Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
Similar style in edits and tone as past socks.
Common articles with past socks:
Besides the above there is the general common tone between the socks, though that is more difficult to give a set of diffs for. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Nableezy 15:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
This editor is more sporadic than prior socks, but even with that this user appears to be editing in the same time periods as past socks/sock pairs, compare The Kingfisher with for example NoCal100/ Canadian Monkey, Epson Salts/ Bad Dryer or Firkin Flying Fox. nableezy - 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This was previously archived without comment. As the editor stopped editing for a while I left it alone, but as the editor has returned, and provided additional evidence in his edits, I am again requesting this be looked at.
Same general editing times as past socks, eg Attack Ramon, NoCal100, LoverOfTheRussianQueen
Common tone and language from past socks. Note that some diffs are repeated in different sections when they are examples of multiple commonalities.
Comments such as "this is policy" and "you need to", "you are required to":
", per policy" with the comma before for effect apparently.
Making the same argument on an assumed consensus for material having been in the article previously requiring that material to stay in an article, ignoring ONUS:
Capital T in talk in edit summaries (just a sample of accounts, true for nearly all of them, some have very limited number of edit summaries to compare though):
Common articles with past socks:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
"Closing with no actionby Bbb23. Icewhiz ( talk) 02:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans has suggested that this is the same editor as that behind the suspected sock User:The Kingfisher. I think the only fair way to settle this is to bring it here. The evidence is that UberVegan began editing 2 months after The Kingfisher was blocked and that "Both of you appear to have an obsession with adding 'this person is anti-semitic' content and running interference for anti-Muslim groups and individuals. Your edit summaries are similar, with both accounts saying "fx", "cmt", "cl", "qst", "+links", "-->" and adding "+" without a space before adding a comment in edit summaries.", that both added content to pages about how someone is engaging in anti-semitism [9], which is what the other editor also did. Both of you edited the page of the activist Ami Horowitz (known for pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Muslims), and both of you edited the 'Jewish activism' sub-section of Ben Hecht, a screenwriter active from the 1920s-1960s." Also that "Both you and the other editor have also made around 20 edits each to the Michael Moore page, including making pretty much the same edit, with the same edit summary. [10] [11]". UberVegan's response was not exactly constructive, but hopefully since I've brought this here instead of Snooganssnoogans they'll be calmer if they respond here. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Do I need to start a separate sockpuppet investigation to see if JBlackCoffee52 [15] is also a sock of this sockmaster? JBlackCoffee52 also has in common with UV that he has edited the Michael Moore page and the Gatestone Institute. I don't really have time to sift through edit summaries and check on other NoCal socks to see similarities. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Likely to previous socks, Confirmed to The Kingfisher ( talk · contribs · count). Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
JBC, UberVegan and The Kingfisher [16] have all edited the Michael Moore page, including JBC adding a quote from a Variety review of one of Moore’s films [17], which is the exact same thing that UberVegan did [18]. Kingfisher also added reviews of Moore films. Both UberVegan and JBC have edited the Gatestone Institute page, making similar edits and similar talk page comments (both engage in straight-up gaslighting). [19] Both JBC and Attack Ramon (a suspected sock) have edited the page of an obscure Israeli defense contractor, Elbit Systems. [20] JBC, Breein1007 (suspected) and All Rows4 (suspected) have edited the Golan Heights talk page. [21] [22]. JBC, Tzu Zha Men (blocked sock of NoCal), Momma's Little Helper (confirmed), Breein1007 (suspected) and Canadian Monkey (confirmed) have edited Template talk:Did you know [23] [24] [25] [26]. Both JBC and HupHollandHup have edited the Oliver Stone page, with JBC wanting to call him a “conspiracy theorist” [27] while HHH wanted to call him an anti-semite [28]. I can’t check more sock puppet overlaps because the editor interaction analyser doesn’t work properly for me right now. Beyond the overlap, in terms of themes, JBC typically adds content that attacks “anti-Israeli” / “anti-Semitic” groups, individuals and actions [29] [30], while running interference for anti-Muslim groups, individuals and actions (such as the Gatestone Institute), which is what all of NoCal's socks do as well. I haven’t checked any edit summaries but there may be unique overlapping terms used in those. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
As with other NoCal100 socks, this user edits a lot of pages related to cinema, but also appears to have an anti-Muslim bent [31] [32] and an interest in anti-semitism. [33] The editor has overlapped with some of the socks (I don't have the time to look up every NoCal sock because there are dozens of them): [34] [35] [36] [37] The editor has in his entire editing career made three edits on the Admin noticeboard for incidents: in two of those instances the editor voted along with two confirmed NoCal socks, UberVegan [38] and JBlackCoffee52 [39] to have me banned. The third edit made by that user on the admin noticeboard for incidents is hidden in the logs, so I can't tell if he's voting in tandem with other users. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
What a pantload. Before getting the ping on my talk page about this, I'd never heard of NoCal100. CheckUser or do whatever for this - I don't care. Also Snooganssnoogans, you can go ahead and strike that awful "anti-Muslim bent" personal attack, which is as baseless as this SPI. - DoubleCross ( talk) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor immediately appeared on the Gatestone Institute page to argue after two NoCal100 socks were exposed on that page. This editor made the same argument on the talk page as those socks, namely that the organization should not be described as anti-Muslim. Like typical NoCal100 socks, the focus is on defending anti-Muslims and on accusing others of anti-Semitism. [40] The editor has also edited cinema-related pages, consistent with NoCal100 socks. [41] The editor also edits pages related to Israel, weaponry and warfare. In only 46 edits, there are considerable overlaps in behavior between this user and typical NoCal100 socks. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The editor 'The bandoleer' edits in a similar pattern as the long-term abuser NoCal100. [42] The editor fits the following NoCal100 characteristics: (i) run interference for anti-Muslim groups and individual, (ii) edit pages for Israeli and Jewish subjects, (iii) edit pages on anti-semitism, and (iv) do lots of normal and minor edits to individuals involved in cinema. The editor has an overlap with the confirmed NoCal100 sock JBlackCoffee52 on (i) Gatestone Institute [43] [44] and (ii) Distracted driving [45] [46]. Additionally, the editor has a niche interest in massacres, just as NoCal100 does. The NoCal100 socks 'Attack Ramon' and 'Firkin Flying Fox' edited 'Qana massacre' [47] [48], 'Fistook' edited 'Ma'alot massacre' [49], Reaper Eternal edited 'List of terrorist incidents in July–December 2013' [50]. The bandoleer has edited two pages with massacre in the title: '1989 Kandy massacre' [51] and 'Bologna massacre' [52]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Those articles are in crux of I/P conflict not everyone that edits is NoCal sock -- Shrike ( talk) 06:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Here come the Suns has already been blocked by the arbitration committee, but I believe that user, and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, are the latest incarnations of NoCal100. Both users edit at similar times as past socks. JungerMan doesn't have a ton of edits to compare to, but the timecards show similar times away: JM, HCTS, and compare to for example Canadian Monkey, or NoCal100, or When Other Legends Are Forgotten. Both users participated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2 (both voting no), with that being JungerMan's first edit in 2 years.
