Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Icewhiz

Icewhiz (talk ·  · 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

– Clerk assistance is requested in the case below.

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]
I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know much about @[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] and his socks but I discovered while surfing Terrorism and related topics that @ABHammad and @האופה have had similar interactions on edit warring with @Vanished user 3837288 which provides more incriminating evidence. Theofunny (talk) 05:30, 21 December 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 (e.g., if they want to cite Karsh, they're probably a sock). And now they have ChatGPT to make their talk pages posts sound like different people. If you ask me, those two unblock requests, at least one of them if not both were written by ChatGPT, with a prompt instruction telling ChatGPT to change the tone/writing style. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if these editors are socks and if so of which sockmaster, but "they want to cite Karsh" is definitely not a workable sock test. There are tons of people further right than Benny Morris, one of the New Historians and self-described left-of-center, and it's obviously a spurious argument to make a political test for sockpuppetry by itself. Karsh is a historian and professor who publishes books under reputable imprints of Yale University Press and Routledge, editorials in Haaretz and other things, with hundreds of citations for each book according to Google Scholar. We can't assume anyone who wants to cite Karsh is a POV warrior. It's a valid minority POV, not "crazy talk." Andre🚐 20:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that believing in a Jewish right of return makes you an Icewhiz sock is one of the hottest takes I have ever heard. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these behavioural links seem to just be related to common views among Jewish and pro-Israeli people. The belief that Palestinians are less indigenous to the region, or that the phrase 'from the river to the sea' is a call for the destruction of Israel, or that Gaza's current humanitarian status shouldn't be described as a famine or a genocide, or that 'colonization' isn't an appropriate word to use in modern context to describe Israel's development, these aren't wildly fringe beliefs that only a sock would plausibly think. They can be seen regularly on forums like reddit, in mainstream news articles, and in books published by pro-Israeli historians. Some are dominant beliefs in Israeli society. I saw two sets of edit-warring diffs in the list that were trying to add File:Kingdoms of Israel and Judah map 830.svg to history of Israel-related pages. This map was removed citing OR, but there's a source for it on the file page. There are also several discussions talking about its flaws, accessible via file talk page. But the edit war wasn't between a flawed map and a better one, it was between a flawed map and no map. One of those articles later got a different map added, but History of Israel no longer has a map of ancient Israel at all- I think most J/p-I people would be bothered by that.
What's more, Jewish people are geographically clustered- most Jewish people live in one country about 400km long, while most of the rest of them live in a small handful of American cities. This implies a higher potential for IP geolocation false positives. Jewish people in Israel speak Hebrew, and English is a second language, which means that linguistic idiosyncrasies may be legitimately shared among many people. Most of these blocks are undoubtedly correct, and it's definitely in Wikipedia's interest to keep investigating for Icewhiz socks, but it seems like there is a serious potential for incorrect blocks. Does enwiki SPI have any hewiki admins on retainer for this topic area to help distinguish between common cultural similarities and individual anomalies? Safrolic (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Jewish and I don't agree with any of this, and resent the suggestion that Jewish people, or most Jewish people, are of one opinion on such matters. Though I'm not Israeli, some of my family are, and same goes for the suggestion that Israeli Jews are of one opinion on such matters. It's not true that most Jews nor even most Israeli Jews have right wing politics or nationalist views. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not suggesting a cultural monolith here. Many Jewish people don't agree with these things. (Many Jewish people don't agree on most things!) But many do agree with these things. here's a couple sources. I'm referring to the RttS slogan when I say dominant opinion. I'm also not commenting on whether any of these beliefs are correct or not, or where on the political spectrum they fall, this isn't the place for that, just trying to show that these opinions aren't unique to a couple guys with a lot of time on their hands. Safrolic (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it's correct to say that 70-80% of American Jews are more left-leaning according to most data I've seen, I think in Israel it's closer to 50-50. I also think that the right-leaning Jews are quite a bit more motivated in the last year and a half, and radicalized or changed the politics or religious practices of many, moving them further right (take a look at the Trump results in PA and NYC). "Since the Oct. 7 attack, more than four in 10 American Jews have either sought out or engaged more with Jewish life" [137] Either way, I think Safrolic's point is wel-taken that there are going to be geographical clusters that predominate, but I think we have to trust that CUs know that. Still, we can't have a political test for socking, and we have to make sure we're using accurate evidence of which sockmaster we're tracking so that we aren't fishing. I do think "added info" is not a great tell, I'm sure I've written that edit summary myself. I trust that if CUs see something weird going on they will only act on it if they are confident that it's actually weird. It would make sense that this sock farm is multiple people and we know they use techniques of obfuscation, it's also fair to ensure that false positives aren't catching legitimate users who happen to be similar in terms of their political views. As Safrolic says, lots of people do believe a more right-wing or traditional view on Israel and that doesn't automatically make them blockable without other evidence. Andre🚐 22:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. I would like to see perspectives from someone that speaks Hebrew whether or not "consistent use of an eccentric and rare way of negating adjectives" is a common grammatical mistake from Hebrew speakers, or if it's Icewhiz specific. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to keep picking at the scab if this is closed, but I actually don't think those negations are particularly rare in usage by native English speakers. I have to think that wasn't a big part of the case. "Undo" is of course part of the interface, "unnecessary" is of course an extremely common and in no way unusual adjective (see that? unusual), and "unneeded" of course, perfectly normal according to Merriam-Webster's, Oxford, etc. I'm sure I have used all of those myself and I'm a native speaker of New Yawkish. Andre🚐 06:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh the only topic relevant to this page is if a given user or users are socks of a banned user. Can yall take whatever discussion that’s happening above that is not about that topic somewhere else? Or can a SPI clerk aggressively clerk this page? nableezy - 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think my concerns about shared opinions on contentious topics being considered 'behavioural links' or the possibility of common second-language errors were off-topic for this investigation, nor my question about whether SPI is working with any hewiki admins/editors to rule these things out. A current party to an Arbcom case was blocked as a sock a few days ago based on these behavioural links; their appeal, which seems to me to involve some level of language barrier, was declined for being nonsense. That might indicate other policy issues, but it also implies to me that cultural sensitivities aren't being considered here. Safrolic (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: @Barkeep49: Thank you again for your efforts in this complex and lengthy case. From my perspective, the behavioral evidence relating to EliasAntonakos is really overwhelming already as their odd behaviors are identical to an Icewhiz sock:
1- ABHammad rushing to their defense
2- the "adding info" signature in their edit summaries
3- pretending to be different nationalities (now Greek) through:
a- proud Indian and Lebanese tags
b- using ethnic names or references their usernames (ABHammad/EliasAntonakos/PeleYoetz
c- editing WP in different languages and/or country specific topics

