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

• 24.151.116.12 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

I've never done one of these before and I hope I'm wrong, but I find it unusual that the IP address above has only appeared in AFDs when smmurphy has participated and always takes the same position. I apologize if I am wrong.
Example 1- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hoagland Slayback- both voted to keep: [1] [2]
Example 2- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greene Fort Pinkston- both voted to keep: [3] [4]
Example 3- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gautam Rajput- both voted to keep [5] [6]
Example 4- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gorbanson- both voted to delete [7] [8]
The IP address has never participated in any other AFDs. Rusf10 ( talk) 23:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

• Consensus was clearly in Smmurphy's favour in all those AfDs. If we're to believe a level-headed editor like him is going resort to IP-socking, wouldn't they do so in a discussion where it would actually make a difference? Also, it would mean that in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greene Fort Pinkston he had an edit conflict with himself. They are lengthy comments and were posted a minute apart, so are you suggesting that he went to the trouble of preparing them in advance and then faked an edit conflict? IMO a much more likely explanation is that Smmurphy and the IP are both watching the history delsort list, to which all four of these AfDs were added just before they both participated. Smmurphy is very active at AfD so the overlap is not too surprising. They !voted the same way because they were all relatively clear-cut AfDs in which almost everybody voted the same way. –  Joe ( talk) 16:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Like I said, I may be wrong here. That sounds like a plausible explanation. It just seemed like a weird coincidence.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Closing per Joe and filer's comments. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

A serious matter. One extremely combative account and one sock IP (with 160 edits) voting and supporting each other in exactly the same AfD discussions. You can look at the whole list of these AfDs here:

1. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Icewhiz&users=24.151.116.12&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

I don't even mention the fury of defamatory statements about living individuals. See the last AfD they are involved in : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination). Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• It gets worse. There's a third user involved in this SPI case, voting and supporting the other two in exactly the same AfD discussions. The extensive list of these AfD interactions between Icewhiz and Smmurphy is here:

1. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Smmurphy&users=Icewhiz&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

• And here you can find the most troubling, massive AfD interactions between all three (!) of them in several dozen AfD votes:

1. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Smmurphy&users=Icewhiz&users=24.151.116.12&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

• I am not the first person who had noticed that there's something weird going on here, and this is not the first report concerning 24.151.116.12 (with 160 edits). All I ask is that Icewhiz be looked at more carefully, because his patronizing attitude and his AfD interactions are troubling. All I want is to make sure that these !votes do not come from the same place, that's all. Poeticbent talk 21:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Addendum. Please note, I did not file my report under Smmurphy, but under Icewhiz versus an IP number, whose interactions troubled me most. (wmflabs). I did not provide a direct proof of Smmurphy and Icewhiz being one and the same person. That is why Icewhiz's response below is so nonchalant, but 24.151.116.12 is a different story. Other editors address Smmurphy and Icewhiz as one voice in various AfDs. Example: "User:Icewhiz User:Smmurphy" by Zathe [9], "User:Icewhiz User:Smmurphy" by Zathe [10], "Smmurphy and Icewhiz" by User:Deathlibrarian [11] – because their comments and !votes mirror each other. Also, look at this one please: at Shaheed Pir Chandam Smmurphy says, quote: "I'm not planning to !vote one way or the other." — And, after Icewhiz !voted "Weak Keep" ... Smmurphy replied: "I've changed my mind." and supported Icewhiz of course, with the same "Weak Keep". [12] According to WP:GANG: "There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline regarding tag teaming." WP:AFDFORMAT says, that: "Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden" and that is what concerns me most. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination) is an extreme case in many ways. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

