following events are of 2011:
  • March — Jacurek topic-banned over edit-warring Polish exonymes in the lead sentences of various Lithuanian locations [12] (AE ban)
  • April — Jacurek socking to continue said edit war, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacurek/Archive#18_April_2011
  • May — Jacurek socking to continue said edit war, several socks identified and blocked w/o dedicated SPI case [13]
  • early June — Jacurek socking to continue said edit war, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacurek/Archive#08_June_2011; that SPI was open for weeks due to ever more socks being active/revealed, the last IP reported there indicates that he left Canada for Europe, Jacurek blocked indef
  • late June — this case, socks continuing said edit war and attacking me (filed the previous SPI) and Miacek (commented in said SPI, linked more socks and reverted them)
    • CU found that the sock-IPs are not from Jacurek's Canadian ranges (still travelling, cf Jacurek's Missouri/airplane socks of winter 2009/10 when he circumvented his EEML topic ban during travels)
    • Jacurek back in Canada as evident from IP 96.49.205.61 listed by Miacek below (IP2LOCATION, Shaw Vancouver ranges were among the preferred ranges of previous socks).
    • Jacurek using his Jacurek account to mock that he "keeps playing" and "ugly dogs are barking" (26 June, CU might check whether the IP is related to last socks which were active until hours before - where is he staying right now?)

Skäpperöd (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • information Administrator note Per WP:DUCK I've blocked both named accounts, and I've blocked the IP for a week. I don't know who the master is, but I get the sense that both are socks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Relisted: As noted by Miacek above, this report should be included with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacurek, a currently open SPI case initiated by me which seems to be the reason for the attack posts to my talk page (Jacurek is already blocked, but continues to create more socks, note the involvement in Lithuanian naming issues by abovementioned socks, further indicating that this is Jacurek again).
Note also that the last suspected sock IP of Jacurek in the Jacurek SPI, i.e. 89.228.34.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has (once again) left the Canadian ranges, and that the IP listed above, i.e. 88.128.90.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), is editing from a German range.
I further request the attack posts on my talk page to be rev-del'd once Jacurek's travelling circus is properly dealt with and the posts are not needed as evidence anymore.
Skäpperöd (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
All of the named accounts are  Confirmed matches to each other, plus another, Weeksusuallllllll (talk · contribs). For what it's worth, it appears these accounts are Red X Unrelated to Jacurek. TNXMan 13:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • information Administrator note I've moved this case to reflect Weeksusuallllllll as the master. I've blocked and tagged everyone per the findings. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear sysops, can you please attach that to the currently open Jacurek case. Of course the IP range is unrelated to Jacurek's usual Canadian range, he is travelling. But it is Jacurek for certain, obvious from the socks continuing his Lithuanian naming edit war and the attacks on Miacek and me who provided evidence/listed socks in the Jacurek SPI (which itself is a follow-up to the blocks of Jacurek's previous sock-farm, which was not handled at SPI). Skäpperöd (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
No; per the findings above, this account is Red X Unrelated to Jacurek. I'm going to go by the CU findings on this one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
CUs are checking IPs. The CU's comment "unrelated" does not in any way mean it is not Jacurek, it just means that the IPs of the socks don't match an IP (range) Jacurek has used during the last three month with his main account. Jacurek is travelling. That all the above accounts and the IP are Jacurek is obvious per behavioral evidence, do I really have to provide that evidence from the start again when these socks are just continuing well-known (and already dealt with) behavior, and another respective SPI is already open (the closure of the Jacurek SPI was only delayed when ever new socks popped up)? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
QED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Enjoykeepsmeone , 96.49.205.61 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (was anyone telling us that Jacurek is not involved?), Keepweekmestary (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), Agensaved (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to name just a few. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm putting this case on hold, as this is open at ANI right now. I don't understand what you're asking for here - are you asking us to check these accounts as well? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
CU will identify only those socks as Jacurek (talk · contribs) which he used after his return to Canada, e.g. IP 96.49.205.61 (Shaw Vancouver). The other socks used during Jacurek's travels are however obvious per behavioral evidence such as timing and scope, i.e. continuation of Jacurek's months-long edit war to add Polish exonyms to Lithuanian locations which otherwise get almost zero attention, consecutive use of socks, attacks on people who report him ...
The CU might want to compare sock IPs not only to Jacurek's most recent IPs, but also to the ranges used by the sock farm identified in the previous report, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacurek/Archive#18_April_2011.
Please move this SPI to reflect that Jacurek is the sockpuppeteer. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Also add to the above
Note that those socks who edited before Jacurek's return to Canada must be compared to socks from the respective travel checkusered by Tnxman above. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The following are all Jacurek (talk · contribs):

