Eostrix, current RfA candidate, ArbComBlocked as a sock of Icewhiz

Elli · Unread post by **Elli** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:19 am

Surprised there wasn't a thread about the RfA here before. Anyway, discuss? (haven't posted here before, so apologies if this isn't up to the usual quality expected)

Relevant links: Icewhiz (T-C-L) Eostrix (T-C-L) Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eostrix (T-H-L)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:31 am

There are 123 people on en.wp that should have their RfA voting rights reviewed.

orangepi · Unread post by **orangepi** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:35 am

I didn't even think to check for socking. In hindsight, their first 50 edits being a bunch of edits to the name-sharing Eostrix (T-H-L) and at least three runs through the Wikipedia Adventure should have been a red flag.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:38 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:31 am
There are 123 people on en.wp that should have their RfA voting rights reviewed.

Nah, nobody, including the nominators, could possibly have known this without the private evidence. Icewhiz was very careful here. Obviously I can't elaborate on what gave them away, but it wasn't exactly straightforward.

Unread post by **Smiley** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:50 am

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:38 am
Icewhiz was very careful here. Obviously I can't elaborate on what gave them away, but it wasn't exactly straightforward.

Hindsight is 20/20 and all, but this Eostrix fella sure loved a bracket.

RfA question 9:

A: That's an interesting question as it raises a number of issues. For the sake of discussion we'll ignore that the deletion nominator and three keep !voters (Zackdasnicker, INeedToFlyForever, Jaysonsands) were socks (only came out last week, all are the same editor, not known in August). If I were truly optimal I would recognize the socks and file an SPI against the correct editors, however I did not recognize them in July and nor would I always recognize specific socks when I cross paths with them.
Analyzing the discussion we see a not too articulate deletion nomination but with a somewhat valid policy reason (the "lacks news" is a not so good argument, as GNG could be met by non-news) by a fairly new editor (160 edits). The first delete !voter is an established editor that presents a plausible reason for deletion. This is countered by a MUSICBIO SNG argument (and some back and forth) with a somewhat established editor (around 800 edits). We then see three pile on !votes by two editors of varying experience (1,1000 edits and 190 edits) and an additional WP:SPA with 23 edits whose entire editing career is dedicated to Cartee. In terms of raw head count, ignoring the SPA, this is a 3 Keep vs. 2 Delete discussion. Strength of argument (without diving deep into the argument) lies on the delete side, but only by a little bit. A neutral uninvolved closer, if they were assessing this for a close only, would in my mind either re-list (specifying further discussion on the MUSICBIO aspect) or close as no-consensus.
This analysis aside, the correct answer to your question in my opinion is to !vote myself as the Keep !voters are misapplying the guideline. WP:MUSICBIO itself is conditional on reliable independent sources (not PR) and MUSICBIO#10 (cited by the DeleteKeep side) specifically says that if it is the only claim to significance then redirection is probably more appropriate. Advancing such an argument (as opposed to assessing existing arguments) lies in the realm of !voting, not closing. I think I made a better argument (as a !voter) in the just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Cartee (2nd nomination) than in the first discussion.--Eostrix (hoot, hoot!) 10:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

cf. https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 46#p237346

Unread post by **tarantino** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:52 am

Hah, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? , what a rube, as are those 123 out of 125 that voted for him.

Giraffe Stapler · Unread post by **Giraffe Stapler** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:44 am

So, Icewhiz gets blocked on 1 October 2019. Two weeks later, on 15 October 2019, Eostrix is created and starts editing. Two years and 22k edits later, Eostrix is nominated to be an admin. Meanwhile, Icewhiz socks have been regularly identified, checkusered, and blocked but Eostrix is not detected until today (and even then, it doesn't look like checkuser caught them).

That's pretty crazy.

nableezy · Unread post by **nableezy** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:55 am

Wonder if he would have gone full uninvolved admin on me or tried to work his way up to CU. Maybe he'll come and tell us?

Unread post by **Smiley** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:05 am

Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:44 am
So, Icewhiz gets blocked on 1 October 2019. Two weeks later, on 15 October 2019, Eostrix is created and starts editing. Two years and 22k edits later, Eostrix is nominated to be an admin. Meanwhile, Icewhiz socks have been regularly identified, checkusered, and blocked but Eostrix is not detected until today (and even then, it doesn't look like checkuser caught them).

That's pretty crazy.

Maybe a seperate device and SIM card for the Eostrix account?

He's always been careful. The only account linked to him in that huge SPI archive was KasiaNL (T-C-L) "based on behaviour".

orangepi · Unread post by **orangepi** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:13 am

Smiley wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:05 am
Maybe a seperate device and SIM card for the Eostrix account?

