Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper/Archive

06 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Wolfkeeper was subject to community sanction requiring him to declare any alternate accounts and to stay away from word-related issues. User Rememberway is now arguing at WP:DICDEF using arguments similar to those previously advanced by Wolfkeeper. The timing and other activities of this account seem consistent with them being the same editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To make the case clearer, here are the key points:


 * 1) Wolfkeeper's last edit is on 26 Aug 2010.  Rememberway's first edit is on 26 Oct 2010.
 * 2) Rememberway's early edits are quite competent and sophisticated; for example, adding an image to an article.  This indicates that he is an experienced editor.
 * 3) Wolfkeeper worked upon topics about spaceflight such as Rocket, Skylon and Space Elevator - these examples are taken from his user page.   Rememberway's activities are similar &mdash; Nozzle, Space tether, Rocket car.
 * 4) Wolfkeeper tried to delete articles on the grounds of WP:DICDEF.  Rememberway now does the same at Articles for deletion/As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.  In this AFD, there is little support for the nomination and the aptness of the topic is striking.
 * 5) Wolfkeeper would argue at length over WP:DICDEF and it was this obsession which exhausted the community's patience.  Rememberway is now repeating the same arguments in the same way.  Contrary to the specified sanctions, he does not seem to have declared his prior account and history with respect to this vexed matter.


 * Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is clearly Wolfkeeper. Comparing the edits, they've edited nearly 300 of the same pages, a lot for an account with only 2000 edits. Here Rememberway updates this previous edit by Wolfkeeper, and here he updates this Wolfkeeper edit at the same page. Their talk page interactions are also identical in style and substance. For instance here Rememberway accuses editors of trying to deliberately undermine the WP:NOTDIC policy in a fashion very similar to comments made by Wolfkeeper a year before (eg here), though the Rememberway account had not been involved heavily in the discussion previously.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I came here after being notified on my talk page. I checked into this, and those were limited sanctions on Wolfkeeper's account that timed out months ago anyway. Colonel Warden is just throwing mud.Rememberway (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that Cuchullain (an involved admin) is still harping on about this. As he well knows, the terms of the topic block permitted me to contribute to any and all talk pages for any purpose, but (of course) he's claiming that's a violation. I think that the purpose of topic blocks is to keep the peace and improve the Wikipedia, not act as retroactive punishment for (good faith) edits that Cuchullain claims to have seen at the time, but didn't see fit to revert, even then, and still stand.Rememberway (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't interpret your sanctions as allowing you to edit talk pages, where most of your abuse and disruption occurred. Either way, you did violate your sanctions by editing articles and policy pages that were off limits, as I demonstrated. And no, I didn't notice it was you avoiding scrutiny at the time; I found your violations looking at your edit history. The purpose of sanctions is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia; please note that no one gave you a second glance until you resumed disrupting it again with edit warring and incivility. Avoid that in the future and you won't have any more problems.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That the restrictions didn't cover talk pages was noticed and mentioned at the time, and explicitly left as was. I think your words on scrutiny would hold more weight if there wasn't recent evidence that you are (still) systematically revert warring me, and there's plenty more evidence where that came from.Rememberway (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm sorry, Colonel, we can't run a CU - all the data on Wolfkeeper is stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your attention. I'll expand on the circumstantial evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is what I've gathered... Per WP:DUCK, these seem to be the same person. Wolfkeeper is known to have used socks in the past so this isn't a surprise. Rememberway hasn't even denied being Wolfkeeper, their only response on this page is to insist that the sanctions on Wolfkeeper have expired (which is only partially true). If you look here, you'll see that there were 2 topic bans that have indeed expired, although Rememberway did violate those bans numerous times before they expired. The third topic ban was an indefinite ban on using undisclosed alternate accounts, which is being violated even right now. Therefore, I'm choosing to enforce all 3 bans to indefinitely block Rememberway. --  At am a  頭 20:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Was just about to make my recommendations...anyway, just a closing note, There are no overlaps in the edits between the two accounts, so they could have lost their password. That being said, they should have disclosed the second account. Agree with the closure. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  21:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The password wasn't lost, actually the password was intentionally scrambled. This happened even before the topic bans took place. If you read the discussion I linked above, (I'll link it again, here) you'll see that the scenario that happened was actually predicted at the time. It was stated that Wolfkeeper would first need to disclose the identity of their new account and would then have to either abide by the ban restrictions or at least wait for an appeal to be accepted before returning to the topic areas again. None of that was done, a new sockpuppet was secretly created, the same misbehavior that led to the bans was repeated, and was done while the bans were still in effect. For anyone with a shred of doubt that Rememberway is Wolfkeeper, in the unblock request on Rememberway's talk page, they are admitting to be the same person but are insisting that no abuse of multiple accounts occurred since the old account was abandoned. On the contrary, the attempt was completely in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. --  At am a  頭 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would just like to drop by to endorse the block. I noticed Rememberway's similarity in article choice (certain physics related articles) and in argument style about 4 or 5 months ago. He wasn't being particularly tendentious at the time, but if he's being problematic in the areas which originally saw him banned, I'll say this is about time. --Izno (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that Wolfkeeper did violate the other two sanctions. He edited the "word" article chav several times in December. He was editing policies and guidelines on words by early February. In an only slightly more "loosely defined" way, he's been editing at policy pages he used to frequent on his anti-dictionary crusade since shortly after he opened the sockpuppet account. --Cúchullain t/ c 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those. I pored over his contributions but clearly missed some things. --  At am a  頭 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm... has been unblocked. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

25 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

An editor claims this account is an undisclosed reincarnation/alternate of the (retired) Wolfkeeper who "is indefinitely restricted from using undisclosed alternate accounts". See. After looking at the contributions of the two accounts, I agree that their overlapping interest (and expertise) in rocket engines, as well as their rowdy tone in discussion are quacking pretty loudly. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that his other accounts had more voluminous activity, perhaps a CU for sleeper accounts (or more alternates currently in use) wouldn't hurt either. He admitted to socking while socking (haha) in the past. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, if it's a sockpuppet of Wolfkeeper/Rememberway, then it is not only violating the community restriction but plainly evading and indef block because Rememberway was unblocked after a discussion and then reblocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Holy cow! First they accuse me of being Vigilant, then I go backpacking to two days and return to find out I'm Wolfkeeper. Jeeze. I'm neither, and this is a fishing expedition, and a hamfisted attempt to punish me for asking questions about WMUK.

