Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive/1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


NoCal100

NoCal100 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

Report date December 2 2009, 00:02 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by User:Mackan79

2000 Ramallah Lynching without comment.[8][9] Drakken was previously blocked as an untraceable sock by checkuser Dominic after he and Thatcher found Drakken to be editing from open proxies.[10] Hicks is most recently seeking to enforce the Judea and Samaria topic ban against other involved editors.[11][12]
.

Canadian Monkey and Dr. Drakken were created 19 minutes apart on December 30, 2007;

right to vanish (see block log). Isarig made the same use of the phrase "Don't do it again" in routine disagreements.[13][14] At least one editor, User:PalestineRemembered, has compared NoCal100's mannerisms to Isarig (see here). All five of these accounts repetitively use the "+" symbol in their edit summaries, especially "+ref", for adding content (search all but Isarig here and here, search Isarig here). None appear to have overlapping edits. User:NoCal100 has now been banned for continued sockpuppetry. A full list of Isarig's socks appears not to be publicly displayed due to his exercise of RtV. I asked Hicks if the user had a previous history in the area, and received a non-answer.[15]

In sumary, the above information suggests that User:Mr. Hicks The III should be checkusered, and that further investigation should look into any relationship between that account and those topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria, or the former editor User:Isarig.

  • Re Dominic: Thanks. I understand there are admins and potentially members of ArbCom who have watched the situation with Isarig, however, in light of his choice to exercise
    WP:Right to vanish.[16] Is it possible to find out if they have additional perspective? That would seem to be an important part. Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note I requested that User talk:NoCal100 be replaced since it seemed to have been mistakenly deleted. I see there that the pursuit of Calton, including a note of the similarity to Isarig, is discussed several times.[17] (See User talk:Canadian Monkey for more queries about reversions of Calton.) Mackan79 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

May I suggest also having a look at

WP:AE [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedrito&diff=prev&oldid=309340536] and edits in the same areas as NoCal100 (talk · contribs) and Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) did, albeit with the distinction that whenever a topic got too heated only one of either Jaakobou or the pair stayed involved (e.g. the Judea vs. Samaria
spat).

A quick look at Jaakobou's earliest edits indicate that this was/is probably not his first account. After some sporadic edits in late 2006, the account becomes extremely active as of January 2007, using edit summaries such as "rv to last NPOV version, if you wish to add all the defamatory guess works (regardless of origin) i can assure you there's plenty out there." [19] and participating in

WP:AfDs [20]
.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:06 02.12.2009

Actually... [21]. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 09:15 02.12.2009

Those aren't likely, in my view. The "+" is common enough; I only consider it relevant that none of the accounts use a completely different style. Jaakabou isn't a native speaker of English, as I understand, which I believe is rather evident and contrasts with all of these. I just ran a script that I installed at some point, which shows Jaakobou editing at a completely different time of day, whereas Canadian Monkey and NoCal100 combined seem to be identical to Isarig (one has nearly all workday edits, the other has almost all evening/morning/weekend edits, Isarig has no division). As to Jayjg, there's of course imitation. There is much more to suggest it is Isarig (which, if so, I think would seal this up). Mackan79 (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Mackan79 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey are  Likely matches with Mr. Hicks The III (and each other), using the same ISP and being located in the same area. I cannot conclude anything about the others based on IP data, as they are stale. An admin will have to have to make a call on all of this. Dominic·t 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • All users mentioned except for Former user 2 have been blocked, Canadian Monkey today. I have tagged them all as sockpuppets of Mr. Hicks The III, but perhaps that ought to be changed to NoCal100 being listed as the sockmaster? Clerks, feel free to change it about it you wish. NW (Talk) 04:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done, NW. MuZemike 07:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date December 18 2009, 11:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by If I have to (normally I edit as an IP but I couldn't create an SPI page without creating an account...hence the name and the new account.)