He's always been careful. The only account linked to him in that huge SPI archive was KasiaNL (T-C-L) "based on behaviour".

Without spilling any BEANS, I feel it is safe to point out that it is pretty trivial to beat checkuser, at least at the “could be anyone from a province or small country” level.

Giraffe Stapler · Unread post by **Giraffe Stapler** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:13 am

A couple of interesting comments from the post-game discussion.

It's worth noting that this was not a unanimous decision. I opposed this motion as I don't believe that the evidence presented by my colleagues meets the burden of proof required to overcome the possibility of irrevocably destroying an innocent editor's wiki-career. I'm wary of revealing too much as I don't want to risk compromising Eostrix's ability to appeal, but in my estimation neither the technical nor behavioural evidence presented here would ordinarily be sufficient to justify a checkuser block. Furthermore, to believe that Eostrix is Icewhiz is to believe that Icewhiz is capable of behaving himself for over two years – editing only uncontroversial articles, not getting in personalized disputes with other users, not harassing, threatening, or doxxing his enemies. But Eostrix's edits demonstrate none of the attributes or interests usually shown by Icewhiz socks, and therefore I consider this connection dubious. – bradv 03:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap. What's really weird is I was working on the Icewhiz SPI earlier today and playing with https://masz.wmcloud.org/. Eostrix kept popping up as a possible Icewhiz sock in the masz output. I kept saying to myself, "That's stupid. Just another example of how these kinds of analysis are BS". Hmmm. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You may remember "masz" from the discussion here entitled "New tool to identify sockpuppets based on writing style".

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:48 am

Elli wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:19 am
Surprised there wasn't a thread about the RfA here before. Anyway, discuss? (haven't posted here before, so apologies if this isn't up to the usual quality expected)

Relevant links: Icewhiz (T-C-L) Eostrix (T-C-L) Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eostrix (T-H-L)

A fine first post.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:13 am

Could someone start a community discussion about unblocking Eostrix? It could be argued that even if he is Icewhiz, he is a good and popular editor so justifies an unblock under WP:IAR. I just suggest that as an example of where Wikilogic can take us.

Emptyeye · Unread post by **Emptyeye** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:28 am

A couple observations:

1. I also use a lot of parentheses. Hopefully you all don't think I'm also Spartacus Icewhiz...

2. During one of the innumerable ArbCom things in the areas Icewhiz edited--I don't remember much of the details, or even if it was a full request, request for clarification, or request for enforcement--someone, probably but not definitely an Arb, said something to the effect of "Okay, seriously, you can't keep bringing up the Specter of Icewhiz every time someone on what would have been his side of the argument says or does something you don't like."

This would suggest that, for the moment, that person was in error.

owl be it · Unread post by **owl be it** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:28 pm

What the hell did Icewhiz do, again?

nableezy · Unread post by **nableezy** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:38 pm

Emptyeye wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:28 am
someone, probably but not definitely an Arb, said something to the effect of "Okay, seriously, you can't keep bringing up the Specter of Icewhiz every time someone on what would have been his side of the argument says or does something you don't like."

This would suggest that, for the moment, that person was in error.

Not an Arb, but but definitely making all the right friends to get there one day

WikiWatcher · Unread post by **WikiWatcher** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:18 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:13 am
Could someone start a community discussion about unblocking Eostrix? It could be argued that even if he is Icewhiz, he is a good and popular editor so justifies an unblock under WP:IAR. I just suggest that as an example of where Wikilogic can take us.

Don't think so. As Arbcom imposed the block, only Arbcom can lift it. Or Jimmy.

Though the way some of this discussion is going, you'd think Icewhiz has a sockpuppet on Arbcom already

Ritchie333 · Unread post by **Ritchie333** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:25 pm

owl be it wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:28 pm
What the hell did Icewhiz do, again?

Genuine threats of harm and violence against people.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:34 pm

If the WMF was serious, they'd require real ID verification for admins.

wizzito · Unread post by **wizzito** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:43 pm

Elli wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:19 am
Surprised there wasn't a thread about the RfA here before. Anyway, discuss? (haven't posted here before, so apologies if this isn't up to the usual quality expected)

Relevant links: Icewhiz (T-C-L) Eostrix (T-C-L) Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Eostrix (T-H-L)

I'm shocked, but also not. Hella funny to see, though.

wizzito · Unread post by **wizzito** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:45 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:31 am
There are 123 people on en.wp that should have their RfA voting rights reviewed.