Similar interests:
There also seems to be the similarity of carrying on grudges through accounts. With bradv , HCTS had a dispute about a report he filed not resulting in a block. And now you can find JM demanding that bradv resign his bit over something that afaict has nothing to do with him.
There's additional evidence regarding tone I can add if needed, but this should be enough for a check I would think. Nableezy 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Also compare JM: this amounts to a list of commonly edited articles, with edits made to different parts of the article, often many years apart. Similar lists could be constructed for any two editors active in the ARBPIA topic area. to Firkin Flying Fox: The evidence presented so far consists of "they have been editing the same (little-viewed" articles as other socks". Before people get too carried away with "the overlap above is too strong to dismiss as mere coincidence," argument, let's do a little experiment, shall we? Suppose one wants to prove, using the same sort of "evidence" that Huldra and the filer of this report , Nableezy, are actually sock puppets of each other, we can easily construct the following set of overlapping articles ... I could easily construct such "evidence" lists for Nishidani and Nableezy, Huldra and Zero0000 and many others. nableezy - 16:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
As noted by Snooganssnoogans, both JM and Attack Ramon have made the same exact edit at Mark LeVine ( JM, AR), a page with an average of 15 views a day. nableezy - 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The hounding of old foes is another giveaway. There is just a level of spitefulness in how he does it that, to me at least, is a dead giveaway. Take for example the following sequence. Nishidani makes a comment at an AfD that JM had created. Shortly after that JM follows Nishidani (violating WP:WESTBANK in the process, which was a result of an arbitration case that saw two NoCal accounts topic-banned) to a page that averages a whopping 4 views a day. Quoting from a prior report on Los Admiralos
NoCal100 also has a history of following Tiamut. Tiamut reverted an edit by Los Admiralos Nazareth and Los Admiralos reverts her minutes later. The edit that appeared in Tiamut's contribution history directly before the Nazareth edit was at Viva Palestina; shortly after Los Admiralos reverted Tiamut at Nazareth he then follows her contribs and edits Viva Palestina.
It's just a level of pettiness and vindictiveness that screams out NoCal100. nableezy - 02:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
SPI is not the place to continue personal fights between editors involved in the ARBPIA topic area. CUs/Clerks/Admins can review the relevant material below, but I'm hatting it because it has already gotten out of hand. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. As Sir Joseph notes, this amounts to a list of commonly edited articles, with edits made to different parts of the article, often many years apart. Similar lists could be constructed for any two editors active in the ARBPIA topic area. Do you want to see Onceinawhile use "fix link" in an edit summary? [53] - is he/she a sockpuppet of NoCal100, too? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is damning evidence. I'd also add that in JM's earliest edits, he made minor edits to the pages of people involved in cinema, which perfectly syncs with NoCal users' behavior. See for example: [60] [61] [62]. However, in JM's post-2019 edits, there are no edits to cinema-related pages (possibly because it's been noted as one of NoCal's behavioral patterns on the long-term abuse page for NoCal [63]). The editor's edit history also seems to revolve around the same kind of fringe-BS-defending that NoCal's socks engaged in. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The two accounts display indistinguishable political positions and indistinguishable zeal to push that position into articles. Zero talk 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I then leave the article, alas:
Very interestingly: JCA! does NOT reinsert it again, ie, he is not "watching the article, he is just following me around. I see the same for Jerome Adams, where I added critical stuff twice, just to be revered by JCA! within minutes: me adding, JCA! reverting, me adding again, JCA! revering again I then left the article. Interestingly, after I left, far, far more critical things about Adams were inserted to the article (including accusation about him "lying to the public") ...these JCA! for some reason never removed, ie, he isn't interested in the Jerome Adams-article, just in following me around, I see the same with Zero0000:
And, as I have said before: feel free to CU me, or others. To the best of my knowledge, Nishidani, Zero000, Nableezy and I are all in different countries, (and I assume none of us have moved much lately, due to covid-19), Huldra ( talk) 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Without attempting to entangle myself in any of the above drama, this seems to be a very strong claim. Not only are the articles edited and the type of edits and POVs pretty much aligned, but the level of hostility during the investigation too. The lines of argumentation used by the accused are almost identical to those used by a user determined as being a sockpuppet in in June 2018. Domeditrix ( talk) 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) |
Obviously not a new account; essentially single-purpose agenda account.
This is clearly not a new editor. Of course s/he/they could be any of a half-dozen banned right-wing POV-pushing sockmasters, but the combination of timing (account created shortly after NoCal100's previous sock was identified and blocked) and the combination of Israeli and US political partisanship strongly suggests NoCal100 to me. MastCell Talk 21:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The editor bears many of the hallmarks of a sockuppet. I asked the user last month [86]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
See below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
KevinL When you say Highly likely does it mean the same geographical area or its more then that? -- Shrike ( talk) 16:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The account was created three weeks after the blocking of User:JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! ( [87], carried out on further CU evidence). The editor edits on the same time zone as the NoCal100 socks.
The edit history has been built via mostly ( 83%) semi-automated edits. The editor’s career started on 27 May with 106 normal-looking edits in 10 days to edits related to Switzerland (a neutral country for a neutral topic). The editing then pivoted to patrolling recent changes for vandalism, with 572 semi-automated reverts in c.12 different bursts over the course of a month, mostly using redwarn. Having crossed 500/30, on 7 July the editor made their first ever article talk page comments, apart from two very small ones during the Swiss edits, and first ever non-automated wikipedia noticeboard comments, with 1 edit each to 6 voting surveys all in the space of 30 minutes, in which the two largest comments related to ARBPIA topics at RSN: [88] [89] RSN happens to be the single-most frequented page of the NoCal100 socks when added together. See here [90] [91] which compares all identified NoCal100 socks (two lists because the tool has a max limit; see image to right which has been sorted to show the most edited pages).
More broadly, despite having made just 186 non-automated mainspace edits, the editor is an expert with four particular noticeboards, all four being the statistical favorites of the NoCal100 socks per the links and table above:
Other than the above (ARBPIA-related noticeboard comments, and continued occasional streams of semi-automated edits), in the mainspace post-500/30 their manual edits were to almost exclusively ARBPIA topics. The editor turned up at some of NoCal’s favorites:
And a few random pages which NoCal seems to like (this is a selection, I have a longer list):
There are also similarities of tone/style that I can bring out if helpful. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Its a retaliatory filing because of WP:AE. Those articles are frequently edited by users that interested in the topic including the filer himself. Some of evidence is anti-Vandalism reverts [93] [94], like was noted the user use semi automated wiki soft to fight vandalism. Also Nocal socks edited many articles so you can take any random user especially if they interested in I/P conflict and say he is a sock because article intersections -- Shrike ( talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not know enough about process to say whether the editor is a sock of NoCal100. Having had several interactions with this editor, while in theory possible, I find it quite unusual that a relatively new editor be so well acquainted with WP procedures, diffs new to old (there are other examples): 1) an AE filing 2) re WP ABOUTSELF 3) Alert (twice!) 4) Citation style Selfstudier ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a continuation of Onceinawhile's appalling behaviour, and a retaliatory filing to the AE. The retaliation is evident by Onceinawhile notifying me in mirror form to my notification. Onceinawhile made offensive Holocaust comparisons and personally attacked over 5 editors and is facing sanctions.