Proven long-term sockmaster NoCal100 and his various socks were blocked, but I believe that Brewcrewer falls under the same category and his edits should therefore be looked at. Evidence includes :

  • Both involved in Israel / Palestine areas of dispute, including
    1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla
    and the Judea / Samaria naming dispute.
  • Identical voting, within minutes of each other, at this RFA.
  • Brewcrewer consistently editing (sometimes within minutes, generally within days) articles created or substantially edited by NoCal100 or his other socks, and vice versa, including here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, as well as tag team editing in May 2009 on
    1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. Note that he does the same to other socks such as here for Mr. Hicks The III and here
    with Lover of the Russian Queen.
  • Identical voting (within minutes of each other) at AfDs here and here.
  • Cross-over with other NoCal100 socks including Canadian Monkey here,
  • Identical edits here by Brewcrewer and here by NoCal100.
  • Identical edits here by Millmoss (a confirmed NoCal100 sock) and here by Brewcrewer - note the edit by Millmoss here which comes in the middle of a stream of edits by Brewcrewer, and then look at the timing of edits by those two accounts around that period of time - Brewcrewer edits until 00:17 on 7th October, then Millmoss edits at 00:46, stops, starts again at 17:30, edits until 18:59, Brewcrewer edits from 20:09 to 20:55, then Millmoss edits 20:57 to 21:01, then Brewcrewer edits 21:03 until 22:25, consistent with changing between the two accounts (and possibly others).
  • Tag team editing here by Brewcrewer and here by Lover of the Russion Queen, and
    here
    by the two,
Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Mr. IP actually brings some very good points. He put lots of time and research into this. We should encourage, not discourage, this type of constructive work. Thus, a CU is clearly warranted. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Having filed a recent case involving NoCal100, I agree with the checkusers. Brewcrewer shows 41,576 edits since he registered in 2007 -- that's quite a lot to be part of this or any kind of sock farm. Non content related criteria I can try to look at (style or objective timing type things) don't come up similar. I say this from a quick perusal, but also from some minor familiarity with the users' comments. They edit some of the same articles, yes. I could criticize Brewcrewer here for some things, though I could also say some good things about him, but none of it would suggest he was NoCal100. Mackan79 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Gee, thanks for taking the time to put a well thought out and considered response. You're honestly trying to tell me that you see no similarity between their contributions, and the continuing cross-over between Brewcrewer and NoCal and his various socks is simply coincidental? If I have to (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The AFD's you cite were snowball keeps, so identical voting is hardly an indication of socking, particularly when the rationales are different. The edits to Dodge Viper appear to be vandalism reversions. Very similar on the Organ donation article, the edits were rather biased and based on original research. There's also no behavioral similarity, mannerisms shown between both users or common phrases that both use.
a/c) 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Conclusions

 Clerk note: Concur with Brandon above. MuZemike 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 4 2010, 04:38 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nableezy

Lovely day350's first edit here, after making a user page, was to oppose User:Tiamut in a dispute between her and another user at Arab Christians 2 minutes after registering the username. The next edit, 3 minutes later, was to complain about Tiamut's edits at the 3RR noticeboard. Previous NoCal socks have been used at various admin boards in disputes that they were not involved in, see contribs of User:Mr. Hicks The III, and a history of following Tiamut. Since these initial edits about Egyptian Christians, the users contribs have focused exclusively Israeli/Palestinian conflict (showing no lasting interest in the initial topic except to oppose Tiamut), usually on pages NoCal or a sock of his had previously edited, such as Palestinian Land Laws (Mr Hicks), or on new pages found through the Israel deletion sorting list as seen here.

The 3RR report that Lovely day350 commented at also contained several comments by 12.54.125.181, an IP another user blocked as a sock of NoCal (User:Millmoss) said he had used, see here, end of the diff.

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

It's interesting, given how quickly my SPI regarding User:Brewcrewer and User:NoCal100 was dismissed, to note that in his short time editing User:Lovely day350 crosses paths with Brewcrewer surprisingly frequently :

  1. At Talk:Kol_Tsion_HaLokhemet where Brewcrewer muses about an uppercase S in the article name and Lovely day pops up a short time later to move the page.
  2. At
    Talk:Palestinian Land Laws where Lovely day's first contribution to the discussion is to weigh in in support of Brewcrewer here
    .
  3. On the article page itself where Brewcrewer deletes a large chunk of text, Gatoclass reinserts it, Lovely day deletes it again, Gatoclass reinserts it, and Brewcrewer deletes it again.
  4. On Lovely day's talk page, where Brewcrewer wades in to divert attention from the question of whether Lovely day is a sock...

