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

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

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

There's almost definitely a WP:DUCK quacking here, not least because of the very similar and functionally identical usernames, but it needs to be documented in case similar editing behaviour recurs in the future. The fundamental problem here is that the user routinely uses sandbox pages in draft or user space to create imaginary "fantasy football" versions of real things, mostly imagined seasons of real reality television shows featuring imaginary contestants or altered placement orders but also sometimes including completely imaginary reality shows in which high school teachers compete for god knows what, in defiance of the fact that sandbox is for working on real content that's meant to improve the encyclopedia and not just for making up pretend stuff. The Iwshearer account was created on August 22, with User:Iwshearer/sandbox being essentially their first substantive contribution to Wikipedia, with the notable thing about this being that User:Isaacwshearer/sandbox, which was virtually identical fantasy football garbage, was deleted by MFD on August 21. So, essentially, they took the incorrect message from the first deletion: instead of "I'm not allowed to do this at all", their takeaway was the very wrong "I can start a different account and do the same thing on another page that hasn't been deleted yet". Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Before I dig into this, what's the big picture here? Is this just a case of inappropriate playing around in user space and wasting WMF resources, or are they actually causing disruption to the encyclopedia per WP:ILLEGIT? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox tomfoolery is the most readly identifiable thing I was able to point to for direct comparison in an SPI request, but the user does have a habit of making non-productive and disruptive mainspace edits as well — there just isn't as much of a straightforward pattern to those edits that could be cited as direct evidence of puppetry. They do weird, frequently reverted things to a lot of mainspace pages as well, just not always the same things or the same pages. At the time of the first sandbox deletion, editors did also approach me to express serious concern about Isaacwshearer's edits pertaining to roller coasters; they frequently make weird changes to Drag Race-related and Strictly Come Dancing-related articles (falsifying orders of finish, etc.); and on and so forth. So yes, they are disruptive in mainspace even if that's not what I highlighted as the primary evidence of the need for an SPI investigation — they're just less consistent about the targets of their disruption, or the types of disruption they apply to those targets, than they are about the sandbox page. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Passerby note that the suspected sock was created 2 days after the master stopped editing; there is no temporal overlap. Blablubbs|talk 21:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Blablubbs, The problem is, Isaacwshearer stopped editing because they were blocked for 2 weeks on August 20, and Iwshearer was created, as you say, 2 days later. So, assuming these are the same person (which certainly seems likely), this is block evasion. But in the scheme of things, doing silly stuff in your sandbox isn't quite the same thing as, say, sock-bombing an AfD or running a UPE farm. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith it's a userpage, not a sandbox, but the fantasy football thing reminds me of User:Electricalwork, not sure if that's who you're referring to. Blablubbs|talk 00:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blablubbs, Hmm, doesn't look familiar. Maybe fantasy football is more popular than I thought :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Isaacwshearer is  Stale. No data will be able to be retrieved for that account for comparison. This is going to need a behavioral investigation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: Sigh. I'm going to dig deep into my private AGF supply and treat this like a first-time socking case. Iwshearer is indeffed/tagged and Isaacwshearer (the master account) blocked for 12 days, which is what was remaining on their block when they started socking. Looking at their editing history, I see a fair number of reverted edits, but not so many that I'd conclude they're not adding any value at all to the encyclopedia. I also see blanking User:Bearcat/sandbox which is clearly not a positive. So, yeah, @Isaacwshearer and Iwshearer: please take this to heart: we're here to build an encyclopedia. Personally, I can't get too worked up over playing silly games in your user sandbox (even if it's technically inappropriate), but abusing mainspace and other people's sandboxes just has to stop, and there's really nothing left in the AGF bank. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I have a vague recollection (maybe going back a year?) of somebody else who was doing fantasy football in their sandbox, but I don't remember who it was. If that rings a bell with anybody, please note it here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sneaking this in prior to archiving as this sock is still creating accounts (and editing while logged out):

• Iwshearer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Isaacwshearer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Isaacweshearer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Issaaccss (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• All are  Confirmed to each other.@RoySmith: as an FYI.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the ping. Given that they've continued to sock after my last action, they've been editing in mainspace, and they were already on AGF credit hold, reblocking the master indef, and retagging everybody as CU-confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: For the sake of future investigators, noting a possible connection to Kk Brsr based on the shared interest in RuPaul's Drag Race. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Iiisssaaaccc (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same name, editing the same pages. Quacking like a duck, so I'm not requesting a CU on this. – DarkGlow • 11:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

•  Clerk note: It's unfortunate every account in the archive is stale, but there's enough here I feel comfortable calling this proven without CU input. I'll skip the details per BEANS. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Itsisaacs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

Same name and the same editing patterns on reality television series articles. Obvious to me but requesting a CU just for confirmation. – DarkGlow • 16:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The CU data is mostly stale, but I got some hints which make this  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Given the strong behavioral evidence, I have no problem tagging as proven. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shadyphaephae (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Simmer1121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Molly thxrpe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hibabygorgeous (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

All have the same interests as the blocked sock Itsisaacs with a good deal of overlap on editing history, as well as one who edited Itsisaacs sandbox. Checkuser for sleepers, and to help with linking the accounts more definitely. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and 2a00:23c7:7935:a701::/64 is a WP:DUCK. I don't think CU is even needed to indentify that range as being Isaac. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Whilst checkuser can't publicly link accounts with IPs, the behavioural evidence for Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:7935:A701:0:0:0:0/64 is pretty damning. Would it be worth blocking that to prevent (some) further block evasion? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can say is  No comment with respect to IP address(es). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Interest in the area of reality TV, with notable overlap (including Shadyphaephae editing the sandbox of a confirmed sock).  Clerk endorsed - Please compare the accounts and check for sleepers. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hibabygorgeous and Shadyphaephae are  Confirmed to Itsisaacs from the archives. Simmer1121 and Molly thxrpe are both  Possible, but there's so little editing history for those two, I can't make a good evaluation, so I'll give those two a pass. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual-tagging the two I confirmed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]