I've added today's account above. It would make sense to check, which kind of a sock puppet master it locates to.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
29 June 2011
28 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets
27 June 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

All new users who used their first edit to well populate their user page with userboxes, then their next edit was to revert edits that had removed lang-pl templates from various articles. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Additionally:

M.K. (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk note: The following is from a simultaneous merged case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weeksusuallllllll --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I've merged a case opened for Brushapplymuu to here, and I've endorsed to find out what these accounts are. Is there no IP blocking to be done? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, I've blocked three of them and have protected some articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Doing, and will cross-check as requested. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Not done yet, but  Confirmed that this is the same person as under Jacurek. Clerks, please merge these cases. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
        •  Doing... --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Actually, not much to do for me, I've already blocked all these accounts as Jacurek, and the underlying ranges are blocked as well. I blocked Bothblindnuuyr as a sock, as it was created by one of the other listed accounts. Thanks, Shirik. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
          •  Done merging --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • All blocked; we're done for now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
16 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

See prior cases in archive for the evidence trend. M.K. (talk) 08:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

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

 Confirmed plus:

 IP blocked –MuZemike 19:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

20 July 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


See prior cases in archive. M.K. (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC) M.K. (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

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

The following are  Confirmed matches to each other and a  Likely match to the accounts in the archive:

31 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets


Dumping checkuser results: I've indefinitely blocked both of these as technically  Likely socks of Jacurek. Compare Vonbaysen's edit at Burbiškis to this old revert. Logging here for the public record. AGK [•] 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

11 April 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

  1. The user in question ("the user") has been active for at least two months on a variety of articles related to WWII Polish history [14]. On April 2nd I started logging and reviewing edits that I deemed disruptive on one of these articles [15][16][17]. The user commented once, and two days later (April 4th) disappeared [18], and the IP editor/s started making modifications [19].
  2. The subjects of the edits are similar to what the user previously edited: for example, the user was particularly occupied with the section on political collaboration [20][21][22][23][24][25], and so is the IP editor [26][27][28][29]; the user repeatedly changed phrasing in the "collaboration and the resistance" section [30][31][32][33][34], and so has the IP editor in the exact same locations [35][36].
  3. All of the IPs originate from just two ISPs, and all but one haven't been seen on this article before. Both ISPs are based in the same country as the user, according to their own public admissions [37]. François Robere (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