Basically, I became interested in the WMUK news articles and asked a few questions. Apparently these questions were 'uncomfortable', and for my efforts Prioryman is trying to have me banned, by any means possible.--KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Unfortunately, all CU data regarding Wolfkeeper are stale, so this will have to be decided only on behavioural evidence. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. NW ( Talk ) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I met Zedshort recently, repeatedly restoring [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight&diff=773849098&oldid=773818371][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight&diff=774009572&oldid=773927633] dubious material originally [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight&diff=prev&oldid=223153664 added] by Wolfkeeper.

Users have similar time cards. [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Wolfkeeper&project=en.wikipedia.org#timecard][//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Zedshort&project=en.wikipedia.org#timecard]

The [//tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Zedshort&users=Wolfkeeper&users=KlickitatGlacier&users=Rememberway&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki interaction tool] shows Zedshort editing on 154 pages previously edited by confirmed socks, on subjects as diverse as Space travel, Meteorology, Physics, Acne, Ronald Reagan, Bamboo, and Family Guy.

They show a shared interest in nutritional values, for example [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=341551790] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=613474158], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=342850043&diff=prev][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=687498484&diff=prev].

Wolfkeeper's block log shows they started socking after being blocked for edit-warring. Due to the above evidence, I believe Zedshort is the same person, continuing a similar pattern of behaviour. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're looking for something more specific than "edit warring", you may find these a useful starting point: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zedshort&diff=prev&oldid=560851767] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rememberway&diff=437473562&oldid=437471696] Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * Oh wow! Just Wow! I feel so important, so noticed. Gosh, how does one defend ones self against such nonsense? Honestly I think someone has too much time on their hands and too great an imagination. Zedshort (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Apparently User:Burninthruthesky has found a very convenient way of chasing off other users from "his" articles by finding a very tenuous (circumstantial) connection between them and some nefarious person. In other words this is really a case of harassment on the part of User:Burninthruthesky. I have not a clue as to how this sort of thing is checked out, but I suggest that the people who are parsing such accusations approach it with great skepticism. Zedshort (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have previously been accused of harassment by socks for reporting their activities in this venue. See WP:HA. Burninthruthesky (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I seems you are working very hard to force a square peg into a round hole. You should consider how just any editor edits and behaves. There are of course broad broad similarities for all users. Just keep pounding and the hole will become larger and larger and more and more editors can be disposed of into it as you will now include in Wolfkeepers repertoire mine also and all the other people you have decided are the nefarious Wolfkeeper and in the end you will have a wastebasket that can catch anybody that comes to your attention as you will then have a one-size-fits all kind of tool for disposing of editors. Zedshort (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Can you take a look here? I need someone more experienced. This is probably the same user, but Wolfkeeper is not blocked, so this is not a classic block evasion. Creating new account to avoid scrutiny is not allowed, but this was 6 years ago. Should we just let it be?  Vanjagenije   (talk)  23:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This master and socks have a troublesome history. That the master account was never blocked because he was stale from the get-go is irrelevant. I would do the usual behavioral analysis and focus not only on the master but the socks in the archive.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the user behind the account Wolfkeeper was placed under community sanctions in August 2010 that disallowed "alternate accounts" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWolfkeeper&type=revision&diff=381458853&oldid=381398378) and I can't find any successful appeal; presuming this is still in effect, any new account determined to be used by the same editor is being used in violation of community sanctions, even if not strictly as block evasion of Wolfkeeper (but perhaps as block evasion of more recent accounts in this SPI's archive as well). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the tag,. It's been a long time since I've dealt with Wolfkeeper, and that mostly involved his edits to articles and policy pages about words. However, I do notice some striking similarities between Zedshort and Wolfkeeper and socks. They obviously share the same interest in the topic areas of rocketry, flight, etc, and have edited many of the same articles. Zedshort has the same tendency to make bursts of small sequential edits, which often have no edit summaries or sources (Zedshort: Wolfkeeper: ). I'd regard 's initial evidence as especially compelling in that regard. Zedshort has also left long appeals for intercession to Jimbo in a manner similar to Wolfkeeper (this and this vs. this). Their combative manner, tendency to make things personal, and habit of engaging in lengthy talk page disputes over their edits also recall Wolfkeeper. Finally, Zedshort exhibits a fixation on definitions and introductory sentences, which is a dead ringer for Wolfkeeper (see this and this). IMO, the behavioral evidence suggests an identification (Wolfkeeper is prohibited from using undisclosed alternate accounts).--Cúchullain t/ c 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you help with behavioral analysis? There is a huge overlap, but I can't find any convincing evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should be able to look into this shortly. GABgab 00:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't reached a conclusion yet after looking for a considerable time and I can see why this one stumps those who are looking. From the archive, I see that studied Wolfkeeper and may be able to offer his opinion.
 * Thank you Cúchullain, your assessment is compelling evidence and enough to help convince me. Indeffing both master and sock accounts. The master account is indeffed for violation of their community-placed editing restriction listed in the ER archive log. As this involves a community-based decision formed at AN, I will leave a notice there. Closing case.