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

• All 3 of us are long standing Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/History (and a few others) participants. I !vote on at least 80% of the listings there. I also edit from a completely different timezone than Smmurphy and the IP. While the 3 of us often agree (I have great respect for Smmurphy's sourcing abilities and we generally lean inclusionist - as well as generally (per afdstats) agreeing with final consensus most of the time) - we do not always. Participating on a deletion sorting list on a regular basis should not be valid grounds for a SPIfiling. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• I request that an admin examine filer's behavior here. He has:
  1. Resorted to personal attacks, e.g. "One extremely combative account and one sock".
  2. Referred to an attributed quote of the SPLC (an esteemed source for such matters) as defamatory in the SPI filing.
  3. Repeated filing of baseless SPIs against me, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atrix20/Archive filed Jan 28.
  4. Editing against consensus [13], [14], [15]. Consensus being clear in page history and in the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (2nd nomination). The nature of the narrative advanced and the "sourcing" (in quotes as not reliable, and not matching the "sources" such as they are) placing in Wikipedia's voice text based on an author that per the SPLC has "a long history of right-wing activism and controversy surrounding anti-Semitism", "Chodakiewicz has a history of troubling, far-right views including repeatedly arguing that the killing of Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust by native Poles was not due to anti-Semitism, but rather to Jewish collaboration with Soviets."., "Chodakiewicz’s far-right beliefs have not only centered on dabbling in anti-Semitism. In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. ". Using such an author, unattributed, in Wikipedia's voice to source information about alleged Jewish actions should not be acceptable. Doing so repeatedly against consensus all the more so. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• If it helps reduce any difficulties for the others involved, I have no problem associating this dynamic IP address with my previous one: User:24.151.10.165. I don't expect anyone to take this on faith, but I think the mercifully short editing history at Reiss Engelhorn Museum will demonstrate the relation. 24.151.116.12 ( talk) 21:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

This was misfiled. Please merge to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smmurphy.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Merged. -- QEDK ( 後 🌸 桜) 07:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ QEDK: Please do not merge cases. Only an admin clerk can do that. Vanjagenije, can you please fix this? The history of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz is not in this case. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• @ Bbb23:  Done. @ QEDK: Only admins can perform wp:history merge, what you've done is a WP:CUTPASTE merge which is not ok. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• My bad, I must've misread it for a normal move, long night for me. :/ -- QEDK ( 後 🌸 桜) 05:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Insufficient evidence of socking. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Gunter888 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 176.221.108.218 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser ( log))

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

Controversial edits from new login in the article Warsaw concentration camp, same as blocked User:Icewhiz. There is also a discussion about this article where 176.221.108.218 took part. Gdarin | talk 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

• Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia Icewhiz: If Wikipedia were to state in the lead of Earth - "The Earth is flat." as fact - that would belong here. Likewise if here were to state that Hillary Clinton adopted an "alien baby" (UFO alien) - either without a source (as was done here) ( [16]), Gunter888:Und fake moon landing people believe that too. Still hoax ( [17]). Gdarin | talk 15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• I am very unfamiliar when it comes to SPI, but I want to note some other IPs/accounts that may be related to this discussed at User_talk:Bradv#Regarding_this_block. Do I understand correctly that IPs are not investigated at all? In this case I'd suggest just confirming that User:JolantaAJ, already blocked, should belong here (it was blocked few hours ago by User:SQL with a note that suggest checkuser was involved?). Also, I noticed this request was moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Given that connections between Icewhiz and Smmurphy have not been proven in the past, as far as understand SPI, and that this request is about investigation of possible socks related to Icewhiz and not Smmurphy, perhaps this should be restored to its original location? With regards to Gunter888, his 'poor English German wording' seems quite different, but perhaps intentionally so, but it is suspicious that he suddenly jumped to the Wikipedia namespace hoax discussion, since it was not mentioned in the recent discussions he participated at the talk of the Wcc article. But of course, coincidences do happen. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I am a bit confused re "another CU already removed Icewhiz from this report" ( [18]) and "Until there is a finding that Icewhiz has socked, it will remain a redirect". Finding by whom? How can one report possible socking by this indef banned editor? As far as I know, nobody is asking for a check of whether Icewhiz is Smmurphy , as I don't think anyone thinks this is the case. The issue is rather simple: is Icewhiz violating his indef ban by socking on English Wikipedia? This question is totally unrelated to Smmurphy. For that reason, Icewhiz should have his own SPI page with JolantaAJ ( talk · contribs) (whom User:Bradv concluded on his talk page, linked above is a likely related sock), any IPs (if allowed; please see the block log of 176.221.108.218 ( talk · contribs) blocked by User:JzG with the block log summary of "Block evasion - likely Icewhiz"). I think that for that reason User:Gdarin seems to providing, as requested, diffs of similar statements from Icewhiz and Gunter (and not about Gunter and SMurphy). I'll also ping User:Zzuzz and User:SQL who blocked a number of the proxies that I listed on the linked talk pages. Would it help if I listed the reasons why those IPs and Jolanta may be Icewhiz? Short version is that they display knowledge of Wikipedia procedures / ArbCom rulings etc. that makes it clear they are not a random new IP, this topic area did not see such knowledgeable IP editors before Icewhiz was blocked, a number of them are posting links to a news article that uses Icewhiz as the main source, and they also have been harassing editors whom Icewhiz disagreed with in the past. Some further IPsfrom the last few days: User:2.52.72.16, User:2.52.74.154, User:2.53.41.223, User:2.52.79.24... shortly after his indef ban, my watchlist on those topics has started showing a sudden spike in the IP activity that otherwise I'd expect to see from that editor. I understand that you may not be able to clearly say that those IPs are his, but I am unsure where else to report this, and what else is needed for an admin to conclude that this indef banned editor is socking. I only assume that if an indef banned editor is (possibly) socking, this should be of interest to the administrators, investigated, and if there is conclusion that he is indeed doing so, shouldn't this be said somewhere? I thought that a page called Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz would be the right place for such an investigation and discussion. Again, please correct me if I am wrong and if I don't understand some related policies well (in particular, I am unsure to what degree, if any, reports of possible socking IPs are allowed, given the privacy issues that were raised...? Is it ok to suggest that a particular IP is someone's sock or is this moving towards some form of OUTING?). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Still waiting to hear anything about connection between Icewhiz and User:JolantaAJ? Another new account that displays similar interest in User:Batbash, which I just noticed got blocked recently by User:Mkdw with the statement "Block evasion". Is it ok to ask "block evasion by whom"? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