IP admitted to be GizzyCatBella
  • I would like to point out the following diff - [38] in which the 64 bit IP is referring to a future possible AN/ANI/ARBCOM "don't see "the other half" pointing out to the fact that it appears you are deliberately attempting to assign the responsibility for the Holocaust to the Poles and the Polish State. It's evident, and you should be concerned about the effects it might have on your future editing powers in the upcoming administrative scrutiny." - indicating this may be an involved editor.Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    The following GizzyCatBella Revision as of 13:05, 3 April 2018 vs. 2a01:110f:4505:dc00:39a2:941e:ab28:4f30 Revision as of 19:12, 8 April 2018 show a strong preference to "such attempts failed" (as opposed to did not). Interestingly, in both edits, GizzyCatBella and the IP editors are both using books.google.ca - the IP editor changing a number of refs to books.google.ca.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    Also - talk page discussion on "failure" in which GizzyCatBella advanced the position of "failed". Revision as of 16:01, 27 March 2018 GizzyCatBella (adding refs to support failed), Revision as of 23:54, 7 April 2018 2a01:110f:4505:dc00:54e2:e190:37f5:8163 - shows a preference to " such attempts failed".Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And another one edit IP [[39]].Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Another one - at AN/I - [40][41]. At AN/I states "my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why" (my impression has been that the 64-bit IP (which I've focused on) - changes a bit more often than daily). Another one at AN/EW - [42].Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Talk about dynamic addresses, clerks and CUs know
So they may not be socking just have a dynamic IP address.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
A bit fast for dynamic - but the socking evidence presented by François (and which I expanded a bit) - is based on a similarity between GizzyCatBella and the 64-bit IP in flux. GizzyCatBella stopped editing on 4 April - the IP stepped in with similar positions (and sources, and use of books.google.ca (the Canadian google - despite the IP being in Warsaw Poland)) on the same article, with some additional knowledge about what's involved in terms of editors.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Bet I could Dynamic IP it just as fast, but doing so would need some deliberation about choosing to do it. Has anyone actually asked if they are GC?Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Many ISPs will assign you a new IP if you connect/disconnect (some don't - or don't always - and will often assign the previous one on reconnect if they didn't assign it to someone else) - but IPs usually remain static as long as your link is up. Most connections nowadays (in our post dialup age) are up 24/7 and are power-cycled only rarely.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is why I said " but doing so would need some deliberation about choosing to do it", you would have to log off fairly constantly. And we have an other one edit SPA IP fetch up [[43]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Discourse unrelated to SPI function
  • From GizzyCatBella - It would be nice if François Robere would let me know about this instead of me finding out from a third party!!! But of course, he has chosen not to. So, NO François Robere this is NOT a socking attempt. I don't have access to my password for a while, that's why I'm not logging into my account. I also don't feel obligated to tell you about it, I don't feel obligated to tell you where I'm when right now, when I'll be back, where I'm from and where I will be next. GizzyBella account is not being used until I'm able to accsess the account. So back off!2A01:110F:4505:DC00:1DAD:B65D:E100:9863 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
So when I asked you to identify yourself and go to talk (twice!) you just thought it amusing not to do so? François Robere (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You still need to apologize to me for offending me with an "a..s" word! Until then I'm not speaking to you. Only my previous sympathy to you prevented me from reporting these insults directed at my person. Now back off 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:1DAD:B65D:E100:9863 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've never insulted you in person, I merely resent you undoing hours of work at a whim.[44] François Robere (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you did, and on top of that, you were shouting at me with the capital letters. I'm too old and have too much self-respect to be treated like that. Do you understand?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:148B:D27:EC07:81A0 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, neither of these is particularly evident in your rush to sanitize Polish history, undo fellow editors' work and deride esteemed scholars with whom you disagree. François Robere (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You just precisely described your behavior in your efforts to shift responsibility for the Holocaust from Nazi Germany to the Poles and Polish State. Brilliant, I don't have to add anything.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:E5A8:D7D4:DBA5:83D3 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a disgusting accusation that alone should merit your block. François Robere (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your disgusting accusation that I'm trying to "sanitize Polish history" alone should merit your block, plus your past insults towards my person should justify a long one. Goodbye.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Unlike your accusations, this one is supported by diffs. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Why "keep this conversation private" [45] if it's just an honest misunderstanding and you're not trying to fool anyone? François Robere (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