The report is false, and contains a blatant falsehood ("186 mainspace edits"). I do not have 186 mainspace edits, I have over a 1,000 edits and reported many disruptive users to AIV and UAA. I also recently reported a couple instances of disruption to ANEW and AE.
As for the "evidence", if Onceinawhile has even a minimal level of integrity they would immediately file a report saying he is a NoCal100 sockpuppet. As Shrike says Onceinawhile's first edit is very advanced markup, which I don't understand. Onceinawhile has hundreds of articles in common with NoCal100 sockpuppets ( NoCal100, Bad Dryer, Canadian Monkey). Onceinawhile haunts Wikipedia boards frequented by NoCal100 socks, in particular:
AE: Onceinawhile made 98 edits and this is his top posted Wikipedia page. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 17 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
ANI: Onceinawhile made 79 edits and this is the third-most Wikipedia page he edits. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 14 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
ANEW: Onceinawhile made 5 edits to this Wikipedia page. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 18 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
RSN: Onceinawhile made 45 edits to this Wikipedia page and this is 8th most Wikipedia page he edits. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 20 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
I am not myself saying Onceinawhile is a NoCal100 sockpuppet, the above is to point out the quality of the evidence. Probably most Wikipedia editors edit AE, ANI, ANEW, and RSN. Probably most editors who edited Israel/Palestine a bit have articles in common with NoCal100 sockpuppets, Onceinawhile has hundreds in common. Several of my common articles are from anti-vandalism reverts from recent changes, for example my single edit to Oliver Stone is reverting an IP edit (one minute prior) without sources. I do not have Oliver Stone on my watchlist. I am not interested in the Oliver Stone article. I got there because the IP's edit was in recent changes. 11Fox11 ( talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If you're going to claim somebody is making false accusations, maybe don't misquote them when you do? The quote was 186 non-automated mainspace edits. Not 186 mainspace edits. nableezy - 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Blatantly retaliatory, and with no evidence. If having an advanced first edit and posting in the IP space qualifies one as a sock, than the submitter is as well. Drsmoo ( talk) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I assume that "186 mainspace edits" is a typo for the 1896 total edits 11Fox11 had at the time. [96]. Also, "Fox 11" is the name used by TV station KTTV in Los Angeles [97], so "11Fox11" is a violation of the username policy. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Username reported at UAA. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Copying my response at UAA where Beyond My Ken copied the same comment: I did not even know about that station, I don't think I've ever edited anything about LA or TV stations. Fox is an animal, a Fox (surname) family name, and Fox one is specifically a Fox (code word) for launching a missile. When I chose my user name I had all this in mind, not some TV station in LA! If an admin considers this a violation, could my user name please be changed to user:FoxOne? And if any numeral is forbidden for Fox, then user:GoFoxGo? 11Fox11 ( talk) 06:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever registered on 13 February and immediately showed a very surprising familiarity with wikipedia, look at his first edits, its clearly a returning user. First edit. "No consensus for this": [98]
יניב הורון previous sock Watchonly used to follow me around to articles he hadn't edited before. Siloam inscription: [99], Hezbollah: [100]
Exact same behavior as Kenosha Forever: Siloam inscription: [101], Organ transplantation in Israel [102], Dead Sea Scrolls: [103], Syrian brown bear: [104]
Editor Interaction Analyser:
Watchonly - Kenosha Forever Overlap: [105]
יניב+הורון& - Kenosha Forever Overlap: [106]
I'm asking for a CU on יניב הורון and a general range CU. Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Seems like fishing expedition SD just don't like that his POV edits are reverted. Yaniv and Kenosha seems in different time zones and editiing patterns are different -- Shrike ( talk) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow, I was gonna file this exact same SPI/CU request but looks like someone else also noticed the similarities. Yeah this looks very much like Yanniv. There’s the usual overlap of two different topic areas (I-P and Poland) with the same POVs. Also, it’s obviously not a new user:
This isn’t “fishing”, it’s “ducking” as in pointing out obvious WP:DUCKs. And yeah, it’s Yanniv. In addition to the evidence above, check out overlap with another, older Yanniv sock, User:Aroma Stylish [110]. There aren’t that many articles there but that’s because Aroma got caught pretty quick. But look at what is there. In addition to Islam in Israel, there’s three pretty obscure articles: Tel Dan stele, Zikhron Ya'akov and Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. Given that neither of these sock accounts has edited all that much the fact that they wound up at same three obscure articles can’t be a coincidence.
It’s a sock. Volunteer Marek 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure who is the sockmaster, but this is clearly not a new account. And its involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference), the article created by known sockmaster Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz (who has also been known to tag team with Yanniv), is worrisome, given that this AfD is being infested by a number of likely socks. WP:NOTHERE may be worth considering. This eerily reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death, an AfD of another attack page created by Icewhiz, which needed a second AfD a year later since the first one was swamped by accounts now blocked as socks. User:Oshwah: given the above, may I suggest running a CU on the new accounts participating in that AfD? There are way too many quacks here, IMHO. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Having made no edits in 7 years the user appears at ANI claiming a long memory as reason to support a topic ban ( here and here. Prior to the 7 year hiatus, the sock operated in tandem with other confirmed NoCal100 socks and against his usual targets (Zero, SD, myself):
The rest of his edits are reverts of his usual targets: Of Zero:
Of Supreme Deliciousness:
Given the low edit count there isnt enough to go by on the timecard to make it blindingly obvious, but same start/stop times consistent with sleeping during the evening on the West Coast of the United States (eg Canadian Monkey) Would be an astonishing coincidence for an editor to take 7 years off to then show up at ANI, and just based on the comment such as lies as usual as compared to I don't believe I've ever seen such a bald-faced lie on Wikipedia before or outright lie by past socks gives me a very NoCal100 vibe. nableezy - 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
For the record, User:Kenosha Forever was blocked today by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100. Binksternet ( talk) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
To begin with, there is no doubt that the timezones do not match here. The editor says on his user page he is located in Maryland, and the editing times are definitely two hours displaced from past NoCal100 socks ( NoCal100) However, there is off-wiki evidence that the person operating the accounts starting with User:Isarig (vanished to User:Former user 2) through NoCal100 and the rest has since found reason to be located in Maryland, and if it helps a checkuser I'd be happy to send that evidence along in email, but it most certainly would violate the privacy policy to post it here and as such this report will be focused on the commonalities between the editors while acknowledging that they are very much located across the country from each other.
The tone is NoCal100 to a tee. As one example, how he repeatedly across socks says to read WP:ONUS as a directive:
Also telling others to get consensus first in their edit-summaries:
Common articles with past socks show a wide range of common interests, not simply ARBPIA.
