Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

A new account capable of writing flawless reports Account opened on February 8, 2020, edited for 2 minutes (total 2 edits). Then on February 8, 2020 and edited for another 50 minutes (total of 10 edits) with two more edits on February 22, 2020, 11 minutes spent. Then went dormant for 3.5 months and returned on June 5, 2020 to make several edits until June 29, 2020, for a total time of approximately 13 hours. Then went dormant to return on July 11, 2020 too spent a total of 3 hours of editing in July. Then 5 hours in August, 5 hours in September , and then flawlessly wrote and linked this. On October 2020, edited for a total of 4 hours, and in November, edited for approximately 30 minutes before writing this. Give or take, the account has been here for a total of 31 hours spread out over a few months.

Both accounts edited the same extremely low traffic articles.
 * Astral Leap - CommanderWaterford -
 * Astral Leap - CommanderWaterford -
 * Astral Leap - CommanderWaterford -
 * Astral Leap - CommanderWaterford -
 * Astral Leap - CommanderWaterford -

Both also, of course, share interest in Polish/Jewish related topics. (please refer to edit history)

If you decide to go ahead with CU, you will find out that both accounts edit from behind a series of proxies/VPN's. They are most likely related to this  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston I understand. I'm questioned however that they are "usually polite" as the polite person would not attack another editor by suggesting of her to be a NeoNazi's friend and share NeoNazi views. Please take a look at this conversation. That was extremely painful.. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @TonyBallioni Thank you, I understand. You guys have a lot of experience, and I'm trusting your judgements. I believe you can detect, however, further from the analysis of their comments on this board that AstraLeap is not a new user. They denied having prior accounts, however (except "Facebook," which was said by them sarcastically in response to my question) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston Yes. I restored that thinking that this new account is disruptive and is edit warring,, with an established account calling an editor a "NeoNazi troll" in their edit summaries. That was before Zenzen's true colours came to light. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston O yeah! Now I remember even better, I was also thinking that this new account is the same person who is harassing and following me, and now is harassing another editor because of me. I exchanged messages with Zezen back in the day and I believed then that I brought the harassment over to him because of that... Just to let you know, I'm being followed by a bunch of new accounts for months now. I described that issue on a few boards already ,. Yeah now I remember exactly what happened... - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nsk92 - How is the excellent knowledge of everything around here after a total of 31 hours of editing normal?? PS. I never knew Zenzen before August, where I clashed with him here. Zenzen was maybe known to you for years but not me. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think it is pretty obvious that AstralLeap is not a new editor, and I think recently User:E-960 expressed similar concerns. It is also rather obvious that CW wasn't a new account, so there is another master behind them, and as GCB noted, it is plausible that it is Icewhiz. A quick EI run shows that CW had more overlap with Ice than AL does . Given the 500/30 placed on Polish-Jewish WWII topics, it is now hard to trace new accounts to that particular subset of article that Ice was most disruptive in, as it is hard for any new socks to target them (although both Ice and CW edited Yad Vashem), but other areas Ice was active - Polish politics (particularly related to right-wing and  LGBT issues - stand out (both Ice and CW edited Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz and Significant acts of violence against LGBT people, for example). Both aCW and AL accounts show a pattern of doing simple edits (reverts, typo fixes, etc.) to build up an edit count (targetting 500/30 most likely). Anyway, since we are discussing AL here, some edits showing activity the same topic area as Ice (and CW): Polish-Jewish WWII history:, LGBT topics: , : antisemitism , . In  he reverts with an edit summary pointing to the recently indef blocked , a user who was representing an opposite POV than Icewhiz (and AL) on topics related to LGBT and Jewish issues in Poland. Nothing here looks like an obvious smoking gun, but there's a lot of smoke here that shapes into the pattern seen with many other recent socks (see Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz). That said, it is also possible there is another fellow traveler there that shares most of Icewhiz'es POVs... still, what is WP:DUCK certain is that this is not a new account, they have a lot of area overlap with banned past accounts, and a lot of their edits are very minor, revert/POV and reporting others for sanctions (WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  01:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, I'd like to highlight user Astral Leap's unusual editing activity . In well over 50 separate articles the user changed "a" to "an" (creating grammatical errors), example: "and won a MEP seat" changed to "won an MEP seat". However, if you look a the user's admin board and talk page discussions from that time, few examples:, , , , , , the user does not make the same grammatical mistakes when writing in their comments. This is rather unusual — does this suggest an attempt to rack up edit count? It appears that the user's primary focus was to lend opinions and/or votes on admin boards and talk page discussions, all the while most of the article changes were relegated to "mico" edits, which only registered +1 character change, with a few exceptions. --E-960 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as "an MEP" is proper English while "a MEP" is an error. You can see this in the European Parliament's website.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Further below I provided examples of when "a MEP" is written. However, for the moment putting the grammatical issue to the side, the more important point is the fact that there appears to be a lack of in-depth editing activity, and as I mentioned before, most of the input is relegated to admin board or talk page discussions (to support\oppose something or get someone blocked). I don't scrutinize everyone's editing patterns across all of Wikipedia, nor do I look at mass data of all editors out there, so I could be wrong. However, its not typical for a new editor to lend most of their input to an admin boards while not being too involved in meaningful article editing. --E-960 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, further below you provided an example of "A Member of the European Parliament (MEP)", which is correct English, but is completely different from "an MEP". "Member" begins with the consonant sound "m", while "MEP" ("em-ee-pee") begins with the vowel sound "e". As for spending time on admin boards, which I do read, your accusation is false. I made 43 edits in total to Wikipedia space (4.6%), and 10 of them (11 now) are dealing with the nonsensical accusation on this page.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, looking over the discussion and the bites/characters each edit includes, the majority of article changes can be described as "micro" edits (not all, but a significant portion), while most of the input goes to admin boards and talk pages. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

