Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz: Difference between revisions

:<small>”Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].”</small>

:<small>”Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].”</small>

:I am honestly baffled that PeleYoetz and OdNahlawi arent confirmed by self-admission already. [[Special:Diff/1250108322|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. ”'[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style=”color:#C11B17;font-size:90%”>nableezy</span>]]”’ – 17:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:I am honestly baffled that PeleYoetz and OdNahlawi arent confirmed by self-admission already. [[Special:Diff/1250108322|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. ”'[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style=”color:#C11B17;font-size:90%”>nableezy</span>]]”’ – 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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Motion_5:_PIA5_Case|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_ABHammad|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OdNahlawi&action=history]), 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 “[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zionism&oldid=1228669275 we are witnessing the last grasps of Zionism],” and “[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALevivich&diff=1251342514&oldid=1251298147 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. [[User:ABHammad|ABHammad]] ([[User talk:ABHammad|talk]]) 19:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

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)

• 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”
• “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]

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 [36]), 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]

• 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. [37] 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]

– This SPI case is open.

I was really not looking forward to visiting this page again, but I just stumbled upon something that quacks a lot, so:

• Account created on February 14, 2018. First edit on February 7, 2019. That’s around the time Icewhiz was getting into his major assault mode, and getting topic banned, blocked and site banned shortly afterward. He was also creating his sock farm around that time, with many socks displaying similar pattern (a few edits here and there, before returning to Wikipedia in full strength).
• This account made only a few dozen innocent edits before returning this June. Since then it made ~1,500 edits, with much focus on one of Icewhiz’s favorites topic areas (antisemtism)
• Like many of Icewhiz’s socks, he was too impatient: even his first ‘innocent’ edits were well formatted (with citation templates, etc.), indicating this is not a new account: first edit. His third edit was already a technically savvy edit with a request at WP:EDITFILTER.
• On September he was already disruptive enough to get an ANI thread and a short block for edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Edit_warring_by_User:Steven1991 (short block by User:Drmies)
• Just weeks later, he gets another ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators’_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Possible_disruptive_editting_by_User:Steven1991 (report by User:Bluethricecreamman, no admin closure and no action taken this time)
• around the same time he is comfofortable enough to post comments that consist mostly of Wikipedia’s abbreviations to policies: [38]
• and in the last few days, they appeared on my radar (watchlist) with problematic edits which are related to the ArbCom case from last year, which was related to Icewhiz’s POV-pushing in some media, and here Steven1991 is adding numerous sources related to Icewhiz POV (some of which mention him), and doing so in a manner that is very not NPOV and which resembles the very strong POV of Icewhiz. A related red flag here is that this entire incident, while causing some trouble to some editors, did not really grab public attention (sure, a few media outlets reported on it, but then it became quickly forgotten). So anyone who digs this obscure incident up and tries to add it to Wikipedia is, well, worth shining some light on.
  • Do note that Editor Interaction Analyser (link above in tools) shows those two accounts already overlap on ~two dozen pages or so, and remember the new account became active only a bit over three months ago or so(!)
  • Diffs of problematic refs and POV that resembles Icewhiz POV and contains references that mention him (if you click through; not all of them do but they may refer to him indirectly): [39], [40] (note here a tongue-in-cheek editorializing: “a drawn-out byzantine arbitration process, which became a scandal discussed in a 57-page journal article…” – Icewhiz has always been highly criticial of the Wikiepdia’s ArbCom process, which has “failed” to recognize his righteous cause, forcing him to turn to outsiders to spread his POV…), [41] (same content added nearly verbatim to another article), and finally here, changing NPOV description of related research and ArbCom case into a POV opinion.
• so in the end, as someone who was unfortunate enough to see and later study Icewhiz editing pattern for years before his eventual siteban, and then having seen his many socks – this is quite similar to what I’ve seen with the main account. Please check. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the evidence presented, but I just wanted to point out that I’m not sure the statement “Account created on February 14, 2018. First edit on February 7, 2019. That’s around the time Icewhiz was getting into his major assault mode…He was also creating his sock farm around that time…” is quite right. Here’s a timeline for the subset of Icewhiz’s ban evasion accounts that have been identified. The proliferation of accounts for ban evasion appears to have started just a few days before the Icewhiz account was blocked on 2019-10-01. Obviously, we don’t know what we don’t know about ban evasion. We do know from changes in the slope of the timeline that many accounts probably remain undetected. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

someone pinged me. I would like to point out my initial ANI report was about Steven1991 showing newbie behavior and not necessarily listening on a page, after I saw someone complaining on WP:NPOVN. I didn’t bother trying to go through an exhaustive look through all his edits, but his edits on the Antisemitic trope article definitely seemed newbie in many of their mistakes (i.e. he uses citation templates, but just sticks a random url inside without fully filling it in, or he does poor copyedit mistakes, or he is using facebook as sourcing). I am not sure this is a sockpuppet based on my limited interactions with this guy, so much as he is an overeager newbie. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with sockpuppet investigations tho, but my two cents about it anyways. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add I tried to stop the newbie from being BITTen and I agree with Bluethricecreamman that he was displaying a good number of newbie mistakes. Also keep in mind in 2024, you can generate a cite template using the citation toolbar in visual editor or in the 2017 wikitext editor, so it’s not necessarily an advanced user tactic to make cite templates. I’ve seen plenty of IPs and new users doing it. You click cite, type a URL and out pops “Google”. www.google.com. Retrieved 2024-10-17. Andre🚐 19:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am not aware that those templates can be generated with a click. Instead, I learn how to use those templates by searching relevant Wikipedia guidelines. As you can see from my September edits via “user contributions” history , they were full of mistakes, which wouldn’t have been committed by longtime editors who might have been around for as long as Wikipedia has existed, because I am still in the process of catching up and have been trying my best to contribute to the platform. Thus, I believe that the CheckUser request is not fair to me at all. Steven1991 (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am based in the UK and previously provided IP addresses associated with my location when a mis-ban was imposed on me over a misjudgment of “sockpuppetry”, against which I successfully proved my innocence (including never used any VPN) and got the ban lifted. I don’t understand the arguments used by the check-requester as they seem to imply that random users cannot join a topic area after the users haven’t been active on Wikipedia for a while but decided to pick it up as a hobby. I don’t see an issue with mentioning an old case being widely reported when I deem relevant. The check-requester had informed me of the matter, provided me his side of the story and I removed the paragraph from the two articles being referred to upon their request. No arguments happened. Would I have been cooperative if I had been their foe? Definitely not. You can definitely check my IP record, which will definitely show that I am totally unassociated with the banned user being referred to. Steven1991 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Tis’ the IP address (from my broadband provider) used and presented by me when I successfully appealed against the said ban:

  IP1

  Also this:

  IP2

  from the provider of a café I visit regularly.

  I hope that these clear things up and are enough to prove my total absence of associations with the banned user whom the check-requester mentioned and whom I had never heard of until recently when I stumbled upon the two historians’ article and related news during a search on online antisemitism in which I have recently grown an interest due to the Middle Eastern conflict’s escalation. Steven1991 (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]