*
Iran-Israel proxy conflict (average of
5 views a day)
Timeline: Aroma Stylish, Inf-in MD
There are common interests going across topic areas, from Fox News, to articles with a handful of views a day such as Hot Mobile or obscure books like Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. If a functionary would like me to send on the evidence connecting the person operating the past accounts such as Isarig and NoCal100 with Maryland please let me know. Would also bet dollars to donuts that User:AgEng is the same, but not enough in the diffs to go on for that. Nableezy 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Behavior regarding moves:
nableezy - 16:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Guerillero I dont doubt it, like I said in the opening line the person operating the User:Former user 2 (Isarig) account appears to have moved. Unfortunately this is entirely behavioral based. nableezy - 03:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Comment NoCal and his socks edited so many articles so anyone that edited the topic area and interested in Jewish topics there will be some intersection. I too frequently cite WP:ONUS.Maybe I am nocal sock too? And lets not forget we already had false positive [116] -- Shrike ( talk) 05:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment This is yet another of those accounts that swiftly climbs to 500 edits promptly takes an interest in the IP area and suddenly is an expert in all things WP. Of course this need not mean a NC100 sock. Idk myself how much importance to place on it but JMCA was given to starting talk page comments with a small letter ( several examples here) rather than a capital letter and I notice that IiMD also does this ( several examples here). Selfstudier ( talk) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Nableezy - Regarding Hippeus... it is a fascinating fluke ( yeah.. :) ), but one infamous globally banned user used exactly the same argument in the past to defend socking accounts in this very topic area arguing with you:
To begin with, there is no doubt that the timezones do not match hereNableezy, these days time zone matches do not have significant importance anymore since, before arrival, the bulk of sock puppet accounts prepare for VPN connection from the time zone of their choosing. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet of anyone, let’s just get that out of the way.
What is presented below is a list of common articles, which shows nothing more than an interest in similar topics, which happen to be quite popular ones (Israel-related articles, US politics). Several people commenting on this report have already pointed out the same thing. I freely admit being interested in those topics, as are thousands of other Wikipedia editors.
While the list might look impressive to the superficial viewer, it is statistically insignificant. At the time this report was made, I had edited 531 articles. This list, minus the two fake entries at the end (aroma stylish is not a sock puppet of NoCal100) that were apparently added in an attempt to mislead by making the list longer that it really is and adding another “little viewed” article (more on that deceptive tactic below), and minus the entries for Former User 2 who does not seem to be related to this at all, has 19 articles in common . That’s an overlap of less than 4% . Even including the fake entries it is less than 4%. I am fairly certain that overlaps of similar magnitude or larger could be constructed for any user interested and editing in those topics.
To see why such lists are completely worthless, consider a thought experiment: Suppose I continue editing at the same pace (500 articles/3 months) for another 2 years, continue editing in the above two topics areas which overlap with NoCal100’s interest areas, but add a new topic of interest which has no such overlap. In two years, I will have amassed an additional 4000 articles, and no doubt picked up more overlapping articles. Maybe another 50. The list of “common articles” is now going to be three times as impressive, since it is cumulative and will always go up, but in reality, will now represent an overlap of just 1%.
The conspiratorial mindset sees “little viewed” common articles as damming evidence, but there are simple explanations for them. Look at the Zakaria Zubeidi article, for example. It is true that if you deceptively choose to present the last few weeks, it averages 82 views a day, but if you look at the week when I made my first edit there – [121] it averaged more than 2200 views per day, and was likely one of the highest viewed articles in the Israel topic area at that time (e.g – it had more than twice the views of Palestine Liberation Organization or Palestinians , 7 times the views of Palestine etc..) and for good reason – Zubeidi had just escaped from prison in a highly publicized event, and was headline news for 2 weeks, which is how he (and his article) came to my attention.
Similarly, Hot Mobile (average of 19 views a day) and Yes (Israel) (52 views a day) are both the result of an extensive debate I had with User: Iskandar323 over at Talk:Bank_Mizrahi-Tefahot (which eventually found itself escalated to Arbitration Enforcement report against Iskandar by another editor), over the inclusion of a lengthy block of text about the bank being included in a list of companies that a Norwegian fund had divested from. This block was added to a dozen or more other articles (including Hot Mobile and Yes) , but ultimately a consensus of uninvolved editors concluded that it was undue for those articles [122], so it was removed from all those articles (by a different editor). A couple of these were then re-added to the articles by an editor apparently unaware of the consensus to exclude, so I removed them.
And a similar thing happened with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – there was a Reliable Sources discussion about CounterPunch that I participated in [123]. Counterpunch was deprecated as a result [124], and so I removed it from a number of articles, among them Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which came up in my search for articles using that deprecated source (as did [Panama Papers ]], Hamilton (musical), Hamid Karzai, U2, Kidnapping and many others)
The filer thinks “it boggles the mind that there is that many intersections” – but a rudimentary understanding of statistics and probability makes it more mind boggling if there wasn’t any overlap. Inf-in MD ( talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Ive struck comments by two blocked socks of a banned user. Shocker. nableezy - 02:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.
Inf-in MD was blocked in mid-December and this account was registered shortly after the CU data for that account would go stale on 4/30. The user immediately showed proficiency in editing, with this being their 12th edit a day after registering, complete with perfectly formatted citation template. Since then there have been a number of commonalities that suggest this is the latest reincarnation of NoCal100, with the topics spanning the Arab-Israeli conflict to politicians in California to various right-wing American political topics and COVID related edits:
what part of "policy quote" is not clear to you
Amdocs with an average of 272 views a day:
There was no such thing as Palestinians with average of 25 daily views
Lorena Gonzalez (California politician) ( 85 daily views)
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
NGO Monitor - timeline between accounts
COVID related:
Similar timecard to Inf-in MD nableezy - 16:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
And So It predates Inf-in MD, with edits in May and July 2021. Inf-in MD was then used exclusively from July through being blocked in December 2021. And so it was active in mid-April 2022 until Izzy Borden was used from April 30 through being blocked in July (month edit counts for Izzy Borden, Inf-in MD, And So It to help visualize). And So It resumed editing shortly after in August. The editing times are similar for all three accounts ( And So It, Inf-in MD, IB).
As far as evidence in edits, the tone is again NoCal100 to a tee. So is the seeking confrontation with old opponents. See for example:
The tone, hounding, and editing times, along with the contribution history combined with the last two blocked sock accounts, suggest this account is the latest NoCa1l00 sock. nableezy - 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Based off of the discussion at the Icewhiz SPI for this user, it appears likely that this account is NoCal100. The evidence by GizzyCatBella reproduced here:
Additionally, NoCal, like Icewhiz, has repeatedly followed the same targets, Nishidani, myself and Iskandar323, as well as apparently Volunteer Marek (which admittedly threw me off-track in to thinking it was Icewhiz). This account was registered one week after JungerMan Chips Ahoy! was blocked from this investigation, and one day prior to Trying to reconnect (blocked in the following October investigation) nableezy - 19:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Nableezy NoCal100's sockpuppets deliberately make edits into WW2 Poland-related topic pretending to be Icewhiz (not only by engaiging in disputes with VM). It's done to deceive people at ISP, so they file investigations under Icewhiz. Keep this in mind for future cases. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
When I saw the report against this editor under Icewhiz-socks, I thought that was strange; an editor who manage to revert Iskandar323, Nableezy, Nishidani and Volunteer Marek multiple times in under 50 edits (!) looks more like Nocal, IMO. Walks like duck, quacks like a duck... Huldra ( talk) 22:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The yearly NoCal100 sock-- see below. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
Similar style in edits and tone as past socks.