Yes, where editors work in a specific field they may well cross paths from time to time - but in such a short time after so few (on Lovely day's side) edits? Unlikely, I think.

If Lovely day350 does transpire to be yet another NoCal100 / Isarig / whoever sock then I would request that someone actually take a bit more time to look into Brewcrewer's actions as well. If I have to (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by User:Nableezy - 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 Confirmed - Alison ❤ 00:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
  • information Administrator note Blocked/tagged. NW (Talk) 00:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


Report date January 21 2010, 05:36 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Nableezy

Many of the articles edited by Los Admiralos either were previously edited by a NoCal sock or that had been edited by Tiamut.

Edits by Los Admiralos on pages that have previously been edited by a NoCal100 sock (all in the I/P topic area)

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. Nableezy 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Nableezy

talk) 11:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Inconclusive, but possible. The account edited from two ISPs: a national mobile phone network and an airport. The airport is in the same metropolitan area as NoCal100. Dominic·t 07:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged on behavioral evidence as well as the conclusions by CU. –MuZemike 19:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 1 2010, 00:50 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

I believe the IP address 99.253.230.182 to have been an incarnation of the puppet master NoCal100. I believe when the user was using the Millmoss sock puppet, they avoided their ban by editing under this IP address (before possibly moving to new sock puppets).

Note: I haven't notified the IP address because they haven't edited since November 2009, but I still think this case is important. I suspect the IP address may be linked to multiple current editors, who would in turn be the latest sock puppets of NoCal100. I've requested this IP address to be checked first so as to not smear current editors needlessly if this IP address is unrelated to NoCal100. It's also not a bad idea to check the IP address against all of NoCal100's known sock puppets, in addition to Millmoss. ← George talk 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence submitted by George
  • October 20, 2009 - Millmoss, an editor focused on Israeli and Jewish topics on Wikipedia, is blocked as a sock puppet of NoCal100.
  • October 20 - 30, 2009 - Millmoss makes two requests to be unblocked, and argues their case on their talk page.
  • October 31 - November 2, 2009 - 99.253.230.182 makes eleven edits to topics related to Israel or Judaism. Their edits and edit summaries are pretty advanced for a user that had made only four edits prior. Before late October, the IP address had not edited in over a month.
  • November 2, 2009 - Millmoss notices that they were unblocked, and thanks the unblocking admin. The IP editor will not edit again until Millmoss is reblocked, four days later.
  • November 2 & 3, 2009 - Millmoss goes full steam ahead, making 28 edits on articles related to Israel or Judaism.
  • November 4, 2009 - Millmoss is re-blocked by a reviewing admin.
  • November 6, 2009 - 99.253.230.182, having made no edits since Millmoss acknowledged being unblocked four days earlier, makes 33 edits to articles related to Israel or Judaism.

The relationship I see here is temporal, and binary, while focused on the same topics of Israel and Judaism. When Millmoss was blocked, the IP address started editing. When Millmoss noticed they were unblocked, the IP address stops. When Millmoss is blocked again, the IP address picks back up. I don't think that the evidence alone proves that the two are related, which is why I've requested a CheckUser. ← George talk 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by ← George talk 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

talk) 03:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 3 2010, 07:57 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets

Additionally, the edits for Millmoss, a known sock puppet of NoCal100 I believe to be related to these parties, can be viewed here. ← George talk 08:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by George

Note: I had previous filed a similar request against just one IP address, hoping to not drag Breein1007 into this needlessly. However, because that IP address had not edited in a while, that case was closed as being stale, so I'm opening this expanded one.

I believe that Breein1007 may be the latest incarnation of the sock master NoCal100.