He bothered to ask me, and that was between him and me. Did you ever fret asking me who am I !? NO!I never pretended to be somebody else! Instead, you quietly filed this report without even letting me know about it! I can't believe it. And don't even try telling me otherwise or that you couldn't ask on IP talk page if that was me. You could do that but decided not to, expecting sanctions imposed on my person. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:148B:D27:EC07:81A0 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Francois, after being reported to AN/EW (by the, at the time, unidentified IP) shortly after opening this report, clearly posted on that report a notification of the SPI diff of notification - not that this is required. Icewhiz (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Which IP should I have asked? François Robere (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
This one for example [46] just like he did. Stop playing.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:E5A8:D7D4:DBA5:83D3 (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That's Slatersteven's talk page. François Robere (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Already admitted connection
  • Editing without identifying one's self - please note that besides the intensive edit warring (a couple of reversions per day - and "big ones" at that - rolling back large swathes of the article, all this with a changing IP per editing session) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (edited up to April 4 by GizzyCatBella), the IP now identifying as GizzyCatBella also:
    1. Filed ANI without identifying one's self: reporting Icewhiz in addition to other users previously mentioned (they saw this as an ANI report (which it is) per their message on my talk-page - [47] (without identifying themselves). They also took part in the discussion, [[48]] and in response to a SPA tag, they replied - [49] "Response to Note: — mistaken ----> I have been editing various articles before for a quite time, my IP keeps changing daily at the place where I dwell, that's why." - which does not seem to identify one's self.
    2. Filed an AN/EW report without identifying one's self:: [50]
    3. Made multiple posts to the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Talk - [51][52][53] [54] The following two were made in a section/topic ("whitewashing") commented on by GizzyCatBella:[55][56]. Some of the other TP edits were on topics previously discussed on the TP (but in a new section).Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Per this note it seems that all we've got here is a user who's away from their home computer, who does not have access to their password (presumably saved on their home browser) and who is concerned about being identified via their IP. I know they asked to "keep the conversation private" but since Icewhiz and FR are making a very bad faithed attempt at railroading this user and getting them blocked for nothing what so ever I feel that this should be pointed out. Did the user vote multiple times in an RfC? Did they break 3RR using the IPs? As far as I can tell, no. Icewhiz is making a big deal out of "they didn't identify" - well, it's legitimate to not want to have your location revealed and as long as there's no violation of policy, this is a legitimate use of multiple accounts (due to travel). This is just a WP:TENDENTIOUS attempt by Icewhiz to "win" a content dispute by having someone who disagrees with them blocked on a bullcrap pretext.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Or in other words, if there were no policy violations here, then this isn't sock puppetry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevant policy - WP:BADSOCK("Editing project space") - in regards to AN/I and AN/EW report. WP:SCRUTINY in regards to multiple reversions as an IP at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland (edited up to April 4 by GizzyCatBella), and possibly WP:BADSOCK]("Creating an illusion of support") for edits in Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Talk (these - [57][58] - in sections previously edited as GizzyCatBella).Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
No. That part of WP:BADSOCK which references "editing project space" and "discussions internal to the project" refers to "policy debates" [59]. Like if the user got into a debate over at the WP:OR page or something. Posting to AN/I or AN/EW is not a policy discussion. And anyway, it's highly doubtful that in these circumstances the user would even be aware of WP:BADSOCK and the ins and outs of it (that's pretty much written for long term sock puppeteers). You're really trying hard to railroad someone because they have disagreed with you on a content matter. Which is the very definition of WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Not useful discourse
What I like to know, Marek, is why this user came into contact with any of us, and even filed an ANI against me, without first identifying. We've been in contact on these articles for almost two months; if she's nothing to hide, I would expect her to sign her comments with their established pseudonym, not an anonymous IP.
Also, these two [60][61] broke 3RR fairly quickly. François Robere (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Um, no. Neither of these "broke 3RR". At all, nevermind "fairly quickly". Please strike that false accusation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe most if not all of these were previously reverted by myself or someone else: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. François Robere (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
FR, for it to be 3RR violation it has to be non-consecutive edits. Otherwise, ya'd have been blocked long ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Added Poeticbent to this report. Evidence is as follows:
    1. GizzyCatBella started editing in 19 Sep 2015, did not act like a new user in terms of editing, did some minor marked edits (not new user behavior), and immediately jumped into a very hot topic area - 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. User continued editing this (with some minor inter-spaced edits), and then went dormant on 15 Dec 2015. User edited very little (7 edits in 3 editing sessions) until February 2018 - the passage of the "Holocaust Law" in Poland.[62]. After some minor edits, the user jumped into Polish-Jewish relation topics (e.g. Kielce pogrom (previously heavily edited by PB), Jewish Ghetto Police, Jakub Lejkin, "Polish death camp" controversy) and topics related to Polish WWII history (Collaboration with the Axis Powers).
    2. Per GizzyCatBella user stats, GizzyCatBella has edited 274 unique pages. Per the editor interaction tool - 128 article intersect with Poeticbent - or a 46% intersection rate. What is telling about these intersections is actually not the "hot topics" (though they intersect somewhat too), but rather arcane less traveled articles in which GizzyCatBella shows up to do minor improvements, e.g.:
      • [63] on Helena Wolińska-Brus (A Jewish-Polish communist) - edited by PB a few times (e.g. highlighting her belief system as communist), GCB shows up in the article history a few edits apart (despite the year+ gap - mostly bots and IPs - 10 intervening edits) - and highlights similar aspects + adds some see also).
      • [64] on Moshe Merin (A Jewish-Polish Judenrat) - a year after PB does some editing, and with 2 intervening edits (1 a bot), GCB shows up and add a reference to books.google.ca.
      • [65] Grojanowski Report (report on Chełmno extermination camp) - a year+ after PB edits, and with a single intevening edit, GCB shows up to modify Nazi to German.
      • [66] Wanda Krahelska-Filipowicz (Polish resistance, aided Jews) - created by PB in 2006, last edited by PB in 2007. The article however was only lightly edited since, though it did get a refimprove tag in 2012. In a single quick edit session on 27 March - GCB adds multiple refs, removes the tag, adds an image, see-also, and then leaves the article.
      • [67] Stefan Michnik (A Jewish-Polish communist) - created by Stawiski, which per this 14 Sep 2011 SPI was connected to PB. PB then edited the article in 2013-2015. On March 2018 - after some 19 intervening edits - GCB shows up and does quite a bit of various gnoming/improvements as well as adding Stalinist, communist, and De-Stalinization.
      • [68] Sonderaktion 1005 (Nazi cover up operation) - heavily edited by PB in 2014. 16 intervening edits. In one of GCB's first edits on returning on returning in Feb 2018 - minor edits to modify Eastern Europe to Central and Eastern Europe.
      • [69] Kresy (Eastern part of the pre-1939 Poland). - heavily edited by PB in 2015-2017. 6 intervening edits, and GCB shows up on March 2018, and provides two refs to cn tags from Aug 2017.
      • Going down the staggering 46% page intersection rate (128 pages) - in less traveled pages (I picked ones I had to say - who/what on or thought that would be the typical response) - there is a similar pattern - PB edited the page in the past, GCB comes in to these relatively obscure pages and does various improvements and POV tilts. Many of these are outright article improvements (e.g. references), others are minor corrections or small POV mods (e.g. Nazi->German changes) - but the pool of articles chosen by GCB seems to be the same pool of articles that PB has traveled.
    3. The citation style is similar. PB also often (but not always) uses google.books.ca. The citation template for books is similar - e.g. PB "cite book |title=History Vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the Catholic Church |first=David |last=Cymet |url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=Pp7DZigCaDcC&lpg=PA263&dq=Erich%20Fuchs%20a%20200%20horsepower%2C%20water%20cooled%20V-8%20gasoline%20engine&pg=PA263#v=onepage&q&f=false |publisher=Lexington Books |year=2010 |page=263 |ISBN=0739132938" vs. GCB - "Cite book|url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=sG3XAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT8&dq=polish+Commonwealth+1772&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic_KfCr93ZAhVS_mMKHTL2CoEQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=polish%20Commonwealth%201772&f=false%7Ctitle=The Partitions of Poland 1772, 1793, 1795|last=Lukowski|first=Jerzy|date=2014-06-17|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781317886938|language=en".
    4. Editing times (in the time card) - are fairly similar.
    5. Upon GCB's return on 5 Feb 2018, the following change was made to the user page diff - moving from the generic GizzyCatBella welcomes you at his talk page! to GizzyCatBella welcomes you at her incredible talk page!. If this indeed was a sleeper account created in 2015 with a random username, the inconsistency in gender (with Bella) may have passed unnoticed.
    6. I want to stress again the intersection in pages edited - 128 out of 274 (46%) by GCB intersect - and most of these are very low-traffic articles.Icewhiz (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That's very interesting, and well done on doing the follow up on all of this. I wouldn't have guessed. While they both show certain ideological tendencies, they have very different styles of expression. But then, I didn't have a lot of interaction with PoteticBent beyond his almost random insults. I did wonder - he seemed to be closely monitoring the article, but not actually making any edits; he would appear out of nowhere, pour some words of contempt, then disappear. For example, after a year and a half away from this article, he suddenly appeared and made these comments [70][71][72], then a week later (and with no further interactions with me) appeared on this ANI. Now, it's possible he just went through the page's history before making these slanderous comments, but it did strike me as odd that someone would be so involved and spiteful after so little interaction with either me or my work.
The note on "feigning naivety" reminds me of Bella's approach [73] (and I haven't even mentioned the mother story [74]). Judging from users' comments on PB, and what I've seen with both PB and Bella, they both share a certain... split character: much of the time their edits are benign or beneficial, and they're willing to discuss changes to reach a consensus, but the rest of the time they're completely biased, argumentative and uninterested in RS or DUE.
As an aside, discovering that some of the other editors involved in this article go that far back is somewhat... unnerving. François Robere (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
PB was more active (and quite loud) in Dec-Jan when the "holocaust law" began to send Wikipedia editing waves, on Jedwabne pogrom, Szczuczyn pogrom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szczuczyn pogrom. He then was active in the beginning of "Polish death camp" controversy (reverting and then filing a SPI over it on Jan 28 - [75]) - but after that he took, per my observation, a more laid back approach. Then in the AN/I (in which the IP self identified as GCB was active) - [76] - PB and the IP/GCB were both active and gunning for an outcome. The editing patterns of GCB (who seemed wiki knowledgeable from the get go, the long 2015-8 wikibreak, and topic area) had me thinking before (but I was not sure in which direction). The 45% article intersection rate (including many very low traffic articles) was bingo for that there was something fishy.Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, I'll suggest you inform Poeticbent about this clutter you posting here against him, as per policy. François Robere failed to notify me when he scraped this case, and you are making the same violation of fundamental rules.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:880C:C22C:32FA:359C (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
It actually is not required per policy - but - notified.Icewhiz (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is, otherwise he might not be aware of it and be unable to defend himself if nessesarry.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:880C:C22C:32FA:359C (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, not helpful