Common articles with past socks:
Besides the above there is the general common tone between the socks, though that is more difficult to give a set of diffs for. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Nableezy 15:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
This editor is more sporadic than prior socks, but even with that this user appears to be editing in the same time periods as past socks/sock pairs, compare The Kingfisher with for example NoCal100/ Canadian Monkey, Epson Salts/ Bad Dryer or Firkin Flying Fox. nableezy - 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
This was previously archived without comment. As the editor stopped editing for a while I left it alone, but as the editor has returned, and provided additional evidence in his edits, I am again requesting this be looked at.
Same general editing times as past socks, eg Attack Ramon, NoCal100, LoverOfTheRussianQueen
Common tone and language from past socks. Note that some diffs are repeated in different sections when they are examples of multiple commonalities.
Comments such as "this is policy" and "you need to", "you are required to":
", per policy" with the comma before for effect apparently.
Making the same argument on an assumed consensus for material having been in the article previously requiring that material to stay in an article, ignoring ONUS:
Capital T in talk in edit summaries (just a sample of accounts, true for nearly all of them, some have very limited number of edit summaries to compare though):
Common articles with past socks:
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
"Closing with no actionby Bbb23. Icewhiz ( talk) 02:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Snooganssnoogans has suggested that this is the same editor as that behind the suspected sock User:The Kingfisher. I think the only fair way to settle this is to bring it here. The evidence is that UberVegan began editing 2 months after The Kingfisher was blocked and that "Both of you appear to have an obsession with adding 'this person is anti-semitic' content and running interference for anti-Muslim groups and individuals. Your edit summaries are similar, with both accounts saying "fx", "cmt", "cl", "qst", "+links", "-->" and adding "+" without a space before adding a comment in edit summaries.", that both added content to pages about how someone is engaging in anti-semitism [9], which is what the other editor also did. Both of you edited the page of the activist Ami Horowitz (known for pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Muslims), and both of you edited the 'Jewish activism' sub-section of Ben Hecht, a screenwriter active from the 1920s-1960s." Also that "Both you and the other editor have also made around 20 edits each to the Michael Moore page, including making pretty much the same edit, with the same edit summary. [10] [11]". UberVegan's response was not exactly constructive, but hopefully since I've brought this here instead of Snooganssnoogans they'll be calmer if they respond here. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Do I need to start a separate sockpuppet investigation to see if JBlackCoffee52 [15] is also a sock of this sockmaster? JBlackCoffee52 also has in common with UV that he has edited the Michael Moore page and the Gatestone Institute. I don't really have time to sift through edit summaries and check on other NoCal socks to see similarities. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Likely to previous socks, Confirmed to The Kingfisher ( talk · contribs · count). Blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
JBC, UberVegan and The Kingfisher [16] have all edited the Michael Moore page, including JBC adding a quote from a Variety review of one of Moore’s films [17], which is the exact same thing that UberVegan did [18]. Kingfisher also added reviews of Moore films. Both UberVegan and JBC have edited the Gatestone Institute page, making similar edits and similar talk page comments (both engage in straight-up gaslighting). [19] Both JBC and Attack Ramon (a suspected sock) have edited the page of an obscure Israeli defense contractor, Elbit Systems. [20] JBC, Breein1007 (suspected) and All Rows4 (suspected) have edited the Golan Heights talk page. [21] [22]. JBC, Tzu Zha Men (blocked sock of NoCal), Momma's Little Helper (confirmed), Breein1007 (suspected) and Canadian Monkey (confirmed) have edited Template talk:Did you know [23] [24] [25] [26]. Both JBC and HupHollandHup have edited the Oliver Stone page, with JBC wanting to call him a “conspiracy theorist” [27] while HHH wanted to call him an anti-semite [28]. I can’t check more sock puppet overlaps because the editor interaction analyser doesn’t work properly for me right now. Beyond the overlap, in terms of themes, JBC typically adds content that attacks “anti-Israeli” / “anti-Semitic” groups, individuals and actions [29] [30], while running interference for anti-Muslim groups, individuals and actions (such as the Gatestone Institute), which is what all of NoCal's socks do as well. I haven’t checked any edit summaries but there may be unique overlapping terms used in those. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
As with other NoCal100 socks, this user edits a lot of pages related to cinema, but also appears to have an anti-Muslim bent [31] [32] and an interest in anti-semitism. [33] The editor has overlapped with some of the socks (I don't have the time to look up every NoCal sock because there are dozens of them): [34] [35] [36] [37] The editor has in his entire editing career made three edits on the Admin noticeboard for incidents: in two of those instances the editor voted along with two confirmed NoCal socks, UberVegan [38] and JBlackCoffee52 [39] to have me banned. The third edit made by that user on the admin noticeboard for incidents is hidden in the logs, so I can't tell if he's voting in tandem with other users. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
What a pantload. Before getting the ping on my talk page about this, I'd never heard of NoCal100. CheckUser or do whatever for this - I don't care. Also Snooganssnoogans, you can go ahead and strike that awful "anti-Muslim bent" personal attack, which is as baseless as this SPI. - DoubleCross ( talk) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
This editor immediately appeared on the Gatestone Institute page to argue after two NoCal100 socks were exposed on that page. This editor made the same argument on the talk page as those socks, namely that the organization should not be described as anti-Muslim. Like typical NoCal100 socks, the focus is on defending anti-Muslims and on accusing others of anti-Semitism. [40] The editor has also edited cinema-related pages, consistent with NoCal100 socks. [41] The editor also edits pages related to Israel, weaponry and warfare. In only 46 edits, there are considerable overlaps in behavior between this user and typical NoCal100 socks. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The editor 'The bandoleer' edits in a similar pattern as the long-term abuser NoCal100. [42] The editor fits the following NoCal100 characteristics: (i) run interference for anti-Muslim groups and individual, (ii) edit pages for Israeli and Jewish subjects, (iii) edit pages on anti-semitism, and (iv) do lots of normal and minor edits to individuals involved in cinema. The editor has an overlap with the confirmed NoCal100 sock JBlackCoffee52 on (i) Gatestone Institute [43] [44] and (ii) Distracted driving [45] [46]. Additionally, the editor has a niche interest in massacres, just as NoCal100 does. The NoCal100 socks 'Attack Ramon' and 'Firkin Flying Fox' edited 'Qana massacre' [47] [48], 'Fistook' edited 'Ma'alot massacre' [49], Reaper Eternal edited 'List of terrorist incidents in July–December 2013' [50]. The bandoleer has edited two pages with massacre in the title: '1989 Kandy massacre' [51] and 'Bologna massacre' [52]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Those articles are in crux of I/P conflict not everyone that edits is NoCal sock -- Shrike ( talk) 06:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Here come the Suns has already been blocked by the arbitration committee, but I believe that user, and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, are the latest incarnations of NoCal100. Both users edit at similar times as past socks. JungerMan doesn't have a ton of edits to compare to, but the timecards show similar times away: JM, HCTS, and compare to for example Canadian Monkey, or NoCal100, or When Other Legends Are Forgotten. Both users participated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2 (both voting no), with that being JungerMan's first edit in 2 years.
Similar interests:
There also seems to be the similarity of carrying on grudges through accounts. With bradv , HCTS had a dispute about a report he filed not resulting in a block. And now you can find JM demanding that bradv resign his bit over something that afaict has nothing to do with him.