  • One of NoCal100's last known sock puppets was Millmoss. Millmoss was initially blocked on October 20, 2009. At the end of October, after Millmoss argued their case for an unblock for several days, IP address 99.253.230.182 showed up and started editing articles in a similar topic space (Israel and Judaism), while Millmoss was blocked. The IP address made a dozen edits over a few days, and had fairly advanced understanding of Wikipedia for a new user. Millmoss noticed that they had been unblocked November 2,[22] and the IP address stops editing. Millmoss makes 30 edits until they are reblocked November 4. Suddenly, after having made no edits since Millmoss was unblocked, the IP address returns and makes another 40 edits from November 6 to November 11. This pattern indicates to me that the IP address may be the same person as Millmoss, logging out to bypass their block.
  • The IP address 99.253.230.182 disappears after November 11, but a very similar IP address, 99.236.137.50, shows up November 12, again editing articles on similar topics. They're both from Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Again, the timing and especially the location of the IP addresses makes me think that this IP address is the same as the other IP address.
  • The IP address 99.236.137.50 is almost definitely
    Breein1007. Breein1007's very first edits were made November 12 (again, in the same topic area), and their edit summaries again had an advanced understanding of Wikipedia for a new user. One of their edit summaries on November 13 (and their first edit to the article) confirms the association, when Breein1007 reverted to the IP address editor's version saying: "i gave a very clear explanation for the incorrectness of the last revision. do not revert it again."[23]

So, in short, we know that Millmoss is a sock puppet of puppet master NoCal100, we're almost sure that Breein1007 is the same as IP 99.253.230.182, and that IP is very similar, in both editing habits and physical location, as 99.253.230.182. The only question in my mind is if the second IP address, 99.253.230.182, is the same as Millmoss (or one of NoCal100's other sock puppets). The editing pattern (Millmoss editing when unblocked; the IP address editing while Millmoss is blocked) indicates that this is the same person as Millmoss, but I've requested CheckUser to be sure. If the IP does match Millmoss (or is from the same area), there's a very high chance that Breein1007 is the latest sock puppet used by long-term puppet master NoCal100, evading their block. ← George talk 07:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Breein1007
  1. The behavioral evidence links Millmoss to the first IP. Location and behavioral evidence links the first IP to the second; your own edit summary links you to the second IP.
  2. If those IP addresses are related to you, as I'm fairly sure, that alone is not a violation of anything. If they are related to Millmoss, however, that would be a violation of a block.
  3. WP:OUTING
    . An IP address cannot be linked to any single individual (except by court order, and with cooperation from the ISP). There would be almost no reports on SPI if editors couldn't report which users and which IP address they felt were socking.
  4. As I stated, I tried to check if the first IP address was related to Millmoss instead of bringing your name up as to not smear your reputation. That was closed as stale, because that specific IP address hadn't edited since November, which forced me to expand my suspicion of who that IP address would be related to.

In any event, I'm hopeful that it ends up that you're not Millmoss, and this won't be an issue. I just noticed a pattern I felt was suspicious, and one which other editors had commented on, so I brought it up here. ← George talk 01:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.
I'm not wasting my time dealing with this garbage. All I'll say is the following:
1) There is no evidence that warrants a check user here. George hasn't provided any behavioral proof that makes it appear as if I have anything to do with any other account.
2) Even if those IP addresses are related to my account, they were not used to break the rules so again, there is no case to use checkuser to see if they are linked to my account.
3) I don't know how

WP:OUTING
by his comments above (ie: "XXX IP is almost definitely Breein1007" and identifying the location of the IP) then I expect there to be consequences and for his violating comments to be stricken from the record. Again, I'm not sure how that works in relation to SPI.
4) Note: The user who filed this report already filed one against the 2 IPs above earlier today and it was declined. He has now resubmitted the exact same report but also attached my account to the report in hopes that this will bait someone to reconsider the merits of the case. I think that is an important factor to consider. Thanks and have fun with this,
Breein1007 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

