Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz
Icewhiz
- Icewhiz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
09 October 2024
[edit]– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]- Galamore (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
There are behavioral similarities between Galamore and the User:O.maximov/User:UnspokenPassion accounts I reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#27 August 2024 (pinging blocking admin HJ Mitchell). There are also similarities between Galamore and other confirmed/suspected socks, so I'm not sure who the master is (if anyone). Per RoySmith's advice here, I'm filing it under this case to stick with one case file and not sweating the details of which file.
I had this timecard theory:
- Galamore edits 5-7 [1]
- User:Sakakami edits 8-10 [2]
- User:O.maximov edits 11-13 [3]
- User:UnspokenPassion edits 13-14 [4]
- (see also User:Geshem Bracha [5], User:Hippeus [6], User:Mvqr [7])
Sakakami had been on my radar because the account was created Aug 8, just a few days after I filed an AE report against O.maximov, and Sakakami made ~500 edits almost exclusively to category namespace in a handful of days in Aug and Sep, hit XC 9/9 7:29 [8], and their very next edit at 7:43 was at State of Palestine. But Sakakami was recently confirmed to User:Dolyn, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolyn/Archive#07 October 2024. I don't know if Dolyn is related here but I've decided to file Galamore under this case page instead of that one.
Galamore was previously mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bennet43/Archive#17 January 2024 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ElLuzDelSur/Archive#26 April 2024
Same similarities as in the prior O.maximov/UnspokenPassion filing: repeating each other's edits, similar talking points, and "drive-by" habit (only making one edit to article/talk page, to support another sock)
- 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation: Galamore, O.maximov
- Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples
- O.maximov: "This isn't a clear-cut case of a colonial power committing genocide against a indigenous population. We're looking at two groups, both with historical ties to the land, both claiming indigenity. Jews have always seen themselves, and were seen by their neighbors all around the world, as being from this area."
- Galamore (Galamore's only edit to this article/talk page): "the Palestinians are not widely described as indigenous except for several opinionated articles ... Given that they should not be described as indigenous (maybe just part of them, so if we consider them all indigenous, Jews are no less indigenous, as this is where the Jews first appeared in history ..."
- UnspokenPassion: "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is generally understood as a struggle between two ethnic groups, both laying claim to being indigenous."
- Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation
- UnspokenPassion: "does not reflect a consensus from reliable sources ... requires a stronger consensus among scholars"
- Galamore (only edit to article/talk page): "this framing is rejected by most scholars on the topic"
- Talk:Gaza genocide
- UnspokenPassion: "better aligns with the terminology used by leading reliable sources and avoids issues with ambiguity and neutrality"
- Galamore (only edit to article/talk page): "better serves in protecting Wikipedia's neutrality"
- Talk:Israel–Hamas war: UnspokenPassion, Galamore
- Talk:List of genocides: O.maximov, Galamore
- Talk:Gaza Strip famine: Galamore, O.maximov
- Jordanian option (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - See article history: UnspokenPassion expanded this redirect into an article, Galamore picked up after UnspokenPassion was blocked 1, 2
Aside from similarities between Galamore and O.maximov/UnspokenPassion, there are also similarities between these three accounts and two other accounts, OdNahlawi and PeleYoetz, that have been reported at another currently-pending SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OdNahlawi:
- Zionism, removing "colonization": O.maximov, Galamore, O.maximov, PeleYoetz
- Talk:Zionism, "no consensus": Galamore, O.maximov, PeleYoetz
- Israel
- Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks - created by UnspokenPassion
- UnspokenPassion: "suicide bombings deliberately targeting civilians"
- UnspokenPassion: "Suicide bombings ... that target civilians"
- Galamore (only edit to article/talk page): "The term terrorism is entirely appropriate ... suicide bombings that primarily target civilians"
- PeleYoetz: "the term 'terrorism' can be used when it is common in literature ... suicide bombings targeting civilians are widely recognized as acts of terrorism"
- UnspokenPassion: "the term 'terrorism' is entirely appropriate"
- O.maximov (for completeness)
- Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel: Galamore, PeleYoetz - only edits by G or PY to article or talk page (I also saw here ManOnTheMoon92: Special:Diff/1200340083)
- Battle of Maroun al-Ras (2024): Galamore, PeleYoetz - only edits for both
- Battle of Odaisseh: Galamore, PeleYoetz - only edits for both
- Talk:1982 Lebanon War: both arrive at the same time to an article they've never edited before, to jump on the same side of the same dispute:
- Galamore: "it does not seem to reflect the prevailing view"
- Galamore: "Having found a few sources that share the same sentiment and hold the same minority view does not make this perhaps verifiable claim something widely agreed upon in relevant scholarship."