There's additional evidence regarding tone I can add if needed, but this should be enough for a check I would think. Nableezy 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Also compare JM: this amounts to a list of commonly edited articles, with edits made to different parts of the article, often many years apart. Similar lists could be constructed for any two editors active in the ARBPIA topic area. to Firkin Flying Fox: The evidence presented so far consists of "they have been editing the same (little-viewed" articles as other socks". Before people get too carried away with "the overlap above is too strong to dismiss as mere coincidence," argument, let's do a little experiment, shall we? Suppose one wants to prove, using the same sort of "evidence" that Huldra and the filer of this report , Nableezy, are actually sock puppets of each other, we can easily construct the following set of overlapping articles ... I could easily construct such "evidence" lists for Nishidani and Nableezy, Huldra and Zero0000 and many others. nableezy - 16:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
As noted by Snooganssnoogans, both JM and Attack Ramon have made the same exact edit at Mark LeVine ( JM, AR), a page with an average of 15 views a day. nableezy - 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The hounding of old foes is another giveaway. There is just a level of spitefulness in how he does it that, to me at least, is a dead giveaway. Take for example the following sequence. Nishidani makes a comment at an AfD that JM had created. Shortly after that JM follows Nishidani (violating WP:WESTBANK in the process, which was a result of an arbitration case that saw two NoCal accounts topic-banned) to a page that averages a whopping 4 views a day. Quoting from a prior report on Los Admiralos
NoCal100 also has a history of following Tiamut. Tiamut reverted an edit by Los Admiralos Nazareth and Los Admiralos reverts her minutes later. The edit that appeared in Tiamut's contribution history directly before the Nazareth edit was at Viva Palestina; shortly after Los Admiralos reverted Tiamut at Nazareth he then follows her contribs and edits Viva Palestina.
It's just a level of pettiness and vindictiveness that screams out NoCal100. nableezy - 02:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
SPI is not the place to continue personal fights between editors involved in the ARBPIA topic area. CUs/Clerks/Admins can review the relevant material below, but I'm hatting it because it has already gotten out of hand. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. As Sir Joseph notes, this amounts to a list of commonly edited articles, with edits made to different parts of the article, often many years apart. Similar lists could be constructed for any two editors active in the ARBPIA topic area. Do you want to see Onceinawhile use "fix link" in an edit summary? [53] - is he/she a sockpuppet of NoCal100, too? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is damning evidence. I'd also add that in JM's earliest edits, he made minor edits to the pages of people involved in cinema, which perfectly syncs with NoCal users' behavior. See for example: [60] [61] [62]. However, in JM's post-2019 edits, there are no edits to cinema-related pages (possibly because it's been noted as one of NoCal's behavioral patterns on the long-term abuse page for NoCal [63]). The editor's edit history also seems to revolve around the same kind of fringe-BS-defending that NoCal's socks engaged in. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The two accounts display indistinguishable political positions and indistinguishable zeal to push that position into articles. Zero talk 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I then leave the article, alas:
Very interestingly: JCA! does NOT reinsert it again, ie, he is not "watching the article, he is just following me around. I see the same for Jerome Adams, where I added critical stuff twice, just to be revered by JCA! within minutes: me adding, JCA! reverting, me adding again, JCA! revering again I then left the article. Interestingly, after I left, far, far more critical things about Adams were inserted to the article (including accusation about him "lying to the public") ...these JCA! for some reason never removed, ie, he isn't interested in the Jerome Adams-article, just in following me around, I see the same with Zero0000:
And, as I have said before: feel free to CU me, or others. To the best of my knowledge, Nishidani, Zero000, Nableezy and I are all in different countries, (and I assume none of us have moved much lately, due to covid-19), Huldra ( talk) 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Without attempting to entangle myself in any of the above drama, this seems to be a very strong claim. Not only are the articles edited and the type of edits and POVs pretty much aligned, but the level of hostility during the investigation too. The lines of argumentation used by the accused are almost identical to those used by a user determined as being a sockpuppet in in June 2018. Domeditrix ( talk) 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC) |
Obviously not a new account; essentially single-purpose agenda account.
This is clearly not a new editor. Of course s/he/they could be any of a half-dozen banned right-wing POV-pushing sockmasters, but the combination of timing (account created shortly after NoCal100's previous sock was identified and blocked) and the combination of Israeli and US political partisanship strongly suggests NoCal100 to me. MastCell Talk 21:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
The editor bears many of the hallmarks of a sockuppet. I asked the user last month [86]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
See below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
KevinL When you say Highly likely does it mean the same geographical area or its more then that? -- Shrike ( talk) 16:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The account was created three weeks after the blocking of User:JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! ( [87], carried out on further CU evidence). The editor edits on the same time zone as the NoCal100 socks.
The edit history has been built via mostly ( 83%) semi-automated edits. The editor’s career started on 27 May with 106 normal-looking edits in 10 days to edits related to Switzerland (a neutral country for a neutral topic). The editing then pivoted to patrolling recent changes for vandalism, with 572 semi-automated reverts in c.12 different bursts over the course of a month, mostly using redwarn. Having crossed 500/30, on 7 July the editor made their first ever article talk page comments, apart from two very small ones during the Swiss edits, and first ever non-automated wikipedia noticeboard comments, with 1 edit each to 6 voting surveys all in the space of 30 minutes, in which the two largest comments related to ARBPIA topics at RSN: [88] [89] RSN happens to be the single-most frequented page of the NoCal100 socks when added together. See here [90] [91] which compares all identified NoCal100 socks (two lists because the tool has a max limit; see image to right which has been sorted to show the most edited pages).
More broadly, despite having made just 186 non-automated mainspace edits, the editor is an expert with four particular noticeboards, all four being the statistical favorites of the NoCal100 socks per the links and table above:
Other than the above (ARBPIA-related noticeboard comments, and continued occasional streams of semi-automated edits), in the mainspace post-500/30 their manual edits were to almost exclusively ARBPIA topics. The editor turned up at some of NoCal’s favorites:
And a few random pages which NoCal seems to like (this is a selection, I have a longer list):
There are also similarities of tone/style that I can bring out if helpful. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Its a retaliatory filing because of WP:AE. Those articles are frequently edited by users that interested in the topic including the filer himself. Some of evidence is anti-Vandalism reverts [93] [94], like was noted the user use semi automated wiki soft to fight vandalism. Also Nocal socks edited many articles so you can take any random user especially if they interested in I/P conflict and say he is a sock because article intersections -- Shrike ( talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not know enough about process to say whether the editor is a sock of NoCal100. Having had several interactions with this editor, while in theory possible, I find it quite unusual that a relatively new editor be so well acquainted with WP procedures, diffs new to old (there are other examples): 1) an AE filing 2) re WP ABOUTSELF 3) Alert (twice!) 4) Citation style Selfstudier ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a continuation of Onceinawhile's appalling behaviour, and a retaliatory filing to the AE. The retaliation is evident by Onceinawhile notifying me in mirror form to my notification. Onceinawhile made offensive Holocaust comparisons and personally attacked over 5 editors and is facing sanctions.