On first glance this appeared to be coincidence; the last 500 or so edits of NoCal100 had no overlap in topic area with Breein1007. However, going back further, I found an edit area overlap of note - NoCal100 also was participating in Israeli / Palestinian issues. Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla, Talk:Tzipi Livni, ... Going back further than May 2009, NoCal100 is functionally a SPA with the same focus as Breein1007 shows now. If the IPs line up that closely... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care to complete that sentence?
Breein1007 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Same or almost identical IP + SPA in area the now indeffed other user edited in == this passes the
duck test
we use here for sockpuppetry.
Sorry, but I believe the case is adequately made. Your argument that you and they don't edit the same areas is clearly not true. If you'd like to explain the similarity you are welcome to do so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you intend to block me for being a sockpuppet? I'm afraid you have grossly misunderstood the evidence, and I encourage you to reread George's accusations. Then please come back to me when you can explain what you mean by "same or almost identical IP". Thanks,
Breein1007 (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
One more thing: "your argument that you and they don't edit the same areas is clearly not true"... wtf? I'm having trouble responding to this civilly. Maybe you should reread every comment I have made on this SPI and then let me know where exactly I made this argument. Thanks,
Breein1007 (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
You said that he hadn't presented any behavioral proof. I just did, filling in the gap. You are a single purpose account focused on Israeli / Palestinian topics (I can hardly find a page you've edited which wasn't administrative or user talk other than that topic, since your account was created). NoCal100 is also a SPA in Israeli / Palestinian topics, if you go back past May 2009. Both IPs, one of which was linked clearly to NoCal100 and one of which is linked to you, are Rogers cable modems in the same city. Timelines are suspicious.
It's relatively rare for problematic editors in the same topic area to innocently and unconnectedly pop up in the same geographical area with correlated calendars, which the two of you appear to.
It's rare enough that we assume that when it happens, it's sockpuppetry, and not coincidence.
You may have encountered me earlier in my dealings with the Israeli / Palestinian conflict admin enforcement, however, I've been dealing with tracking down sockpuppets on Wikipedia since I started doing administrative stuff, and in general on Internet sites since the late 1980s.
I don't have checkuser access, so I can't verify exactly what they said, but they would have said "unrelated" if none of what George alleged above was true. Inconclusive generally in a situation like this implies that you and the other account's IPs were correctly identified but it's not certain that the two IPs are otherwise related. Geographical similarity and topic similarity are enough for the Duck test, though.
Again - If you would like to explain and feel that there is some evidence which can clear you, please feel free to put it into evidence here. You may have noted I haven't blocked you yet. That is a possible outcome of this but I haven't made a final determination. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Both IPs, one of which was linked clearly to NoCal100 and one of which is linked to you" ... refer to my last comment. You are very very sadly mistaken.
Breein1007 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Listen, you keep repeating that I should explain and provide evidence to "clear" me... frankly dude, if you ban me, you'll be the fool at the end of the day, not me. There is no evidence currently linking me with any other account. Somehow your decades of investigative experience have failed you in this case.
Breein1007 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you now assert that you are not in any way associated with the second IP, you do not live in that geographical region, and that a Checkuser will be able to verify that you do not edit from there? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still missing something. I really don't feel that it is my job to spell it out for you here. Seriously, I am heavily resisting my urge to defend myself here because I shouldn't have to. There is no evidence here suggesting that I am a sockpuppet and it is you who is mistaken and misunderstanding the evidence. Here is what I will say. You are taking user George's "evidence" that Nocal100 was related to certain IP addresses for fact, for G-d knows what reason. Is he a checkuser? Are his baseless accusations good enough reason to block another user? I didn't realize he had become the ultimate authority here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per
Breein1007 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
(
witch hunt. ← George talk 01:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Another CU may remember what metropolitan area NoCal was in (maybe NishKid who blocked Milmoss or Dominic who recently checked Los Admiralos), and if I am not mistaken it is a few thousand miles from the IPs listed. I have my own thoughts as to whether or not those IPs were used by Breein or not, but I've been asked to leave that alone. So for at least the IP addresses, I doubt that this is NoCal. nableezy - 01:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nableezy's statement regarding the IP addresses and NoCal. I also wanted to point out that - in regards to using the "SPA" nature of the account as a basis of proof - a significant number of editors of IP-related articles do not edit outside of that topic area, so the SPA argument could be considered moot in this case. When Breein1007 first appeared, I had similar concerns[24], but was unable to figure out whom he might be a sock of. I still harbor reservations that Breein1007 may be a sock, but unless Deskana provides something more definitive as to what their "inconclusive" response means, we have to assume good faith and consider Breein1007 as a legitimate and distinct user. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 02:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Breein1007 is not operating any sockpuppets. If he was, I would tell you. --Deskana (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. Regards --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it doesn't seem to be the case for an SPI. Both Nableezy and Deskana made it clear that the suspecions for socking didn't cross the circumstantiality threshold. Also, the OP himself, George, made it clear that he couldn't tell in confidence that Breein1007 is socking and connected with previous baned accounts. So it seem that for check user request with code E the burden of evidence was not carried.--Gilisa (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was happy with the evidence that was provided, looked at the case myself a bit more, and decided a check was warranted. Just because it came up as inconclusive and no socks were found doesn't mean it wasn't warranted. --Deskana (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm standing corrected. I probably used words hastily. However, post factum we can tell that much more evidence are needed to establish sock puppetry guilt in this case. As for the connection between previous accounts and the present one, I think that Nableezy comment, actually together with the later one of the OP George, made it clear that it's very hard to establish such indictment. P.s. In regard to the behavioral evidence-there are many SPAs on the I-P issue, expressing different attitudes toward the subject -part of them are active and part not, from many differen reasons, or without clear ones, most of these have thousends of edits -virtually all related to the I-P issue. The I-P issue is big and notable enough to drag editors to deal only with it. So now, if I return to the beginning of this SPI-seem like GWH was too hasty to conclude from the data provided by George that Breein1007 is a sock. Also, the edits GWH submitted to esablish Breein1007 guilt are both high profile articles on the I-P topic. There are few dozens of highly active editors on the I-P conflict, most chances are that if you review the edit history of any given article on the I-P topic you will find that more than two of those have edited it. In high profile articles you will find many times that most of those have edited there. So, it would be much more suspicious for me if overlapping was not found. --Gilisa (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by ← George talk 07:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed I'm endorsing; I see enough behavioral evidence to support a check user. Auntie E. (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive for a variety of different reasons. You'll have to go on behavioural evidence alone, I'm afraid. --Deskana (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer an SPI matter as far as I'm concerned. Closing case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deskana (talk • contribs)

