Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm: Difference between revisions

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

20 March 2022

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

• BilledMammal (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

First of all, I apologise for the length of this entry.

The BilledMammal account was opened on 24 April 2019 and the first edit was published same day. This was a new article, created in one edit and displaying instant knowledge of drafting, image parms, linkage, ref name, cite news, cite web, citation parameters, article structure, heading formats, and reflist. He even knew not to include categories in a draft. Only 31 edits were done until 6 December 2019 when the account became a sleeper for nearly 18 months until it was resurrected on 18 May 2021. In the ten months since then, over 7,500 edits have been done but only a mere 29% of them are mainspace because this editor spends so much time in forums and the like where, despite his apparent lack of experience, he has such a lot to say about policies, guidelines, procedures and so on.

In those first 31 edits, he twice opened AfD cases and knew exactly how to go about it. I find that surprising, to say the least. In the first one, he displayed familiarity with WP:CORP, WP:BEFORE, WP:SIGCOV and WP:PRIMARY. He even knew how to include the case in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. In the second one, just before he left us for 18 months, he cites WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, writing with confidence about whether the subject qualifies for the latter. Again, he apparently performed a BEFORE and knew which deletion discussions would be interested.

During those 18 months, the situation with User:Störm deteriorated and, using this extract from his talk page history (just before he blanked the page) as an example, it's clear that he was an extremely disruptive editor as can be seen from the various comments made by TRM, Mjroots and Lugnuts. Störm continued to edit for another couple of months and then, following another case at ANI, he called it a day.

Meanwhile, BilledMammal had returned on 18 May and, editing fairly regularly, made about 100 contribs to 27 May and then disappeared again. He was back on 19 June, the exact same day that Störm resigned. BilledMammal immediately returned to AfD and, apart from short breaks, has been a regular editor for the last nine months during which he has been using AfD and other forums in the same way as Störm did – i.e., as a deletionist.

In July, BilledMammal opened this ANI discussion and began by saying: I was regrettably unaware of this forum. Fortunately, one of the editors at AFD was kind enough to point me in the right direction. I find it strange that someone who was so obviously comfortable with AfD and other WP concepts had never heard of ANI. He seems to have been at home in ANI as he proceeded to outline his case. Soon afterwards, some of his edits there had to be permanently deleted because he made alterations to change message context and invalidate another editor's responses. He was full of apologies, of course, and finished by asserting: I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, and am only here after being directed by an editor at the AFD that I was in the wrong forum. Are there guides in regards to submissions on these pages that I can read? I searched for them before posting, but unfortunately could not find any. Again, it is very strange that someone so well-versed in AfD and other site concepts should have such difficulty with ANI and finding useful guides.

BilledMammal appears to have stayed clear of sport until posting this revert on 22 January this year. He then began an argument about canvassing with Cbl62 and, despite his supposed inexperience, was talking throughout as if it was anything but new to him: for example, this, and so on. As a follow up, he goes to the VP and raises a fuss about canvassing there. This becomes something of an obsession with him – it seems he cannot bear to have other people knowing about something he wants to change or challenge in case they oppose him.

Two days later, having made several edits at the NSPORTS rfc and related pages, he arrives at Lugnuts' talk page for the first time with an AfD and this becomes a flood of Störm-like proportions at various forums. Eventually, Lugnuts had to issue this complaint about hounding and stalking. Even so, BilledMammal has continued to post unwanted messages at Lugnuts' page. It seems very strange to me that someone with only 7,500 edits can claim to be so much more competent than someone with well over 1 million edits.

An example of BilledMammal's animosity towards Lugnuts is this proposal at ANI on 3 February. Remember that this is someone with relatively few edits and, of those, only 29% are in mainspace (WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE?) running the rule over someone who is one of the main builders of the encyclopaedia. It seems incongruous that BilledMammal is referring to something in 2020, a year in which he did not make one single edit. Störm did, of course. How can an inexperienced editor know so much that they could even consider making such a proposal? I opened my account only a couple of months before BilledMammal and have done over 50,000 edits, which means I am considerably more experienced than he is through the same timespan, but I'm not sure if I would be confident about making a proposal like that even now – I doubt if I would even think about "wikicode that doesn't impact the rendered page". If I see something that needs correcting, I just do it, page rendering or not. Quite bizarre and definitely harrassment to try and sanction someone for performing WP:GNOME activity.

On 9 February, BilledMammal created this AfD involving some 31 sportspeople and the result was a procedural keep. It is just one example of his activity in recent weeks and it was a complete waste of everyone's time. Störm was sanctioned for doing precisely this same thing – creating a flood of entries at AfD, wasting people's time, and annoying many editors. Actions like these give rise to concerns of WP:CIR and, since Lugnuts was obviously being targetted here, WP:HARRASS.

Another CIR issue has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi where BilledMammal has used WP:NOTDATABASE as his primary reason to delete the article. This amounts to WP:GAMING as an abuse of process. NOTDATABASE is a component of WP:NOT and it concerns the context, structure and usage of the article, not the sourcing. He has already been blocked for abuse of process in October 2021. He was warned about his attitude in this discussion and this message seems to summarise his attitude very well.

This week, at WP:RSN, BilledMammal was accused by other parties of harrassment towards Ebergerz following this unwarranted accusation on the 17th. This again arose from the obsession with canvassing. It is not the only problem he has caused in that discussion. He was warned about disruptive editing and harrassment by Guy Macon.

If the checkuser should be negative, then I contend that BilledMammal should be blocked indefinitely for persistent WP:DE and especially for WP:HARRASS.

Again, I apologise for the length of this entry. If you have any questions, please ping me. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, all, for responding so soon. I broke off to have tea and watch the Forest v Liverpool cup tie and it's all done! I'm going to take the case to ANI as you suggest, Blablubbs. Must admit, I thought both suspects were in Australia but it looks like I'm a few thousand miles out. I'll place an apology at Störm's page in case he returns sometime. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I'm honestly not sure if this user is a Sock or not, or at least I don't know much about Störm. But they are certainly very disruptive, and did come into several spaces already with a huge amount of wiki-lawyering knowledge. Some superficial similarities I have noted:

Overall, this is extremely circumstantial evidence. There are some glaring holes:

1. Störm has a huge editing legacy in Pakistani areas (companies, military, universities) that BilledMammal does not appear to share.
2. BilledMammal has a massive interest in naming (e.g. revising WP:NCNZ to reduce supportive for dual names). Störm had, as far as I can tell, zero interest in nomenclature and notability.
3. Editing times don't really match up (compare time cards: Störm | BilledMammal)

All in all, I suppose it would be plausible that an editor was very active in South Africa/Pakistan when they lived in one of these areas, and then moved to New Zealand/Australia at the beginning of the pandemic, and thus started editing at those different times. But I think it's kind of a stretch.

My inclination is to suspect that BilledMammal may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm. I would be in favor of a CU, though, because this is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. Thank you for doing the extra analysis here too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have only skimmed this case (i.e. TL;DR), but there was enough here to justify a check. Störm is stale, but I was able to dig out one IP from some historical logs. Based on that, BilledMammal appears to be  Unrelated, but given the limited amount of data,  Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm rather familiar with Störm because of UPE issues involving them; I'm confident BM is not them. This filing seems to be mostly about perceived disruption by BM, and that is out of scope for this venue – if someome wants to pursue that angle, I suggest taking it to ANI.  Closing without action. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I ran both users through Masz. There's a lot of healthy skepticism about how reliable this tool is, but FWIW, it draws a blank on this pair of accounts. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]