My Defense.

Thank you User:EdJohnston for pinging me. In case this is not obvious, this is a payback report for me participating in discussions about GizzyCatBella's friends. GizzyCatBella started badgering me after I contributed diffs to this this AN discussion on Zezen, opened by User:Nsk92, and blocked by User:Bishonen as NONAZI. After Zezen was blocked I cleaned up some of their edits. GizzyCatBella then commented on me at an edit warring report and then commented on me at AN/I on E-960 who broke his topic ban and was formally warned. GizzyCatBella is a friend of E-960, posting at his talk page alot. Piotrus also commented at the AN/I thread and in the edit warring board. Piotrus is also friendly with E-960. Both Piotrus and GizzyCatBella accounts opposed the community voice on E-960's original ban discussion.

Despite this being a payback report, I shall address it. I do not have the time to edit nearly as much as CommanderWatford, who spent all hours of the day editing Wikipedia, making over 14,000 edits in less than three months.

Deficiencies in GizzyCatBella's evidence:

1. So far, I have not edited Polish topics much at all, I participated in a recent RfC and reverted Zezen after his NONAZI block (some were Russian or Polish). GizzyCatBella's assertion that I share an interest with CommanderWatford on this topic is a fabrication.

2. Many of the "extremely low traffic articles" that CommanderWatford edited after me were articles I created. I created a short article for every Dutch MP who had a red link (26 articles). After creating these I often get a blue tick message at the top of my screen, and editors show up to clean my mistakes. My first articles were missing required templates. CommanderWatford added templates and categories that were missing. They also did this on articles by other users: Czech Senegal, and Equatorial Guinea. Many other editors arrived to articles I created, are they to be implicated here too?

3. In other articles, I passed through fixing a typo. Despite many of my articles being deficient, and in need of improvement by other editors, sometimes I do something right. After I reverted a typo in an article I created, I realized this was typo that was present in many political articles since this is a point of grammar not obvious to everyone. I then fixed this issue in many articles. All I did was pass through and remove a single letter.

Deficiencies in Piotrus' evidence:

1. Piotrus' evidence consists of much prattle. The diffs that relate to me, are me cleaning up after Zezen who was NONAZI blocked after an AN discussion started by User:Nsk92. After the block, I went through their contributions and removed tripe they added. The only thing worth mentioning here is the company (Zezen, E-960) that GizzyCatBella and Piotrus keep. WP:NOTHERE? Tell me who your friends are, I’ll tell you who you are.

Refuting evidence:

CommanderWaterford spent nearly all his waking hours editing, my word that I do not have time is not evidence. However, the impossibility of being in two places at one time, or typing on two keyboards at once, is evidence. Listed below are edits CommanderWatford did at the same time as me:

Date: My Edit: /// CommanderWatford edits:

25th July 10:05: ///

29th June 08:17-9: ///

27th June 08:56: ///

27th June 08:53: ///

23rd June 12:00: ///

23rd June 11:32: ///

There are probably more, in earlier June, I stopped after hitting six.

Not only do I lack the time to edit every waking hour, I lack the skill to do so while typing on two keyboards at the same time!

I am sure there are many other wide gaping holes in the so called evidence above, as everything I checked had wide gaping holes.