The report is false, and contains a blatant falsehood ("186 mainspace edits"). I do not have 186 mainspace edits, I have over a 1,000 edits and reported many disruptive users to AIV and UAA. I also recently reported a couple instances of disruption to ANEW and AE.
As for the "evidence", if Onceinawhile has even a minimal level of integrity they would immediately file a report saying he is a NoCal100 sockpuppet. As Shrike says Onceinawhile's first edit is very advanced markup, which I don't understand. Onceinawhile has hundreds of articles in common with NoCal100 sockpuppets ( NoCal100, Bad Dryer, Canadian Monkey). Onceinawhile haunts Wikipedia boards frequented by NoCal100 socks, in particular:
AE: Onceinawhile made 98 edits and this is his top posted Wikipedia page. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 17 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
ANI: Onceinawhile made 79 edits and this is the third-most Wikipedia page he edits. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 14 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
ANEW: Onceinawhile made 5 edits to this Wikipedia page. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 18 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
RSN: Onceinawhile made 45 edits to this Wikipedia page and this is 8th most Wikipedia page he edits. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 20 NoCal100 sockpuppets.
I am not myself saying Onceinawhile is a NoCal100 sockpuppet, the above is to point out the quality of the evidence. Probably most Wikipedia editors edit AE, ANI, ANEW, and RSN. Probably most editors who edited Israel/Palestine a bit have articles in common with NoCal100 sockpuppets, Onceinawhile has hundreds in common. Several of my common articles are from anti-vandalism reverts from recent changes, for example my single edit to Oliver Stone is reverting an IP edit (one minute prior) without sources. I do not have Oliver Stone on my watchlist. I am not interested in the Oliver Stone article. I got there because the IP's edit was in recent changes. 11Fox11 ( talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If you're going to claim somebody is making false accusations, maybe don't misquote them when you do? The quote was 186 non-automated mainspace edits. Not 186 mainspace edits. nableezy - 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Blatantly retaliatory, and with no evidence. If having an advanced first edit and posting in the IP space qualifies one as a sock, than the submitter is as well. Drsmoo ( talk) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I assume that "186 mainspace edits" is a typo for the 1896 total edits 11Fox11 had at the time. [96]. Also, "Fox 11" is the name used by TV station KTTV in Los Angeles [97], so "11Fox11" is a violation of the username policy. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Username reported at UAA. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Copying my response at UAA where Beyond My Ken copied the same comment: I did not even know about that station, I don't think I've ever edited anything about LA or TV stations. Fox is an animal, a Fox (surname) family name, and Fox one is specifically a Fox (code word) for launching a missile. When I chose my user name I had all this in mind, not some TV station in LA! If an admin considers this a violation, could my user name please be changed to user:FoxOne? And if any numeral is forbidden for Fox, then user:GoFoxGo? 11Fox11 ( talk) 06:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Kenosha Forever registered on 13 February and immediately showed a very surprising familiarity with wikipedia, look at his first edits, its clearly a returning user. First edit. "No consensus for this": [98]
יניב הורון previous sock Watchonly used to follow me around to articles he hadn't edited before. Siloam inscription: [99], Hezbollah: [100]
Exact same behavior as Kenosha Forever: Siloam inscription: [101], Organ transplantation in Israel [102], Dead Sea Scrolls: [103], Syrian brown bear: [104]
Editor Interaction Analyser:
Watchonly - Kenosha Forever Overlap: [105]
יניב+הורון& - Kenosha Forever Overlap: [106]
I'm asking for a CU on יניב הורון and a general range CU. Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Seems like fishing expedition SD just don't like that his POV edits are reverted. Yaniv and Kenosha seems in different time zones and editiing patterns are different -- Shrike ( talk) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow, I was gonna file this exact same SPI/CU request but looks like someone else also noticed the similarities. Yeah this looks very much like Yanniv. There’s the usual overlap of two different topic areas (I-P and Poland) with the same POVs. Also, it’s obviously not a new user:
This isn’t “fishing”, it’s “ducking” as in pointing out obvious WP:DUCKs. And yeah, it’s Yanniv. In addition to the evidence above, check out overlap with another, older Yanniv sock, User:Aroma Stylish [110]. There aren’t that many articles there but that’s because Aroma got caught pretty quick. But look at what is there. In addition to Islam in Israel, there’s three pretty obscure articles: Tel Dan stele, Zikhron Ya'akov and Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. Given that neither of these sock accounts has edited all that much the fact that they wound up at same three obscure articles can’t be a coincidence.
It’s a sock. Volunteer Marek 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure who is the sockmaster, but this is clearly not a new account. And its involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference), the article created by known sockmaster Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz (who has also been known to tag team with Yanniv), is worrisome, given that this AfD is being infested by a number of likely socks. WP:NOTHERE may be worth considering. This eerily reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death, an AfD of another attack page created by Icewhiz, which needed a second AfD a year later since the first one was swamped by accounts now blocked as socks. User:Oshwah: given the above, may I suggest running a CU on the new accounts participating in that AfD? There are way too many quacks here, IMHO. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Having made no edits in 7 years the user appears at ANI claiming a long memory as reason to support a topic ban ( here and here. Prior to the 7 year hiatus, the sock operated in tandem with other confirmed NoCal100 socks and against his usual targets (Zero, SD, myself):
The rest of his edits are reverts of his usual targets: Of Zero:
Of Supreme Deliciousness:
Given the low edit count there isnt enough to go by on the timecard to make it blindingly obvious, but same start/stop times consistent with sleeping during the evening on the West Coast of the United States (eg Canadian Monkey) Would be an astonishing coincidence for an editor to take 7 years off to then show up at ANI, and just based on the comment such as lies as usual as compared to I don't believe I've ever seen such a bald-faced lie on Wikipedia before or outright lie by past socks gives me a very NoCal100 vibe. nableezy - 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
For the record, User:Kenosha Forever was blocked today by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100. Binksternet ( talk) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
To begin with, there is no doubt that the timezones do not match here. The editor says on his user page he is located in Maryland, and the editing times are definitely two hours displaced from past NoCal100 socks ( NoCal100) However, there is off-wiki evidence that the person operating the accounts starting with User:Isarig (vanished to User:Former user 2) through NoCal100 and the rest has since found reason to be located in Maryland, and if it helps a checkuser I'd be happy to send that evidence along in email, but it most certainly would violate the privacy policy to post it here and as such this report will be focused on the commonalities between the editors while acknowledging that they are very much located across the country from each other.
The tone is NoCal100 to a tee. As one example, how he repeatedly across socks says to read WP:ONUS as a directive:
Also telling others to get consensus first in their edit-summaries:
Common articles with past socks show a wide range of common interests, not simply ARBPIA.