Then again, when you're a pretty prolific sockmaster, you know how to get good at making sure you're not a sock.

Pudeo · Unread post by **Pudeo** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:21 pm

This is epic!

Really makes you think about many other editors who were promoted as admins within 1-2 years of active editing recently. There might be one or two socks among them.

Content creation / long editing career requirements are barriers to entry for socks. If you had to edit for 5 years, then that would be damage limitation for evasion.

Hey Icewhiz and other baddies out there, one more dark path to get the admin tools. Just patrol who's about to get desysopped for inactivity at WP:INACTIVE (T-H-L) and email them to offer 0,0015 Bitcoin for their password. Some admins who have retired and don't care might sell it.

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:42 pm

Ritchie333 wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:25 pm

owl be it wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:28 pm
What the hell did Icewhiz do, again?
Genuine threats of harm and violence against people.

Nah, not so much directly threats, as outing. He had a twitter-account (now long since banned) where he outed (or tried to out) his, eh, adversaries (=editors who were not pro-Israeli enough, or editors interested in the Holocaust who weren't critical enough about Poland/Poles)

And he outed not only his adversaries, -but also their spouses, elderly parents, pre-teen children; you name it: all were named/outed/photos published (if he had them)
+ contacting your work-place(!)

And since the above areas are rather -sensitive, or "hot topics"; there were many Grawp-type-loonies out there, who then made all the death and rape threats.
Including against editors young children.

Seriously, this is my first time to ArbCom:

Most of those who observed him were so totally put off by his tactics that they automatically sympathised with his victims; I don't know of anyone who has created so many pro-Polish sympathisers as Icewhiz

Lyallpuri · Unread post by **Lyallpuri** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:47 pm

Did the Haaretz article not have anything to do with it?

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:48 pm

Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:44 am
but Eostrix is not detected until today (and even then, it doesn't look like checkuser caught them).

Not exactly. As I said at WT:ACN, linkone particular arb had them on their radar for quite some time. When they ran for RFA, it suddenly became an urgent concern for the full committee.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:53 pm

Pudeo wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:21 pm
This is epic!

Really makes you think about many other editors who were promoted as admins within 1-2 years of active editing recently. There might be one or two socks among them.

Of course there are. But obviously they know where they went wrong and they will avoid doing it again, so in a sense they are not quite the same people as before.

el84 · Unread post by **el84** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:29 pm

I looked at their earlier contributions, and other than the random owl stuff, they asked an innocent question on the RSN noticeboard and then went off to here and started talking about nazi gas vans.

After a load more owlesque copy-editing they turned Twinkle on and started vandal busting.

jack · Unread post by **jack** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:19 pm

Eostrix has now been globally locked by WMFOffice as Icewhiz, along with the other four confirmed Icewhiz socks

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:30 pm

jack wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:19 pm
Eostrix has now been globally locked by WMFOffice as Icewhiz, along with the other four confirmed Icewhiz socks

The WMF leaping into action after everything is over...

Typical.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:39 pm

nableezy wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:38 pm

Emptyeye wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:28 am
someone, probably but not definitely an Arb, said something to the effect of "Okay, seriously, you can't keep bringing up the Specter of Icewhiz every time someone on what would have been his side of the argument says or does something you don't like."

This would suggest that, for the moment, that person was in error.
Not an Arb, but but definitely making all the right friends to get there one day

What?! You mean you can annoy the Poles (§) and make it to ArbCom these days?

Hemiauchenia · Unread post by **Hemiauchenia** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:36 am

Masterful, this is the kind of stuff sockmasters fantasize about. As someone also with an extinct animal username who frequents Paleontology related topics, I didn't notice their presence much at all outside occasional participation in AfD discussions. Icewhiz was really careful, there's no way anybody could have suspected without private information. The shock from the admins is surprising, it's very easy to play a character online when nobody knows who you really are.

boom · Unread post by **boom** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:17 am

Blablubbs still remains unblocked though. Win some, lose some.

ArmasRebane · Unread post by **ArmasRebane** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:55 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:53 pm

Pudeo wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:21 pm
This is epic!

Really makes you think about many other editors who were promoted as admins within 1-2 years of active editing recently. There might be one or two socks among them.
Of course there are. But obviously they know where they went wrong and they will avoid doing it again, so in a sense they are not quite the same people as before.

Yeah there's no doubt plenty of effective quiet returns and second/third acts on Wikipedia, because if you actually do stop doing what got you in trouble and let the CU results go stale there's very little that's going to connect you to the old account.