You have spent about 5-6 hours assembling all that data Icewhiz unless you are an IBM supercomputer, so perhaps 3 minutes. You must have a lot of time on your plate. Good for you, I'm jealous. You see, I'm long since retired, but I still can't find so much free time to donate. Is there anything you would like to ask me so you could focus on someting else rather than flodding this column with rubbish? Perhaps I may help you by telling that I'm not Poeticbent and I wasn't socking? Maybe I can tell you that I feel harraseed by you and your companion François Robere who is disrespectful and is mocking me for about a month now? Can you two leave me alone? I would apreaciate it. Thank you. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:880C:C22C:32FA:359C (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Less than 93 minutes. If you could kindly explain how you came around to editing some 128 articles (out of 274 edited - or 46.7%) as GizzyCatBella that were edited as Poeticbent? Articles such as Fritz Buntrock, Stanisław Michalkiewicz, Dov Freiberg, Erich Muhsfeldt, Salomon Morel, and Józef Szeryński for instance?Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me, but who are you that expect me to make such disclosures? Am I missing something here?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:880C:C22C:32FA:359C (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the presumption, however it is you that said - Is there anything you would like to ask me so you could focus on someting else rather than flodding this column with rubbish?diff 03:22, 17 April 2018, so I took you up on what I thought was your offer. I apologize for apparently misunderstanding. I of course have no powers of subpoena here, so res ipsa loquitur.Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What I meant was that you could have asked if I'm Poeticbent, but not about any other details that I'm not willing to share with you. PS. Why this friendly and apologetic attitude of yours all of a sudden? I'm shocked.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:880C:C22C:32FA:359C (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this may be the point where an admin should comment.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I will note the SPI was opened by Francois prior to the AN/I an AN/EW reports. The degree of joint vehemence by the IP (identified now as GCB) and PB there is telling.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this still open with no action either way?Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • reported at AE for violating 1RR + "original authorship" while allegedly editing as 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:FCC4:B1EF:764C:F85, 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4, and 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D802:543F:9A84:1976.Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • COMMENT from GizzyCatBella - I'm back from my trip, I regained access to my account (GizzyCatBella) and back to editing using my account instead of IP's, please conduct user check if you find it necessary. I'm very concerned about Poeticbent who was wrongly accused of socking, and I would like to set the record straight for him. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries, everything's Okay here! I just received an Alert that there has been a failed attempt to log in to my account from a new device. It's not very funny. Poeticbent talk 17:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Poeticbent, I have receved an Alert exaclty the same 5 hours ago! There has been a failed attempt to log into your account from a new device(???) Something fishy is going on. Change your password, I already did.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
[77] François Robere (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional evidence for Poeticbent connection - in this diff on AE 00:39, 17 May 2018, Poeticbent claimed that "This has been going on for months thereby causing me great distress", citing 3 diffs from Talk:Jan_Grabowski (historian) from 26-27 March. However, Poeticbent never edited the article or the talk page. GizzyCatBella, however, started editing the article on 27 March by reverting an edit of mine. GizzyCatBella continued to edit the article heavily (some 59 edits (user + 2a01 IP) to the article and 14 edits to the talk page). Come 17 May - it seems that Poeticbent recalls being greatly distressed by these - but at the time - editing wasn't performed by him - which is an odd course of events to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional evidence for Poeticbent connection (May 2018) - in the following edits, GizzyCatBella shows up to an article they previously did not edit to revert (and in some cases add info) following removal of poorly sourced information. All the articles were previously edited by Poeticbent:
    1. Zdzięcioł Ghetto - edited by PB multiple times. IP 77.241.229.232 shows up to revert and also cast an AfD !vote in an unrelated topic (that Icewhiz !voted on). The GCB shows up - reverts, and then continues with multiple edits.
    2. Wąsosz pogrom - quite a bit of this article was written by PB. GCB shows up after some editing by Icewhiz and places a POV tag.