- Galamore: "Please prove this is the majority view"
- Galamore: "see WP:ONUS - not all verifiable information must be included"
- PeleYoetz: "No, the burden is on those seeking to include disputed content, even if they have found several sources that seem to support their own point of view. Most sources do not use this term."
- Galamore: "They say nothing about IDF facilitating the massacre, that's false."
- PeleYoetz: "The bottom line is that portraying the Sabra and Shatila massacre as "Israel facilitated the massacre" is a POV rather than an established fact. The sources provide a broader and more nuanced explanation. All agree that the Phalangist militias committed the massacre, while the exact role of the IDF is highly contested. Views range from (opinionated) accusations of facilitation, such as those presented by Makeandtoss, to more measured assessments that highlight Israel's failure to prevent the massacre rather than direct involvement or facilitation."
- Galamore: "Even if that's what's the word facilitating means I think it is pretty clear that not all sources are on board with that. The more neutral ones say there is a debate about Israel's part of responsibility. What most agree on is that the IDF failed to intervene stop the violence, but using the word 'facilitated' based on just some of the sources is POV."
- Talk:Israel: PeleYoetz, Galamore, PeleYoetz
- Talk:Israeli apartheid: OdNahlawi, Galamore
- Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike: OdNahlawi moves to "Attempted assassination of Hassan Nasrallah", Galamore "A more relevant move would be to attempted assassination of Hassan Nasrallah"
- Talk:Golan Heights: G jumps in and answers for PY: PeleYoetz, Galamore
Edit summary similarities:
- Many vague, canned edit summaries like "added info" or "adding info and sources"
- Galamore all 2,100 contribs: e.g. "Added more information and citation" [9] [10]
- Uppagus contribs: e.g. "Added much information with sources and links" [11], "Added sources, links and much information" [12]
- OdNahlawi contribs: "added information and citation" [13] [14]
- PeleYoetz contribs: "naming sources and adding info" [15], "Added general info with sources" [16], "I added more info" [17]
- O.maximov contribs: "add more info" [18], "added update info" [19] [20], "added info" [21]
- UnspokenPassion contribs: "Adding an update" [22] [23], "Adding a source" [24] [25]
- "detail"
- Galamore: "dropping figures, no need to get this level of detail here" (how many Palestinians and Lebanese have been killed)
- Galamore: "number of bombs not really important at this level of detail" (how many bombs dropped by Israel)
- But: Galamore: "Reverting recent edit that removed important, factual details on Palestinian political violence"
- PeleYoetz: "list of places too detailed for this article" (places occupied by Israel)
- But: PeleYoetz: "I changed the introduction to add more important detail on the neighborhood" (the important detail is "renowned for its eclectic architectural styles, and often regarded as one of the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city")
- "historical truth"/"historical facts"
And of course, all the accounts share the same Israeli nationalist POV. Throw a dart at the EIA for all of them [26] and you're likely to hit a pro-Israeli edit. Levivich (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per Izno's comment on the OdNahlawi SPI, here are diffs/links from that page that wasn't on this page (because it doesn't involve Galamore, but does involve OdNahlawi, PeleYoetz, and another, Uppagus):
- Edit by OdNahlawi (reverted), relevant portion quoted in Wikitext:
To make this edit, OdNahlawi had to type the word "PeleYoetz" (or enough of it to trigger autofill), and then type the words "me" and "my" -- simply being on the wrong page doesn't explain how one types out another's username and then refers to it as "me" and "my". This is the single most compelling piece of behavioral evidence IMO. (Even if the quoted portion were copied-and-pasted in whole or in part instead of typed out, the text "User:PeleYoetz|PeleYoetz" would be the first portion that was highlighted.)... "[[User:PeleYoetz|PeleYoetz]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Hezbollah_headquarters_strike&diff=next&oldid=1248298775 undid] the changes and introduced [[WP:V]] errors in the article" doesn’t seem like you’re addressing me to explain my edits or calling for any action. ...