In this case, it seems given some of the arb's reservations that if the suspected sockmaster wasn't Icewhiz or the candidate wasn't standing for RfA, they would have likely skated under the radar or been given the benefit of the doubt.

If it was him, though, the fact that there were other (much more likely) socks does help explain how he could be a Normal Person with his good hand account. (Of course like with many of these cases that also just demonstrates that these people could be productive contributors if they also weren't raging ideological warriors.)

No Ledge · Unread post by **No Ledge** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:50 pm

More chatter from the post-game discussion

Probably Eostrix is not the only sock he has on that track; please be igilant.

Praise goes to the igilant few who caught this in the proverbial nick of time. What can we learn from this? IMHO that Wikipedia's enemies are becoming increasingly "weaponized" and sadly, we need to more igilant.

We should remain igilant, of course, but we cannot act hastily due to fear and paranoia.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 1:51 pm

I am accepting apprenticeship applications.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:14 pm

ArmasRebane wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:55 pm
If it was him, though, the fact that there were other (much more likely) socks does help explain how he could be a Normal Person with his good hand account. (Of course like with many of these cases that also just demonstrates that these people could be productive contributors if they also weren't raging ideological warriors.)

It's quite possible that he used fairly obvious socks to distract attention while nurturing this account on a different IP. How do editing time patterns compare with other accounts, for example? Obviously, this account would have no interaction with the others.

Scottywong · Unread post by **Scottywong** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:24 pm

Pudeo wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:21 pm
Hey Icewhiz and other baddies out there, one more dark path to get the admin tools. Just patrol who's about to get desysopped for inactivity at WP:INACTIVE (T-H-L) and email them to offer 0,0015 Bitcoin for their password. Some admins who have retired and don't care might sell it.

Surely an admin account would be worth more than $94 USD. I'll start the bidding for my admin account at 0.25 BTC.

Icewhiz, get in touch.

Kidding, of course...

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:46 pm

Scottywong wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:24 pm
Surely an admin account would be worth more than $94 USD. I'll start the bidding for my admin account at 0.25 BTC. Icewhiz, get in touch.

Given your history of Conflict of Interest editing and Diva Quitting, I think that reserve amount might be optimistic.

Scottywong · Unread post by **Scottywong** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:53 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:46 pm
Given your history of Conflict of Interest editing and Diva Quitting, I think that reserve amount might be optimistic.

Oh, I thought you'd be the first bidder. Such a small price to pay to finally remove one of the most dangerous and destructive admins from Wikipedia and vanquish one of your sworn arch-enemies.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:03 pm

Scottywong wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:53 pm
Oh, I thought you'd be the first bidder. Such a small price to pay to finally remove one of the most dangerous and destructive admins from Wikipedia and vanquish one of your sworn arch-enemies.

Oh son, you aren't even in my top 100 list of enemies.

You're more of a Jerry.

Yeah, Jerry is spot on.

Scottywong · Unread post by **Scottywong** » Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:33 pm

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:03 pm
Oh son, you aren't even in my top 100 list of enemies.

Cool.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:46 am

Vigilant wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:34 pm
If the WMF was serious, they'd require real ID verification for <s>admins.</s> everyone.

FIFY.

t

Eostrix · Unread post by **Eostrix** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:50 am

Hi everyone,

I am Eostrix. First of all I want to say I am not Icewhiz. Icewhiz is the kind of despicable troll that I've been spending time thwarting on Wikipedia.

I intend to appeal. I am investigating Icewhiz and his sockpuppets, and writing up a detailed report on why I am not Icewhiz.

I will posts some exculpatory evidence below in separate posts. It includes implausible editing patterns where I edit at the same minute as the confirmed socks, me requesting sanctions against an Icewhiz ally (or maybe sock?), and other items.

Please pick these points apart or point out other observations.

Finally, I want to say that I hold the members of ARBCOM with the utmost respect. They made a non-unanimous decision based on shaky evidence (no CU agreed with them), because they perceived Icewhiz to be a threat, even a lethal threat.

So I may be on the short side here of these very extraordinary measures, but having spent almost every waking hour in the past two days studying this Icewhiz troll, I understand why they were compelled to take decisive action.

Eostrix · Unread post by **Eostrix** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:04 am

Poetlister wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:14 pm
It's quite possible that he used fairly obvious socks to distract attention while nurturing this account on a different IP. How do editing time patterns compare with other accounts, for example? Obviously, this account would have no interaction with the others.

Good question Poetlister. These are compared timecards:
https://spi-tools.toolforge.org/spi/tim ... b+not+snob

These are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... of_Icewhiz . In this case, confirmed isn't CU confirmed but ARBCOM ruling for many of them. Mine is wrong, but most of the accounts there are socks. Some show deranged behavior.