    3. Żydokomuna - previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [78][79].
    4. Soviet partisans - previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [80][81]
    5. Peace of Riga - previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [82]
    6. Cursed soldiers previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [83][84]
    7. Przytyk previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [85]
    8. Żegota previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [86]
    9. Irena Sendler previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [87]
    10. Julian Grobelny previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [88]
    11. Jerzy Zagórski previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [89]
    12. Piotrków Trybunalski Ghetto previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert - [90].
    13. Invasion of Poland previously edited by PB, GCB shows up to revert [91]
  • In all of these - GCB's first edit on the article is said revert, and PB was previously involved in the article (often in the particular aspect reverted).Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that I've only just become aware of this user, having noticed an RSN post about Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust while there for another discussion. It seemed immediately likely to me that there were fewer actual people behind the advocacy for a questionable source than there were accounts voting for it to be used. Off-wiki coordination is also an obvious possibility, but I don't know if that alone explains the overlap - and of course, if someone is being recruited off-wiki specifically to support a particular position in disputes, that's meatpuppetry. Since, as I said, I just got here, I haven't yet had the time to do extensive comparison of the suspicious accounts, but there's at least some noticeable stylistic similarity between them (GizzyCatBella: "YES absolutely yes, Mark-Paul is one of the greatest Polish-Canadian historian dedicated to this particular topic, accepted by virtually every relevant gate of interest", Poeticbent: "Mark Paul is one of the best, if not the best Polish-Canadian historian devoted to this particular subject, acknowledged by virtually every relevant portal of interest", Tatzref: "YES, ABSOLUTELY THEY SHOULD STAY") and a great deal of topic overlap (interaction analyzer for GCB and Poeticbent, for instance). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
(I don't see Tatzref in this list, by the way - I'd like to add him, if that's all right. It's a new account created less than a month ago, whose first edit jumped into a dispute at Talk:Hunt for the Jews. I would have suspected meatpuppetry or off-wiki recruitment rather than sockpuppetry, but then I realized that Tatzref was created right as Poeticbent was about to get topic-banned... [92]) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved editor
  • If GCB and Poeticbent are the same person, Poeticbent would be the master, not the sock, as their account dates from 2006, while GCB dates from 2015. Also, this report appears to be another BATTLEGROUND act in the general war over the subject area of Poland in WW2, which has resulted in multiple reports on AE and ANI. I repeat my urging that all editors involved in this war be sanctioned under ARBEE to stop this ongoing disruption of Wikipedia processes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to make it clear: I filed this SPI request for the reasons cited, and nothing else. This isn't some sort of "gaming" or "battleground mentality", at least not on my end. If the IP had identified in real time, as I asked them to (and as some would suggest is the decent thing to do when you're interacting with people you know), I wouldn't have filed this. François Robere (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe this warrants CU confirmation. The evidence linking GizzyCatBella with Poeticbent is pretty solid. The Tatzref account looks suspicious too, but given their minor edit count (only 131 edits so far), it will be hard to confirm based on behavioral evidence alone.
And how on earth did this case manage to sit here for over two months? Am I missing something in the SPI process? I was planning to file a report myself, but I find the inaction around here very discouraging. Bbb23, I know I've been pinging you a lot lately, but you recently reverted someone on this page. How can you miss this? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Once all the IPs go stale, it makes for a much easier CU? Mojoworker (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
After the SPI was filed, an IP admitted to being GizzyCatBella in this diff in this case as well as here, and here - so the IPs are actually pretty straightforward to associate without a CU (conduct issues - participation as an IP in discussions,[93][94] AN/I as an IP who didn't identify themselves,[95][96][97], AN/EW,[98] - and sock-puppetry policy is a question). I'll also note that Poeticbent has gone inactive since this TBAN, last editing on 17 May 2018, however the TBAN has some relevance for the SPI.Icewhiz (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Further comments from IceWhiz