If there is anything further and requires a response, please tell me, and I shall refute it.--Astral Leap (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GizzyCatBella showed up at my talk page to badger me after Zezen was blocked. The two edited an awful amount of articles together, and posted supportive messages on each other's talk pages. Likewise with E-960. GizzyCatBella chose to keep this company.--Astral Leap (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella shares Zezen's views on Affirmative action (that it is related to Aryanization). GizzyCatBella popped out of no where, first edit, to sneak revert the Aryanization content back into Affirmative action. Why does GizzyCatBella share with Zezen this peculiar view on Affirmative Action? How did GizzyCatBella know to show up? Are GizzyCatBella and Zezen the same editor, socks? Or maybe Zezen personal messaged her for help? Either way, this is a bad look for GizzyCatBella.--Astral Leap (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:EdJohnston, I saw Zezen being reported at AN by Nsk92. AN is on my watch list, and User:Nsk92's report showed a problem. I looked a bit at their edits, saw their bad work at Kishinev pogrom (a well known Russian pogrom), which I corrected, I then spent 15 minutes looking at their editing history and found four other questionable edits, which I then reported. Adding Aryanization to Affirmative action was obvious in the edit history of Zezen.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This report is entirely frivolous and should be archived as declined with prejudice. There is simply no 'there' here. The connections with CommanderWaterford are entirely imaginary. The diffs in Piotrus' post mostly relate to Astral Leap cleaning up some of Zezen's handiwork after Zezen had been indef blocked at ANI. On the other hand, the conduct of the filer, GizzyCatBella, definitely bears closer scuitiny. Zezen did not suddenly "show his true colors". His true colors were obvious for years. He was a long term tendentious POV pusher pushing righth-wing extremist anti-LGBT anti-semitic nationalistic agenda. He seemly had not been called to account earlier. Apparently he still has some friends here who know how to hold a grudge. GizzyCatBella's re-adding Aryanization to Affirmative action tells us quite a bit about GizzyCatBella. Nsk92 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @GizzyCatBella By the time of my ANI September report about Zezen, Astral Leap had been editing for 6 months, with reasonable frequency. That's certainly pleanty enough time to learn the ropes around here for someone who is paying attention, especially if they keep track of their watchlist regularly. E.g. I spend a lot more time looking up what's been happening with the pages on my watchlist than actually doing any WP edits, and I am sure that many other users do the same. At the most there is some vague suspicion here that Astral Leap may not be a new account, but the grounds for such suspicion are pretty weak. Plus many users first edit as IPs before formally registering, and there's nothing untoward about that. What is clear that any claims of connections between Astral Leap and CommanderWaterford are groundless, and this entire SPI report is just a clumsy WP:BATTLEGROUND retaliatory attempt at a fishing expedition, originating from WP:ANI. As a result of that thread, initiated by Astral Leap, User:E-960 was formally warned "that their existing topic ban covers legality of abortion, homosexuality, and similar political topics with strong ties to Christian ethics." I see that you, User:GizzyCatBella, have three fairly recent AE blocks related to Poland and WWII, and an active AE topic ban in that area. SPI should not be allowed to be used frivolously, as a WP:BATTLEGROUND tool in advancing such tendentious POV agendas. Once again, I hope that this report is declined quickly. My impression, from what that I have seen here already, is that, at a minimum, the conduct of User:GizzyCatBella deserves further scruitiny, but that would have to happen at other venues. Nsk92 (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nsk92, can I ask you to explain the unusual editing activity by user Astral Leap, creating in the process grammatical errors in well over 50 article with mico edits, changing 'a' to 'an' — that just comes across a racking up edit counts. This is not typical editing. --E-960 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * E-960, I did not create "grammatical errors", I fixed mangled English with proper English. You should withdraw this accusation and apologise.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

hmm... on the Member of the European Parliament, it says "A Member of the European Parliament (MEP)...". Also, on it says "As a Member of the European Parliament (MEP)...". The basic English rule is that an 'A' goes before a consonant and 'AN' before a vowel. I understand in some cases such as with letter "H" you can use "AN" because it is silent, but that's not the case with the word "member". --E-960 (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is "a member of the European Parliament" but "an MEP". As MEP is an acronym, it is pronounced as "em-ee-pee" and begins with the vowel sound E. You can see this in the European Parliament's website.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see that this argument is just like arguing over pronouncing "potato" or "potahto", so I'll drop this issue as an example of poor editing, though I do regularly hear MEP being pronounced just as it is spelled: "M-E-P" or "M-E-Ps" so it's probably one of those Euro-english things. --E-960 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Unclear what checkuser could even do here. User:CommanderWaterford is stale. Moreover, it's hard to see any great problem with the edits of User:Astral Leap. The most we have is a mild suspicion due to their precocious editing, suggesting that they might have had a previous account. Trying to find any resemblance to CommanderWaterford is a stretch. It looks as though the Commander had a 'please block me' approach to Wikipedia editing almost from the beginning. In contrast, User:Astral Leap is usually polite and doesn't get in trouble. I received an email suggesting the two editors are both socks of a third person, but the third person was so implausible it's not worth investigating. Unless more behavioral evidence can be found, I would close this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:GizzyCatBella, can you explain why both you and User:Zezen restored Aryanization as a 'See also' to the Affirmative action article, in September? This was a point made by Astral Leap above. I'm also curious how User:Astral Leap would have been following Zezen so closely as to participate in detail at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive325. This AN thread is the most likely reason why GCB would begin to challenge Astral Leap about his having a previous account. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I’ll email you, but there’s log data on CW. GCB and P: for a variety of reasons without checking, I’m pretty confident this isn’t CW. I could check and rule it out, but I don’t think there are grounds for a check yet. I’m also not convinced of the Icewhiz angle. AL’s initial focus seems to be the Netherlands, which I don’t think the whiz cared about much. I’m not seeing either of those suggested masters here, and while I’m fine checking without a known master if there’s a good reason, I don’t think there’s currently one that meets the CU policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So far nobody wants to run a check on Astral Leap, and the clerks haven't spoken one way or the other. I'd propose that this SPI be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)