The first thing that stands out is that Icewhiz doesn't sleep much (which may explain why he is deranged) or that it is more than one person parts of the time. If you combine 11Fox11, VikingDrummer, Geshem Bracha, Astral Leap, you're basically left with a two hour sleeping period (around midnight UTC), and it's not just the time cards, you see it on run on editing.

The other thing that stands out is that all of these accounts, except one, edit on Sunday, some very heavily.

The exception to that rule is me. I hardly edit at all on Sunday. It is the day I am least likely to be at work and I often am outside without a computer during Sundays. I often hike on Sundays.

Eostrix · Unread post by **Eostrix** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:10 am

Eostrix · Unread post by **Eostrix** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:13 am

Going through Icewhiz's edits, I discovered he was strongly pro-MEK. I also found that he tag teamed, or maybe operated a sockpuppet?, with Stefka Bulgaria:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://si ... Qvc6IGkLTw

Those two edited MEK, Israel, Poland, and Stefka even posted evidence for Icewhiz at the Icewhiz case https://www.google.com/url?q=https://en ... VVXNvdJUeQ and complained when the troll was banned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... =918804997 .

Most of the Icewhiz sockpuppets in the wiki category were going after editors on the opposite point of view of Icewhiz at various administrative boards.

Not only did I not do that, I supported sanctioning a pro-MEK user (TheDreamBoat) that Icewhiz previously cooperated with! See my posts over here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1035952761
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1035954731
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1035955026
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1035959694
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1035958181

See also Stefka Bulgaria's post to the SPI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1036398677

And here Icewhiz is leading the charge in a pro-MEK RfC vote on 6 May 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... =895742449 leading to "per Icewhiz" supports.
And here TheDreamBoat (the user I supported sanctioning at SPI and ANI) is taking the same position as Icewhiz, with the same reasoning, on 10 May 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... =896452816

All of Icewhiz's socks are aggressively gunning for Icewhiz's old foes or people who disagree with Icewhiz's positions. I am doing the opposite - trying to get Icewhiz's old friend sanctioned. I did this as part of looking into a large number of SPI (including ANI on sock related topics) over the summer. I didn't push for this outcome because I'm anti-MEK or pro-MEK! I know what MEK is, but I don't have strong opinions on it like Icewhiz, I just wanted those users sanctioned because they were obvious meat or sock puppets, ducks.

Eostrix · Unread post by **Eostrix** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:16 am

Another point, last for now but not the only evidence I have, some troll is now regularly accusing RfA candidates of being Icewhiz. Last time they used a one-time SPA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1042697867

Silesian Charger, now blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... an_Charger

The disruption of Blablubbs' RfA didn't work, that account was an obvious SPA troll and was immediately blocked.

I was the next RfA. Did they learn how to improve their game?

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:06 pm

Thats exactly what Icewhiz would say....

MadManz · Unread post by **MadManz** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:03 pm

Eostrix wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:50 am
Hi everyone,

I am Eostrix. First of all I want to say I am not Icewhiz. Icewhiz is the kind of despicable troll that I've been spending time thwarting on Wikipedia.

I intend to appeal. I am investigating Icewhiz and his sockpuppets, and writing up a detailed report on why I am not Icewhiz.

I will posts some exculpatory evidence below in separate posts. It includes implausible editing patterns where I edit at the same minute as the confirmed socks, me requesting sanctions against an Icewhiz ally (or maybe sock?), and other items.

Please pick these points apart or point out other observations.

Finally, I want to say that I hold the members of ARBCOM with the utmost respect. They made a non-unanimous decision based on shaky evidence (no CU agreed with them), because they perceived Icewhiz to be a threat, even a lethal threat.

So I may be on the short side here of these very extraordinary measures, but having spent almost every waking hour in the past two days studying this Icewhiz troll, I understand why they were compelled to take decisive action.

get better at trolling

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:59 pm

Eostrix wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 22, 2021 10:16 am
Another point, last for now but not the only evidence I have, some troll is now regularly accusing RfA candidates of being Icewhiz. Last time they used a one-time SPA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1042697867

Silesian Charger, now blocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... an_Charger

The disruption of Blablubbs' RfA didn't work, that account was an obvious SPA troll and was immediately blocked.

I was the next RfA. Did they learn how to improve their game?

I notice that you were not editing when Silesian Charger was on 6 September. Are you Silesian Charger? If so, I guess the answer to your question is "yes".