- All three edited almost-daily to get to XC. Once they hit XC, both the frequency and number of edits declines:
- Uppagus edits almost daily until 5/7 (1st 500 contribs); hits XC 5/7 [27]; stops daily editing 5/7, switches to a few days a week, then a few days a month (post-XC contribs)
- PeleYoetz same: edits almost daily until 6/18 [28]; XC 6/17 [29]; stops daily editing 6/18 [30]
- OdNahlawi same: edits almost daily until 8/8 [31]; XC 8/8 [32]; stops daily editing 8/8 [33]
- All three make liberal use of vague stock edit summaries, e.g. "Added information", "Adding information", "Added info" (see the contribs lists linked above for examples).
- Similar and somewhat distinctive timecards: Uppagus's timecard, PeleYoetz's timecard, OdNahlawi's timecard
- PeleYoetz and OdNahlawi have edited hewiki, though Uppagus has not: Uppagus's xtools, PeleYoetz's xtools, OdNahlawi's xtools
- Uppagus created Jan 28; PeleYoetz May 9; OdNahlawi June 18 -- basically the same time periods as many of the already-blocked socks in this topic area, although I understand that socks are created all the time
- Overlaps for OdNahlawi/PeleYoetz/Uppagus:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth:
- OdNahlawi's vote:
more balanced ... should be described as part of the article on Masada ... more relevant context and all the relevant views
- AFAICT, OdNahlawi has made no edits to the article, 1 edit to the talk page, and the 1 AFD vote - PeleYoetz's vote:
should be included under the main topic ... alongside the main scholarly opinions and with stronger sourcing ... lack balance
- Uppagus's vote:
completely out of context ... belongs in the main article ... uses questionable phrasing and sources ... out of context
- See also Talk:Masada myth EIA for the three accounts [34]
- OdNahlawi's vote:
- Golan Heights
- Talk:Ascalon
- PeleYoetz's vote - PeleYoetz never edited this article or talk page before or since (Uppagus has).
- Uppagus's vote
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth:
- EIA for all three: [35]. All three accounts' edits reflect a noticeable Israeli nationalist POV -- I think anyone reviewing these edits who clicks on any random edit will find that the edit in some way or form makes Israel look better or makes its enemies look worse. This is how I'd characterize pretty much ever edit in this report.
- Edit by OdNahlawi (reverted), relevant portion quoted in Wikitext:
- One final note: however this shakes out, whatever the CU team ultimately decides, I would appreciate feedback about the behavioral evidence, both content and format. I have other SPIs I am contemplating filing (other suspected socks) but I don't want to waste your time reading things that aren't helpful any more than I want to waste my time writing it. So, please help me help you by telling me what is useful and what is not useful in these reports I've filed. Thank you! Levivich (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Comments by other users
[edit]- Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- I am honestly baffled that PeleYoetz and OdNahlawi arent confirmed by self-admission already. This should be put as the definition of own goal here. Even if the CU showed one of them was editing from the moon, that is a user accidentally outing themselves as running multiple accounts. I think the evidence above ties those two together with Galamare, and I can try to scrounge up some evidence for what I think is another account (not sure if it's the same unnamed one Izno references obviously) before this is closed, but those two being the same editor is a slam dunk, and I am baffled as to how that is in question. nableezy - 17:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Besides the very different time signatures, level of English, topics of interest, and languages (for example, OdNahlawi seems to speak Arabic) between the editors listed here, I want to point out something important to CheckUsers here. The two editors here asking for CU—namely Levivich and Nableezy—are now included in the list of parties in this ARBCOM motion. If it passes, arbcom will start a full case to check their conduct, alongside that of other editors, in the PIA topic area. Note that the concerns discussed on that page, as escalating admins labelled them, include "edit warring, battleground mentality, and POV pushing." As I mention in my comment here, I believe that, alongside issues such as the endorsement of sources affiliated with terrorist organizations, and the promotion of skewed content, there's a major issue of aggressive conduct by the so-called 'ARBPIA regulars' towards new editors with opposing viewpoints based on unsubstantiated evidence. In fact, arbcom became involved in this issue in the very beginning following an AE complaint Levivich opened against PeleYoetz, claiming tag-teaming, which admins later closed and escalated to the committee, saying that the conduct in question also applies to the side of those filing the AE too (which was then followed by some editors saying will be solved only through sanctions on the 'regulars' too.).
