Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winchester2313/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I have been analysing posts from both accounts on this page:. They both used the same words throughout: Plastering, Fantasies, Dump, spam, silly, blog, backdoor, programmed, tripe.

Examples:

Winchester2313 (14 March 2010): Such promotional fantasy has no place in an encyclopedia. Csteffen13 (21 April 2010): but his fantasies still don't belong here Winchester2313 (28 April 2010): stupid eulogies/articles/impressions/fantasies

Winchester2313 (9 March 2010): It is a violation of multiple Wiki rules and guidelines to dump this sort of hagiographic material here. Winchester2313 (15 March 2010): Briefly, as you seem convinced that dumping stuff on Wiki is a right and not a privilege. Csteffen13 (4 April 2010): spam cannot be dumped here unchallenged Csteffen13 (20 April 2010): All the stuff you keep dumping here. Csteffen13 (21 April 2010): the stuff he dumps here. Winchester2313 (26 April 2010): programmed to dump silly spam here / ever written about Shach to be dumped here / before attempting to dump more spam. Winchester2313 (2 Sep 2010): type of spam you keep dumping here.

Winchester2313 (4 January 2010): I have no objection to removing the entire paragraph dealing with that particular accusation of R' Schach. Csteffen13 (18 March 2010): I for one have no objection to putting it up. Csteffen13 (21 March 2020): I'd certainly have no objection. Csteffen13 (20 April 2020): I'd have no objection .

Winchester2313 (15 March 2020): Yonoson3 seems to have gone overboard here by plastering this page with rehashed, unverifiable, and clearly promotional links. Csteffen13 (18 March 2020): By plastering 75-or-so links to a figure like RS's page. Csteffen13 (20 April 2020): Notice how nobody saw the need to plaster every eulogy or paid obituary. Winchester2313 (28 April 2010): I ask you again, nicely, to stop plastering the page with stupid eulogies.

Csteffen13 (21 April 2010): or is he programmed on 'autopilot'?. Winchester2313 (26 April 2010): you are a brainwashed robot programmed to dump silly spam here.

Csteffen13 (21 April 2010): extrapolation. Winchester2313 (1 Sep 2010): extrapolated. Winchester2313 (2 Sep 2010): re-extrapolated.

Csteffen13 (21 April 2010): and other tripe. Winchester2313 (1 Sep 2010): All the tripe.

Winchester2313 (14 March 2010): Such promotional has no place in an encyclopedia. Csteffen13 (21 April 2010): have no place in an encyclopedia.

Csteffen13 (18 March 2020): Why would you try and backdoor-it-in through such obvious deceit?. Winchester2313 (25 March 2010): This reeks of a backdoor attempt.

Csteffen13 (18 March 2010): And that is unacceptable. Winchester2313 (25 March 2010): and that is unacceptable.

They also both use slashes (/), inline parentheses and single quote marks (')

Also edit summaries are similar:

Winchester2313 (15 March 2010): Stop dumping spam on the page Csteffen13 (20 April 2010): Stop dumping spam here

My only reservation was that Winchester2313 always capitalised shortcuts to policy (WP:RS) while Csteffen13 always used lower case (wp:npov). Yet on 1 June 2011, Winchester2313 uses lowercase in similar style to Csteffen13.

After being accused of being a meatpuppet in June 2011, Csteffen13 stopped editing on 1 June 2011 and reappeared a year later on 10 June 2012, ceasing on 20 Aug 2013, and bar 3 edits in Jan 2014, restarted editing four years later on 4 Sep 2017 while Winchester2313 stopped editing on 8 Oct 2013 and restarted on 19 October 2017.

While my suspicions have been raised from activity on Elazar Shach, both Winchester2313, Csteffen13 and Ben133 have edited on Moshe Kotlarsky, Jeremy Corbyn and others.

There are multiple other accounts I suspect are linked to Winchester2313, the latest being Londoner77 who has made the exact same edits at Elazar Shach as Winchester2313. Eg: and.

Also compare edit summary: Winchester2313: Minor grammatical corrections Csteffen13: Made various grammatical corrections Londoner77: Minor grammatical corrections

I am filing this report due to Winchester2313's refusal to discuss edits at Elazar Shach and reverts all my recent edits claiming the page content was discussed and settled 10 years ago. This is not conducive editing. Chesdovi (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition: Winchester2313's edit is re-added by Ben133. This is the only edit by Ben133 on this page, the day after Winchesters2313's edit was reverted... Chesdovi (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Corrected wording": Winchester2313: and  and Ben133:

Playing a game of revert with himself:

,, .....

"An editorial obituary is not sufficient for a highly extraordinary and unsupported claim" by Winchester2313 "Also note that obituaries are not reliable sources." by Londoner77.

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I suppose I should be flattered by other users apparently mimicking my writing style... In fact, this investigation seems to be a rather transparent attempt by a certain editor at intimidation of someone getting in the way of his/her campaign to relentlessly dump information that consistently fails WP:V WP:N and WP:NOT (in particular) on certain pages. Winchester2313 (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Interesting how all three socks have the number "13" in their usernames. Probably just another coincidence... I am convinced beyond doubt that these and other red-linked accounts are operated by Winchester; it just needs someone with more time and expertise to expose this. How can you explain that after 8 years, Londoner77 just turns up to make the exact same reverts, using the exact same language ("Restoring longstanding version") that Winchester recently has, only to disappear again? Londoner77's first edit was to back up Winchester, most peculiar for a newbie edit, and he professes to already be well versed in editing guidelines ("Your ranting and argumentative polemics are not for Wiki"; "Wiki rules mandate leaving the sources Winchester added") which took me quite a while of regular editing to understand and digest. It's simply a joke. Chesdovi (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chesdovi, I hear what you're saying, but SPI is badly backed up, so we have to pick and choose where we invest our time to investigate things. As I noted earlier, given that the suspected sock has not edited in well over two years, there just doesn't seem to be much urgency here.  However, if you have the time and experience to help us work through the backlog, I encourage you to add you name to the list at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks and ask to be trained as a clerk so you can help us out.  Your assistance would be very much appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Csteffen13 and Ben133 are . I checked Londoner77 due to SPA activity and due to recently re-activating after being dormant for most of a decade, but there weren't any findings related to that account. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Csteffen13/Archive for another negative finding related to that account. ST47 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ST47, Ben is not stale anymore--in fact, I just checked them (before I saw this), real quick, but saw nothing--but I didn't check the Winchester account, for comparison. I think it warrants another look at both. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling based on the detailed comparison above is that Winchester2313 and Csteffen13 are likely socks, and Lincoln and Ben are not, but there's enough inconsistencies (those cited here, and others that I've spotted) that I don't feel confident making the Winchester-Csteffen call without CU backup, and unfortunately, Ben going non-stale isn't going to help much, and the fact that Csteffen hasn't edited in over 2 years makes this not very urgent. Some of the technical similarities (like very similar timecards) could be easily explained by all these users living in the same city.  And, of course, the fact that none of them edit on Saturday is totally unsurprising.  I have no doubt all these users are connected somehow, perhaps all members of the same congregation, which might well explain the commonality of language cited above.  So, I'm going to go ahead and close this with no action taken.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)