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


21 May 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Sean.hoyland

Wikichecker indicates a correlation in the edits by time/timezone data between MLH and NoCal100. See Momma's Little Helper vs NoCal100

Articles common between this new user and past known NoCal100 socks. Data for suspected NoCal100 sock Former user 2 also included.

  • Marwan Barghouti Momma's Little Helper, NoCal100, Former user 2
  • Kfar Etzion massacre Momma's Little Helper, NoCal100, Former user 2
  • Wake Up Call (Maroon 5 song) Momma's Little Helper, LoverOfTheRussianQueen
  • List of wars 1945-1989
    Momma's Little Helper, Los Admiralos, Nick Fitzpatrick
  • George Galloway Momma's Little Helper, Los Admiralos, Mr. Hicks The III
  • Convoy of 35 Momma's Little Helper, Former user 2
  • Muhammad al-Durrah incident
    Momma's Little Helper, Canadian Monkey, NoCal100, Former user 2
  • 1982 Lebanon War Momma's Little Helper, Canadian Monkey, Former user 2
  • 1978 South Lebanon conflict Momma's Little Helper, Canadian Monkey, Former user 2
  • Positions on Jerusalem
    Momma's Little Helper, Canadian Monkey
  • Cellcom (Israel) Momma's Little Helper, Canadian Monkey

Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: A  + E (Arbcom ban/sanction evasion and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Endorsed for Checkuser attention.    Requested by Sean.hoyland - talk 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed –MuZemike 00:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


 Confirmed Momma's Little Helper (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = SoP II (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).

 Likely NoCal100 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) = above. J.delanoygabsadds 05:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Blocked, tagged, closed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
23 October 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nableezy

The last account blocked as a sock of NoCal100,

Lydda Death March), this account has done the same with Factomancer (talk · contribs) (see history of Operation Damocles) and with Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs
). There are also a large number of similarities in articles edited by this user and past socks: Pages in common with past known socks

pages in common with Former user 2 (talk · contribs):

Common articles outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area also demonstrate a connection. Another commonality is the behavior of this user during AfDs. Compare HHH's edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian drive-by shooting and a past NoCal sock (LoverOfTheRussianQueen) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Israel lobby in the United States