- Is it just coincidence that after a failed AE on PeleYoetz, and then a failed CU on PeleYoetz and OdNahlawi just a few days ago (closed as unrelated), now Levivich is making another CU request involving the same editors? The choice of words in the above request, with the main point of similarity comes down to what Levivich describes as the editors' "pro-Israeli views" (but in fact are shared by much of the Western World), while the editor says things such as "we are witnessing the last grasps of Zionism," and "Zionism is fundamentally irrational: as soon as you lay it out and look at it, you realize it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever," may show more clearly what really is going on here. ABHammad (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bonkers that this level of misdirection for a page that is solely focused on if one user is the sockpuppet of a banned user is allowed. nableezy - 21:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your lawyerly approach to these things reminds me of someone, let me think... Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fox something, someone help me out here, could be totally wrong of course. Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've written this before about users suspected of being sock puppets (then it was people accused of being socks of Tombah, but it applies to Icewhiz too):
- We can't just continue claiming that all those who don't align with the anti-Israel view common here, as being by the same person and file CU checks on them based on very limited evidence if any. there are 10 million Israelis, who may be interested in similar topic and work in similar timeframes.
- Take a look at these user edits in other languages as well. In my case, I was also accused of being Tombah, but after checks they have found out that I was not related to them. This is becoming too common and for no reason.Eladkarmel (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a high cost associated with having an over-sensitive approach to ban evasion and a high cost trying to deal with it, including mistakes and collateral damage.
- In terms of cost, Irtapil, an account used by someone with a pronounced pro-Palestinian bias has made 12865 edits using 5 accounts that have been identified so far. Evidently, we are very bad at identifying ban evasion. Notably, no one leapt to their defense when SPIs were filed.
- Identifying accounts that are employing deception should have nothing to do with the conflict, it should just be about identifying people willing to use deception, because their presence is corrosive. Their presence makes all of the tools, and the rules used to control/limit behavior in the topic area worthless because the effectiveness of sanctions becomes dependent on a person's willingness to employ deception via disposable accounts.
- Sanctions are only effective on honest editors. No one should have to deal with dishonest people here. I would rather they were given a subset of the topic area where they can edit and not get reported because they are never going to stop ignoring rules they don't think apply to them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a high cost associated with having an over-sensitive approach to ban evasion and a high cost trying to deal with it, including mistakes and collateral damage.
- Frankly, @Eladkarmel, I find it suspicious that you characterize my report as "very limited evidence," considering there are maybe 50 diffs or something? And similar with your characterization of "similar topic" when it's actually the same articles, not just similar topics, and "similar timeframes" when the evidence actually shows that it's not similar timeframes, but consecutive timeframes. I'm not really sure how you can look at this evidence and not think that it's worthy of an SPI filing. Similar to your comments in the previous one, even though that one came back confirmed. You don't have to be persuaded by the evidence, but acting as if there isn't evidence on this page, is odd. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]- I looked at some of this when Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OdNahlawi was open. There was some weird data that I and another CU looked at that connects the 3 identified between these two pages (OdNahlawi, PeleYoetz, and Galamore) as well as a fourth account that is yet unnamed. [36] exists for CUs to review, and feel free to add to it if you want. The data was not inconsistent with the thesis that this is specifically Icewhiz, and that user crossed my mind given their historical skill at evasion and some knowledge of their previous behavior. I didn't do a deep dive on behavior. Izno (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)