Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Icewhiz

Icewhiz (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive.

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]

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:

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)

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:

Edit summary similarities:

  • Many vague, canned edit summaries like "added info" or "adding info and sources"
  • "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"
    • O.maximov ("deny the plain fact ... denial of historical truth ... I will be adding this factual information shortly.")
    • Galamore ("Reverting, these edits removed important 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)[reply]

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:

    ... "[[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. ...

    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.)
  • 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:
  • 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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your lawyerly approach to these things reminds me of someone, let me think... Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fox something, someone help me out here, could be totally wrong of course. Selfstudier (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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):
  1. 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.
  2. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz&oldid=1253053024"