*
Iran-Israel proxy conflict (average of
5 views a day)
Timeline: Aroma Stylish, Inf-in MD
There are common interests going across topic areas, from Fox News, to articles with a handful of views a day such as Hot Mobile or obscure books like Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. If a functionary would like me to send on the evidence connecting the person operating the past accounts such as Isarig and NoCal100 with Maryland please let me know. Would also bet dollars to donuts that User:AgEng is the same, but not enough in the diffs to go on for that. Nableezy 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Behavior regarding moves:
nableezy - 16:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Guerillero I dont doubt it, like I said in the opening line the person operating the User:Former user 2 (Isarig) account appears to have moved. Unfortunately this is entirely behavioral based. nableezy - 03:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Comment NoCal and his socks edited so many articles so anyone that edited the topic area and interested in Jewish topics there will be some intersection. I too frequently cite WP:ONUS.Maybe I am nocal sock too? And lets not forget we already had false positive [116] -- Shrike ( talk) 05:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment This is yet another of those accounts that swiftly climbs to 500 edits promptly takes an interest in the IP area and suddenly is an expert in all things WP. Of course this need not mean a NC100 sock. Idk myself how much importance to place on it but JMCA was given to starting talk page comments with a small letter ( several examples here) rather than a capital letter and I notice that IiMD also does this ( several examples here). Selfstudier ( talk) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Nableezy - Regarding Hippeus... it is a fascinating fluke ( yeah.. :) ), but one infamous globally banned user used exactly the same argument in the past to defend socking accounts in this very topic area arguing with you:
To begin with, there is no doubt that the timezones do not match hereNableezy, these days time zone matches do not have significant importance anymore since, before arrival, the bulk of sock puppet accounts prepare for VPN connection from the time zone of their choosing. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I am not a sock puppet of anyone, let’s just get that out of the way.
What is presented below is a list of common articles, which shows nothing more than an interest in similar topics, which happen to be quite popular ones (Israel-related articles, US politics). Several people commenting on this report have already pointed out the same thing. I freely admit being interested in those topics, as are thousands of other Wikipedia editors.
While the list might look impressive to the superficial viewer, it is statistically insignificant. At the time this report was made, I had edited 531 articles. This list, minus the two fake entries at the end (aroma stylish is not a sock puppet of NoCal100) that were apparently added in an attempt to mislead by making the list longer that it really is and adding another “little viewed” article (more on that deceptive tactic below), and minus the entries for Former User 2 who does not seem to be related to this at all, has 19 articles in common . That’s an overlap of less than 4% . Even including the fake entries it is less than 4%. I am fairly certain that overlaps of similar magnitude or larger could be constructed for any user interested and editing in those topics.
To see why such lists are completely worthless, consider a thought experiment: Suppose I continue editing at the same pace (500 articles/3 months) for another 2 years, continue editing in the above two topics areas which overlap with NoCal100’s interest areas, but add a new topic of interest which has no such overlap. In two years, I will have amassed an additional 4000 articles, and no doubt picked up more overlapping articles. Maybe another 50. The list of “common articles” is now going to be three times as impressive, since it is cumulative and will always go up, but in reality, will now represent an overlap of just 1%.
The conspiratorial mindset sees “little viewed” common articles as damming evidence, but there are simple explanations for them. Look at the Zakaria Zubeidi article, for example. It is true that if you deceptively choose to present the last few weeks, it averages 82 views a day, but if you look at the week when I made my first edit there – [121] it averaged more than 2200 views per day, and was likely one of the highest viewed articles in the Israel topic area at that time (e.g – it had more than twice the views of Palestine Liberation Organization or Palestinians , 7 times the views of Palestine etc..) and for good reason – Zubeidi had just escaped from prison in a highly publicized event, and was headline news for 2 weeks, which is how he (and his article) came to my attention.
Similarly, Hot Mobile (average of 19 views a day) and Yes (Israel) (52 views a day) are both the result of an extensive debate I had with User: Iskandar323 over at Talk:Bank_Mizrahi-Tefahot (which eventually found itself escalated to Arbitration Enforcement report against Iskandar by another editor), over the inclusion of a lengthy block of text about the bank being included in a list of companies that a Norwegian fund had divested from. This block was added to a dozen or more other articles (including Hot Mobile and Yes) , but ultimately a consensus of uninvolved editors concluded that it was undue for those articles [122], so it was removed from all those articles (by a different editor). A couple of these were then re-added to the articles by an editor apparently unaware of the consensus to exclude, so I removed them.
And a similar thing happened with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – there was a Reliable Sources discussion about CounterPunch that I participated in [123]. Counterpunch was deprecated as a result [124], and so I removed it from a number of articles, among them Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which came up in my search for articles using that deprecated source (as did [Panama Papers ]], Hamilton (musical), Hamid Karzai, U2, Kidnapping and many others)
The filer thinks “it boggles the mind that there is that many intersections” – but a rudimentary understanding of statistics and probability makes it more mind boggling if there wasn’t any overlap. Inf-in MD ( talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Ive struck comments by two blocked socks of a banned user. Shocker. nableezy - 02:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.
Inf-in MD was blocked in mid-December and this account was registered shortly after the CU data for that account would go stale on 4/30. The user immediately showed proficiency in editing, with this being their 12th edit a day after registering, complete with perfectly formatted citation template. Since then there have been a number of commonalities that suggest this is the latest reincarnation of NoCal100, with the topics spanning the Arab-Israeli conflict to politicians in California to various right-wing American political topics and COVID related edits:
what part of "policy quote" is not clear to you
Amdocs with an average of 272 views a day:
There was no such thing as Palestinians with average of 25 daily views
Lorena Gonzalez (California politician) ( 85 daily views)
American Israel Public Affairs Committee
NGO Monitor - timeline between accounts
COVID related:
Similar timecard to Inf-in MD nableezy - 16:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
And So It predates Inf-in MD, with edits in May and July 2021. Inf-in MD was then used exclusively from July through being blocked in December 2021. And so it was active in mid-April 2022 until Izzy Borden was used from April 30 through being blocked in July (month edit counts for Izzy Borden, Inf-in MD, And So It to help visualize). And So It resumed editing shortly after in August. The editing times are similar for all three accounts ( And So It, Inf-in MD, IB).
As far as evidence in edits, the tone is again NoCal100 to a tee. So is the seeking confrontation with old opponents. See for example:
The tone, hounding, and editing times, along with the contribution history combined with the last two blocked sock accounts, suggest this account is the latest NoCa1l00 sock. nableezy - 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Based off of the discussion at the Icewhiz SPI for this user, it appears likely that this account is NoCal100. The evidence by GizzyCatBella reproduced here:
Additionally, NoCal, like Icewhiz, has repeatedly followed the same targets, Nishidani, myself and Iskandar323, as well as apparently Volunteer Marek (which admittedly threw me off-track in to thinking it was Icewhiz). This account was registered one week after JungerMan Chips Ahoy! was blocked from this investigation, and one day prior to Trying to reconnect (blocked in the following October investigation) nableezy - 19:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Nableezy NoCal100's sockpuppets deliberately make edits into WW2 Poland-related topic pretending to be Icewhiz (not only by engaiging in disputes with VM). It's done to deceive people at ISP, so they file investigations under Icewhiz. Keep this in mind for future cases. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 20:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
When I saw the report against this editor under Icewhiz-socks, I thought that was strange; an editor who manage to revert Iskandar323, Nableezy, Nishidani and Volunteer Marek multiple times in under 50 edits (!) looks more like Nocal, IMO. Walks like duck, quacks like a duck... Huldra ( talk) 22:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The yearly NoCal100 sock-- see below. Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Blocked and tagged Moneytrees🏝️ (Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)