•  Additional information needed - please provide some examples in the form of diffs which demonstrate that the new account is making the same or substantially similar edits as the blocked accounts. Checkuser is  Declined for the IP per the privacy policy. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Piotrus: there has been discussion on this case in a few places and I'm not entirely up to speed on everything that's going on, but a few things:

• I don't see anything so far suggesting that Icewhiz and Smmurphy are connected, and the evidence I see so far suggest to me that Icewhiz and Gunter888 are not related, and another CU already removed Icewhiz from this report so I'm taking that as authoritative. I need to see some evidence showing how Gunter888 is related to Smmurphy or other socks in this case's archive to demonstrate that a check is warranted, otherwise I have nothing to do here.   CheckUser is not for fishing.
• If you have more accounts/IPs that you suspect may be related, for now I suggest holding off. Normally you can just add more under "suspected sockpuppets" using the {{ checkuser}} or {{ checkip}} templates (see the code already there), but this is already confusing. Maybe wait for us to sort out this report, and follow up afterwards.
• Checkusers are forbidden from connecting an IP address to an account, but there are other ways that clerks can investigate so it's worthwhile to include them in a report anyway. Checkusers just generally will not comment.
• The {{ checkuserblock-account}} notation in the block log for JolantaAJ means that SQL made a block based on private information that is only available to other checkusers. Often the CU will also mention an SPI in the block log entry but SQL didn't for this one, so I can't say what he might have found. Maybe he can elaborate.

I likely won't be able to come back to this before tomorrow; if another clerk or CU comes across this and wants to take it on please feel free. (@ Bbb23: maybe you already did start investigating this? I haven't checked anything yet.) Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 14:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Ivanvector: The filer attempted to file a report at the Icewhiz redirect, which I prevented. Until there is a finding that Icewhiz has socked, it will remain a redirect, and given the quirks of SPI, filings will have to be here. That said, Gunter888 is  Unrelated to Icewhiz. However, Gunter888 is technically  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)/  Inconclusive (Smmurphy uses some proxies and some institutional IPs, and Gunter888 uses only proxies, but the same ones as Smmurphy) to Smmurphy. Yet, as you correctly point out, no evidence of a behavioral connection between the two has been presented.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• In my opinion, this is where we're at:

1. The request is misfiled because of a previous report concerning Icewhiz which is not related to this one. The filer attempted to file there and was redirected here.
2. As far as I read the filer's intent, it was to investigate these accounts as socks of Icewhiz, not as socks of Smmurphy. Icewhiz and Smmurphy are not related per previous behavioural reports; Icewhiz and Gunter888 are unrelated per checkuser (and also behaviourally quite different). There hasn't really been any suggestion that Smmurphy and Gunter888 are the same editor, only confusion because of the misfiling, so I am just not going to investigate that further. That concludes this investigation.
3. There is the open matter of Icewhiz and the suspected IPs, on which checkusers will not comment. On that matter I'm continuing to look into it, but it's my opinion that the investigation and any results should be filed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. But we'll deal with that afterwards.

-- Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 17:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't see any action coming out of this. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ Ivanvector and Bbb23: Should this be moved to Icewhiz (and archived) or just archived here? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply