Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 195: Line 195:
::IMO none of them are actually Icewhiz, and they're all run by multiple people. The distinction between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is a distinction without a difference, because both violate sock policy. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::IMO none of them are actually Icewhiz, and they're all run by multiple people. The distinction between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is a distinction without a difference, because both violate sock policy. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|they're all run by multiple people}} I think that's the most likely, things have changed over the last year, still those "old timers" may have influence tho. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|they're all run by multiple people}} I think that's the most likely, things have changed over the last year, still those "old timers" may have influence tho. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I don't doubt the "old timers" are among the "multiple people." It's always been multiple people. I read old arbcom cases like [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq]] (2006), and I don't about everyone else, but when I read it, I'm reading ''the exact same thing'' as I see at PIA5 or any of the cases in between. Same arguments, same argumentation style, same POV... it's the same people doing the same thing that they've been doing for 20 years. Trying to figure out if a particular sock is Zeq, or NoCal, or AHJ, or Icewhiz, or whomever... is a fool's errand. You can identify "that group" by their ultra-nationalist POV--''that's'' the fingerprint that makes them stick out. There just aren't that many people in the world who would dedicate so much time to having Wikipedia question whether, e.g., Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, or whether they were really expelled, or talk about a "Jewish right of return". In AP2, dog whistles like these are very commonly known--everyone knows who they're talking to once someone talks about "reverse racism" or "replacement" or "woke agenda." But in PIA5, people just aren't as familiar with the basic facts, so they don't recognize when someone is talking crazy talk. But if you know the dogwhistles, you can easily spot the socks. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I don't doubt the "old timers" are among the "multiple people." It's always been multiple people. I read old arbcom cases like [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq]] (2006), and I don't know about everyone else, but when I read it, I'm reading ''the exact same thing'' as I see at PIA5 or any of the cases in between. Same arguments, same argumentation style, same POV... it's the same people doing the same thing that they've been doing for 20 years. Trying to figure out if a particular sock is Zeq, or NoCal, or AHJ, or Icewhiz, or whomever... is a fool's errand. You can identify "that group" by their ultra-nationalist POV--''that's'' the fingerprint that makes them stick out. There just aren't that many people in the world who would dedicate so much time to having Wikipedia question whether, e.g., Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, or whether they were really expelled, or talk about a "Jewish right of return", or as is happening now, questioning whether displacement of Arabs was an inherent part of Zionism. In AP2, dog whistles like these are very commonly known--everyone knows who they're talking to once someone talks about "reverse racism" or "replacement" or "woke agenda." But in PIA5, people just aren't as familiar with the basic facts, so they don't recognize when someone is talking crazy talk. But if you know the dogwhistles, you can easily spot the socks. In short, anyone expressing views to the right of Benny Morris is almost certainly one of these long-time Wikipedia sockmaster/puppet/whatever. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 18:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====
====<big>Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</big>====

Revision as of 18:57, 12 December 2024

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.

08 November 2024

– A checkuser is in the process of checking relevant users.

Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence is based on comparing ABHammad with sockmaster Icewhiz.

Timeline:

Icewhiz has a large number of suspected socks who were banned for either being them or working with them, example from the 14 August 2022 batch: DoraExp, Molave Quinta, SCNBAH, Smoking Ethel. This is only a month before ABHammad created their account on 20 September 2022.[1]

Rushing to defend:

ABHammad in the past couple of weeks has rushed to the defence of four of Icewhiz’s recently banned sockpuppets User:OdNahlawi,[2] User:EnfantDeLaVille,[3] User:PeleYoetz,[4] and User:O.maximov.[5]

Also, whenever an SPI case was opened against Icewhiz socks, ABHammad also rushed to their defence, in which they argued confidently that these were different users; ultimately all SPIs ended up in a positive confirmation of sockpuppetry.[6] [7]

Interaction tool:

Tool reveals several interlaps in articles, with minimum time between edits at least 1 minute long; added User:Owenglyndur to the list. [8]

Odd contributions to commons:

ABHammad’s sole odd contribution to Wikicommons is an upload of an Emirate mall’s logo,[9], similar to EnfantDeLaVille’s odd only upload of a Lebanese bank’s logo.[10]

Usernames:

Most importantly, ABHammad and OdNahlawi are similarly structured and both Arab family names, such as Salameh Hammad and Abd al-Karim al-Nahlawi.

Connection with other sockmaster Dajudem:

In addition, there seems additional similarties with another sockmaster User:Dajudem, who has nine confirmed sockpuppets and two suspected ones:

1- Very similar username structure to banned sockpuppets User:CJStevens and User:FLWalker.

2- Very similar timecards as most common edits occur 2-5 am UTC, and fewer after 12 pm: Snakeswithfeet, ABHammad, Tundrabuggy, Dadujem.

3- Hyperfixations on similar topics: (A) Golan Heights: Denial of the fact that the territory is occupied by Israel from Syria on the article’s talk page: Golan heights is not occupied, Golan heights is ours, Improvisealot123, ABHammad. (B) 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight: Calling the topic “controversial” and attacking the sources and historians critical of Israel as being “politicized”: ABHammad: 1, 2, 3. User:Snakeswithfeet: 1, 2, 3.

4-Multiple interlapping article interests between ABHammad, Snakeswithfeet, and User:Tundrabuggy. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commonalities with both the Icewhiz and Dajudem sockmasters

1- Edit summaries:

2- Eccentric morphology

Consistent use of an eccentric and rare way of negating adjectives; examples of using "unnecessary," "unneeded," and "undoing":

Comments by other users

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

Think it’s Dajudem but don’t know how that will be proven with how old those confirmed socks are. nableezy - 12:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are some pretty interesting overlaps here. Talk:Samir Kuntar#Large scale revert are now two blocked socks along with ABHammad. At Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks#Requested move 21 August 2024 it is ABHammad alongside 5 Icewhiz socks (OdNahlawi, Galamore, UnspokenPassion, PeleYoetz, O.maximov) and one other user opposed to the move. At Talk:1982 Lebanon War#Lede it is ABHammad alongside three now blocked Icewhiz socks (EnfantDeLaVille, Galamore, and PeleYoetz). At Talk:Israeli apartheid#Tags it was ABHammad alongside OdNahlawi and Galamore until a few other users joined in a couple of days later. Over and over again it is ABHammad alongside almost by themselves a collection of IW socks. nableezy - 19:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv Galamore is blocked as an Icewhiz sock. nableezy - 20:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but the connection was very brief, and I'd like a second opinion from another CU before taking action on it. – bradv 20:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: And Dajudem? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any recent accounts? From what I can see, the last confirmed Dajudem sock was blocked 14 years ago. CU wouldn't be helpful in this case. – bradv 20:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear so; maybe a sock was later misidentified as a sockmaster, which could explain the gap. But either way, the behavioral evidence is also very interesting. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owenglyndur isnt blocked as a sock but rather for copyvios, but adding that name shows some additional curiosities. ABHammad alongside two Icewhiz socks at Talk:Golan Heights#Revert (PeleYoetz, and Galamore), and alongside Owenglyndur at Talk:Golan Heights/Archive 16#Scope? nableezy - 21:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other connections with IW socks, Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#New bus line had ABHammad's first and only ever edit to that talk page to agree with Minden500. Just repeated behavior, showing up for the first time to agree with a now blocked IW sock, often in discussions with a limited number of editors, and often when ABHammad and the IW socks are the only ones arguing a point. nableezy - 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read this and I ask myself how is this still allowed here. @Barkeep49:, surely you see the weaponization of SPI happening here. We have an editor who has already received their 'final warning' "for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics", yet continues to spread bad-faith allegations (here), engage in edit warring [11], and selectively remove content [12]. I feel like I am being targeted by editors for providing more evidence relevant to Arbcom's upcoming case. In my case I was quick to be given a 0RR sanction. For how long are we gonna keep this policy of ignoring the continuing battleground behavior from the 'unsanctionable' club? When will Wikipedia finally wake up? ABHammad (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#c-ABHammad-20241031153100-ABHammad-20241014133600 This issue doesn't compare to fifteen years of the topic's 'regulars' engaging in edit wars, intimidating new editors, and relying on extremist sources, some linked to authoritarian regimes or terrorist organizations, all leading to a large-scale bias, making fringe ideas seem mainstream, and massively distorting our content on multiple topics
How is it that you apparently have a 15 year memory of the topic area? I've been on Wikipedia round that long and I can't remember stuff that far back. In fact it has struck me ever since we ran across each other how very familiar with Wikipedia and its processes you seem to be. You must be an excellent researcher. Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ABHammad this isn't the right place to to discuss pretty much any of that conduct - all we are here to discuss is potential socking. I both share your concerns about the weaponization of the accusation of socking and the concerns of others that there is disruptive socking going on in this area - as can be seen in the cases above. In this case an uninvolved checkuser, bradv who knew none of the background, felt there was enough evidence presented to run a check and so I don't think it's fair to say it's a bad faith filing. Following the finds of that check, brad then asked for a 2nd opinion which I gave. While I can see why bradv asked for the 2nd opinion (hence my saying the evidence might be inconclusive), I do find it more likely to indicate you're unrelated. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can add more behavioral evidence this weekend if CUs want to look at more. Same kind of stuff I posted about the other groups. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: Thanks for the note. I'll have some time this weekend and will post more behavioral evidence. Levivich (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This weekend also provided me with some time to do a deeper dive, hope I didn't duplicate any of your efforts Levivich, pinging @The Wordsmith:. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: I dealt a bit with User:Owenglyndur and I didn't get any Icewhiz -stench, eh, smell from him. If anything, he reminded me of Tombah: just not as clever, Huldra (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence

Known socks (partial list) -- these accounts are listed in italics below:

Suspected socks - ABHammad and a few others:

Full EIA for all 16 accounts: [13]

Timecards: EliasAntonakos is the same as Owenglyndur, somewhat similar to מתיאל (Matiel)

Edit summaries: as pointed out above, the same "Added info"/"Adding info" in the contribs; here are all contribs for: האופה (HaOfa) (110 hits for "add"), מתיאל (Matiel) (15), EliasAntonakos (380, out of 657 edits!), Owenglyndur (106)

Paid editing:

  • ABHammad and EnfantDeLaVille's uploading of bank logos, mentioned above, makes sense in the context of these accounts having an interest in Israeli or Middle Eastern businesses, including startups and small businesses. Look at the early contribs linked above for examples.
  • Additionally, מתיאל (Matiel) was a disclosed paid editing account in 2021 1 2 3; the disclosure was removed from their userpage in April 2024. See July 2024: User talk:מתיאל#Paid editing.
  • Top edited pages for ABHammad [14] and O.maximov [15], aside from Israel/Palestine, are mostly articles about businesses.
  • Galamore: Jan 2024 UPE ANI (blocked, unblocked); May AE "Galamore cautioned against continuing long term edit wars, especially when those edit wars have been the target of sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing."; May ANI for gaming 500.

To expand on a point from above, user talk pages where ABHammad shows up to defend:

Several of this group of accounts has defended האופה (HaOfa) at their user talk page, see EIA: [23]

Multi-user edit-warring (WP:MUEWing) between these accounts, presumably to avoid 1RR:

Talk pages:

Weird little thing I came across: you'd think the phrase "you are welcome to prove otherwise" would be a common phrase, but it only appears on 8 pages on Wikipedia (by comparison, the famous "all be it" appears on 864 pages). Two of those 8 instances of "you are welcome to prove otherwise" were written by ABHammad [134] and EliasAntonakos [135]; a third instance by an Israeil IP [136].

In the unlikely event more diffs are needed, just let me know, there are more. As I've said in prior filings, throw a dart at the master EIA linked above, and see if you hit tag-teaming or pro-Israeli POV or not. Another fun game: try to find an example of anybody in this group disagreeing with anyone else in this group, about anything, ever. I wasn't able to. Levivich (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, ABHammad and EliasAntonakos look an ocean apart to me. One maybe in Mountain Time Zone or thereabouts (like Dajudem socks, in winter anyway), and the other looks to be in the same time zone as Icewhiz socks, and numerous other ban evasion sources. This comment doesn't help at all of course, nor does it magically undelete all of the CU data that used to exist. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to your evidence "HaOfa" and ABHammad seemingly abruptly start and stop editing in a similar way (do we have a tool to analyze this?). Both haven't had much edits 18-27 November. A lot of edits on 8 November. Not much edits between 30 October and 7 November. Zero edits for both between 22 and 26 October. Barely any edits between 1 and 7 October. Zero edits for both between 22 and 28 August. And so on...
Also HaOfa displays similar behavior to other Icewhiz socks as I pointed out in the previous successful SPI; repeated pings to engage on talk pages go largely unanswered. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, HaOfa doesn’t appear to be an Icewhiz sock unless Icewhiz socks now enjoy talking about baking bread 🥖. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"האופה" literally means "baker". Just because an Icewhiz sock pointed that out doesn't mean they actually enjoy talking about baking. Gue101 (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s true. Maybe Icewhiz socks now like to start conversations on each other’s talk pages about their own usernames. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss, regarding "start and stop editing in a similar way (do we have a tool to analyze this?)", I wrote something to see revisions as timeseries, but I doubt that it will help in this case because האופה (HaOfa) and ABHammad appear to be on very different parts of the planet to me. Anyway, here you go, revisions as bar codes. These plots can be quite big so you will probably need to zoom in. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I understood and interpreted the plots correctly, that's seemingly a lot of matching patterns for two occasional editors, to cite a few examples: start of week 20 May, most of week 27 May, half of week 22 July, most of week 1 July, most of week 5 August, end of week 7 Oct, most of week 14 Oct, half of week of 21 Oct, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<- The revision distributions for ABHammad and האופה (HaOfa) suggest, to me at least, they are not operated by the same person - ABHammad vs האופה (HaOfa). ABHammad's timecard doesn't look like an Icewhiz timecard. I think they are probably a Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid sock, so a block at some point was likely inevitable, but I am concerned about the downstream effects of accounts being assigned to the wrong part of the category graph. From a sock identification perspective assigning socks to the wrong sockmaster introduces noise. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their respective unblock requests (Special:Diff/1262625724 and Special:Diff/1262616878) both make reference to the blocks being political. I hear quacking. TarnishedPathtalk 14:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are political from their perspectives, so that makes sense. האופה (HaOfa), who I assume named their account to honor the cookie maker Rachel Edri, is probably in Israel or thereabouts, and I'm curious whether a checkuser of ABHammad would put them in Arizona like previous socks during the winter. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly agree, obviously I dont know what the overlap the CUs said was brief, but I still thought was more likely Dajudem just based on the way they argued. Also seriously doubt מתיאל is related, as far as I am aware there are no IW socks predating the AC case that led to his ban, and I never had the impression back then that he was socking. Could it be a sock? Sure, but doubt it's IW. nableezy - 16:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO none of them are actually Icewhiz, and they're all run by multiple people. The distinction between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is a distinction without a difference, because both violate sock policy. Levivich (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they're all run by multiple people I think that's the most likely, things have changed over the last year, still those "old timers" may have influence tho. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't doubt the "old timers" are among the "multiple people." It's always been multiple people. I read old arbcom cases like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq (2006), and I don't know about everyone else, but when I read it, I'm reading the exact same thing as I see at PIA5 or any of the cases in between. Same arguments, same argumentation style, same POV... it's the same people doing the same thing that they've been doing for 20 years. Trying to figure out if a particular sock is Zeq, or NoCal, or AHJ, or Icewhiz, or whomever... is a fool's errand. You can identify "that group" by their ultra-nationalist POV--that's the fingerprint that makes them stick out. There just aren't that many people in the world who would dedicate so much time to having Wikipedia question whether, e.g., Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine, or whether they were really expelled, or talk about a "Jewish right of return", or as is happening now, questioning whether displacement of Arabs was an inherent part of Zionism. In AP2, dog whistles like these are very commonly known--everyone knows who they're talking to once someone talks about "reverse racism" or "replacement" or "woke agenda." But in PIA5, people just aren't as familiar with the basic facts, so they don't recognize when someone is talking crazy talk. But if you know the dogwhistles, you can easily spot the socks. In short, anyone expressing views to the right of Benny Morris is almost certainly one of these long-time Wikipedia sockmaster/puppet/whatever. Levivich (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • It looks like this will need to be done on behaviour. The geography doesn't match other Icewhiz socks, although there appears to be extensive proxy use. I did, however, find two brief overlaps with other users, namely Galamore and Owenglyndur. A second opinion on the technical aspects would be helpful, along with more evaluation of the behavioural evidence. – bradv 20:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the technical evidence connecting ABHammad to Galamore and Owenglyndur to be at best inconclusive but more likely to indicate they're unrelated. If there's socking it will need to be proven behaviorally. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich: Noting that this request is still open, in case you had further evidence as you had mentioned. Based on the behavioral evidence presented so far, there looks to be a valid case here but I can't quite draw a firm conclusion yet. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Blocked and tagged ABHammad and האופה (HaOfa). Based on the behavioral evidence, there is a clear connection to Icewhiz and possible connection to Dajudem.  Relisted for another CU on the remaining accounts מתיאל (Matiel), EliasAntonakos, and Owenglyndur. There's enough behavioral evidence to warrant a Checkuser, but I'm not certain enough to block those accounts on that alone. The WordsmithTalk to me 06:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz&oldid=1262699892"