Based on the editing pattern when they first registered, HHH is clearly not a new account. I am requesting a CU to see if the old account was one of NoCal's. nableezy - 22:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike, if I am not mistaken the relevant data is known by more than a few CUs, could you ask to see if anyone may have stored the data? nableezy - 06:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Well thanks for letting me know about this. What would we do without good people like ElComandanteChe or cptnono who had the decency to inform me about this. The "evidence" presented here is lengthy, but flimsy. Yes, I edit in the I-P topic area, so big surprise, there are a handful of articles that were also edited by others who edit in the topic area. You can pick an editor active in that area at random, and show at least as much similarity. Heck, looking just at my contributions and Nableezy's, we share 20 articles, more so than any of the named editors here. Nocal100 has apparently followed Tiamut around, and I am accused of following another, different, editor (Factomancer) , so obviously this is evidence that I am Nocal100, because we all know there's only been one editor in the history of wikipedia who ever followed another editor around, so I must be him. And what is the evidence that I followed Factomancer? Why, there is one (1) article that Factomancer has edited that I also edited - obviously crystal clear evidence I am following him around. Then there's Former User 2, (relationship to this matter is unclear), 4 years ago he fixed a link on American Viticultural Area as his only edit to that article, and I added a requested reference on that article as my only edit 4 months ago - You can't have any better evidence than this that "Common articles outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area also demonstrate a connection." And on top of that User:George once thought that Nocall100 is editing from just outside Ontario, so let's check me and if I happen to be near Ontario - why there's your proof. This is beyond ridiculous. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
  • In one of the previous SPI cases against NoCal100, one of the sock puppets found to be NoCal100 (Millmoss) revealed that their IP address was 12.54.125.181. If HupHollandHup maps to that IP address (or close to Mountain View, California, since that was almost a year ago), that would be quite incriminating indeed. In another case, I had also raised the possibility that NoCal100 was socking from an IP address mapped just outside Ontario, Canada, but the sock puppets were too stale for check user. It may be worth checking if HupHollandHup maps to either of those geographic locations, as a way to either identify incriminating evidence, or provide evidence that indicates that they are not a sock puppet. ← George talk 20:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    HupHollandHup - To be honest, if I was accused of sockpuppetry, I would hope that the clerks would check that my geographic location is different from all IP address locations of those that had been accused, as a way to exonerate myself. For instance, if I was accused of being NoCal100, I would hope the clerks would check my IP location and see that I'm not from anywhere near the IP addresses that editors have alleged of being NoCal100 (Mountain View, California, and Ontario, Canada), and the case would get closed without even needing to look into behavior evidence (which is less black and white). The odds of some random editor being from one of those two locations is pretty low - probably less than 1 in 500 - and it's pretty easy to check. I don't even think all those who have been identified as sock puppets of NoCal100 are the same person, but more likely multiple individuals, possibly working together or as meat puppets, or each with their own set of sock puppets. It's really a shame that nobody stores the IP address information of notorious sockpuppets for longer so we could clear innocent editors more quickly. ← George talk 04:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it looks like you are indeed a sock puppet of NoCal100, and my comment came 5 minutes late. Although I do believe Nableezy should have notified you of this case directly, and perhaps someone should notify them so they know to do so in the future. ← George talk 04:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

no Declined – All other sock accounts are  Stale. This will have to be determined by behavioral evidence and editing patterns. –MuZemike 02:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it felt like NoCal100 to me, so I checked, and indeed, HupHollandHup is quite precisely NoCal100. (It's always helpful and always OK to CU serial sockpuppeteers.)  Confirmed --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marking for close. TNXMan 11:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2010
Suspected sockpuppets