As I suspect the technical CU will be inconclusive (due to the long track record), I would like to add the following new evidence:

  1. On 24 June 2018, GizzyCatBella reverted once and then reverted again after being challenged (mangling the infobox on the way) to a version containing a highly defamatory WP:HOAX - I refer to the AE closure here. What is of interest to the SPI case, is that this is an article with around 4 page views per day (when it is not a subject at AE). Poeticbent has a very long history with this article and this version, as reverted repeated challenges to this version over the years: in Apr 2016, April 2015, April 2015, Feb 2014, Mar 2013. The WP:HOAX version was first inserted by Lewinowicz who per Loosmark SPI archive was matched to Poeticbent - in March 2011 -[99][100][101][102][103]. WWII material (not in hoax turf) was also added by Stawiski in Aug 2018 who per Loosmark SPI archive was also matched to Poeticbent - [104][105][106]. Most of the editing history from the addition of the material in 2011, to its removal in March 2018 - consists of challenges to the Material and Poeticbent reverting - almost every else is minor gnoming or random vandalism (e.g. [107]).
  2. As of 26 June 2018, per [108] GizzyCatBella edited 390 unique pages, per editor intersection - 186 of them intersect with Poeticbent - or 47.6%. I suspect the mainspace intersection rate is even higher, but I haven't been able to figure out how to get a unique page edit count per main space (144 of the 186 intersection are on mains pace articles - suggesting article space intersection would be much higher). Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I've collapsed a lot of sections and protected the page. This is to allow for this process to work, especially since someone has now asked for CU review. The bickering is super unhelpful at SPI and slows the process down, especially with walls of text. There is ample evidence to go through listed already. I take note that GizzyCatBella has already admitted to being the /64 IPv6 range and will let the closing admin decide what to do there when that time comes. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  •  Clerk endorsed I believe there is enough here to justify CU attention. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Evident behavioural connection between GizzyCatBella, Poeticbent, and Tatzref; recent appearance of Tatzref; and reasonable possibility of lurking sleepers that should be identified. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent are a smidgen more than Red X Unrelated. Tatzref is Red X Unrelated. The three user are all editing from the same large country; GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent are much closer to each other geographically and use the same major ISP but different IP ranges.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
information Administrator note Looks like we're done here. Miniapolis 22:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

08 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Pro forma report (filed purely for recordkeeping and to request a case merge). On 19 April 2023, the Arbitration Committee blocked GizzyCatBella as a suspected sockpuppet of Jacurek, see [109]. Mz7 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://enwiki.freddythechick.net/index.php?title=English_Wikipedia_@_Freddythechick:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacurek/Archive&oldid=3299522"