Do you think this would require a new case? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I have no idea whether EliasAntonakos is a sock, but here is an editor interaction table between EliasAntonakos and all of the accounts categorized or logged as Icewhiz socks.
  • For pages with intersections it includes EliasAntonakos's edit count, the summed edit count of all of the Icewhiz socks and the number of Icewhiz socks that edited the page.
  • It also includes the number of revisions and number of unique actors (IPs and accounts) for each page to allow some kind of hand-wavy estimate of the improbability of an intersection. So, for example, you can see that the intersection at the Ascalon talk page, a page with only 251 revisions and 36 unique actors is maybe unexpected, but it was for a requested move, so maybe not. The article is a sock magnet. Also, several football related intersections. Make of that what you will.
Extended content
rev_page page_title page_namespace namespace_desc ref actor editcount other actor(s) editcount summed page_sock_count page_rev_count page_actor_count
77280776 EliasAntonakos 3 User talk 4 2 1 23 12
77327800 Roman Palestine 1 Talk 1 1 1 25 11
73034037 Ascalon 1 Talk 1 2 2 251 36
52612 Ancona 0 (Main/Article) 2 1 1 961 462
420360 Muhammad al-Idrisi 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 1055 569
33903877 Evangelos Marinakis 0 (Main/Article) 3 1 1 1166 472
78311058 November 2024 Amsterdam riots 0 (Main/Article) 4 23 2 1181 166
12138301 Ruben Amorim 0 (Main/Article) 5 1 1 1446 492
44160600 Alisson Becker 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 3178 1319
9473497 Tom Daley 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 3559 1600
12583 Gary Lineker 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 3615 1867
54333646 Erling Haaland 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 3983 1330
500639 Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) 0 (Main/Article) 11 1 1 4118 1388
35611957 Virgil van Dijk 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 4557 1762
17541051 Jürgen Klopp 0 (Main/Article) 2 1 1 4612 1665
2535118 Al Nassr FC 0 (Main/Article) 2 2 2 6136 2368
2358 AS Roma 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 7420 1892
435021 Coventry City F.C. 0 (Main/Article) 2 1 1 9372 3323
675561 Lewis Hamilton 0 (Main/Article) 2 1 1 10345 3193
19344654 BBC 0 (Main/Article) 1 3 1 11332 5016
217730 Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 11559 4145
1216 Athens 0 (Main/Article) 3 1 1 14141 5305
57802 Newcastle United F.C. 0 (Main/Article) 1 1 1 23581 8858
3741656 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 4 Wikipedia 4 113 8 251942 21325

Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:46, 18 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]
    @Makeandtoss: I don't think that should require a separate case. Since Barkeep49 indicated there's some sort of technical evidence that needs more examination, that's enough for me to do more work on behavioral analysis for that user. In complex cases like this with multiple socks the evidence for a particular account can get muddled, so highlighting what you see as the key pieces of evidence like you just did is very helpful. I'll take another look to see if I can come to a more firm conclusion one way or the other. Barkeep, can you disclose if whatever you have looked more like Icewhiz Classic or the new cluster? The WordsmithTalk to me 19:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in the "new style" and if it is a sock is its own cluster. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  In progress - Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Confirmed that Owenglyndur should be linked to this socking family (as is HaOfa confirming the behavioral link of The Wordsmith) and have reblocked accordingly. I find מתיאל  Unlikely. Personally I am at a point where I'd like to break the current technically similar group of socks out of Icewhiz and into a new master (most likely Galamore for whom I've started a CUwiki page and listed several results from the work I did here). Also there I have laid out a scenario where EliasAntonakos would need further examination but there isn't sufficient evidence in my mind to currently block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49 I'd endorse splitting this out. Which users/groups? Izno (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd split it off as Galamore, so the ones tied to there and then definitely Owenglyndur. Less clear to me on ABHammad/HaOfa. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49 Which specific users? There's quite a few in the list above which has quite a bit of text attached and I'd like to make the clerk's job easier. ;) Izno (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further reviewing the behavioral evidence, EliasAntonakos is  Blocked and tagged to the Galamore cluster. In particular, there is a clear connection beyond reasonable doubt to confirmed Galamore socks Uppagus and OdNahlawi.  Clerk assistance requested: - I've updated the tags for HaOfa and Owenglyndur as Confirmed to Galamore and Suspected to Icewhiz; leaving ABHammad tags alone for now. Please determine if this case should be moved to Galamore or remain here under Icewhiz. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Wordsmith. Figuring out what to do with AbHammad is why I haven't answered Izno's question above. I think this is fair enough. I'd ask for assistance in putting the reports currently under Icewhiz from October and November 24 in the Galamore family of socks. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icewhiz