Evidence submitted by Nableezy

I think it is fairly clear that the above two accounts are operated by the same person, but I also think it is likely that they are operated by the person who used NoCal100 and his various incarnations. NoCal's history of hounding other users is well-established. The first of these accounts, Shanghai Sally, reverted Zero0000 at Silwan, then followed his contributions to Talk:Israeli-occupied territories, later also following him to Efraim Karsh. Next, they engage in a dispute with Supreme Deliciousness at Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu and then follow him to Outline of Syria. Next, the user shows up on my talk page and later reverts an edit I made to Jerusalem. Finally, this supposedly "new" user adds the {{vacation}} template to his user page. This user has been used exclusively to either revert opponents or provide "backup" for certain users, such as Shuki at Eretz Yisrael Shelanu or brewcrewer at a few articles. After placing the vacation template on the first user's userpage, the second user is registered and immediately makes 2 of the same reverts as the first user, those being all of the edits made by this "new" account. nableezy - 14:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Id say it is more likely that NoCal is on a business trip or vacation than this being somebody else (and if the IP used is in the range of 116.247.115.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) I have some private evidence that could connect NoCal to it), but given that it is "likely" that one person has operated both of these accounts can we get a block of these accounts for now? These accounts really should have been blocked for their actions independent of any SPI finding. nableezy - 20:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brew, I understand that you like the idea of obvious socks on your "side" being allowed to edit here as you have "welcomed" more socks than I have uncovered. But the "main" account here is undeniably a sockpuppet account. No reasonable person could look at this person's edits and say that this is anything other than the sock of a banned account. nableezy - 20:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal did indeed edit from other socks that were obvious from the start. See for example Lovely day350 (talk · contribs). Your calling this editor a "reasonable editor" only underscores my point. No reasonable person can look at this accounts edits and conclude that they are anything other than the sock of a banned account. nableezy - 20:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmed sock isnt even going to be blocked? Let me get this straight; I could make an account, go around hounding a selection of editors, make another account 10 minutes later and continue hounding those same editors, reverting and doing nothing else? And neither of those accounts will be blocked? nableezy - 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

When 1/3 of your 24 edits overlap with another puppet of a career Count Sockula, eyebrows rise. Combine it with a good knowledge of policy and the various "sides" of the I/P editors and throw in the same commanding and aggressive tone and user harassment and it looks like you've got another sock.Sol (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are lots of editors who appear to have edited before. we can't block for that reason alone can we?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Shen Then should clearly be blocked but I don't see any grounds for blocking the main account, Shangahai Sally, outside of a short block for sockpuppeting. Our little conspiracy theory has nocal covering the entire west coast of the US. Now he controls other continents?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@nablezy. I welcome all new reasonable editors that I have come across. I have welcomed hundreds of hundreds of editors to Wikipedia. I'm really a nice guy, even in real life. It does not make sense that he is nocal because (assuming all the previous socks were nocal) nocal never signed out and then edited from a proxy and obvious sock account. besides for the continent discrepancy.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest brewcrewer: I enjoy the attention you have lavished upon me and I am pleased you find me reminiscent of past friends you've never named. In your valiant vision-quest to get me banned as a past user (or whatever it is) you might want to: a)have a reason beyond disliking my edits. There is no b). Since I'm not actually a past user I would counsel you to shift your wiki-crusade to focus on better grounded accusations, perhaps that I am a cactus or even a tropical ficus.
Back on topic, no idea about how proxies and the CU stuff works but anyone who comes in using tone and language identical to that of the most recent sock of a puppet master to harass the same users and help out old comrades . . .hmm. Duck? Sol (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • The two users listed here are extremely  Likely to be the same person as each other; they share the same useragent data, and Shen, Then? (talk · contribs) was using a proxy which is now blocked.
  • The comparison to NoCal100 is less certain; while the useragent data is very similar, that's not the most reliable indicator, and NoCal100 was editing from a different continent. Neither NoCal100 nor ShanghaiSally appear to be editing from proxies. I'm going to call it
    a/c) 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  •  Clerk note: I'm going to close this for now. There's no real overlap in the two accounts that are likely the same - and they're not tied to the master. If they become an issue again, relist here and we'll look into it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note Blocked Shen Then?. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

I am filing this request on behalf of User:Nableezy. Tie Oh Cruise appears to be yet another NoCal100 sock. The sock demonstrates the same pattern of following other editors, such as User:Supreme_Deliciousness and Nableezy around via reverts and talk pages.[25][26] The sock's last edit was to revert Nableezy in the Egypt article, a topic completely unrelated to anything they had edited in the past. The last edit they made before that was on October 26, about 14 hours after the last NoCal100 sock (User:HupHollandHup) was blocked. The user appeared just to revert Nableezy several months after their edit on October 26 using similar language in the edit summary as NoCal100. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm really impressed with how quickly the report was processed. Much appreciated. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 December 2010
Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like Nableezy spotted another NoCal100 sock. I've had a look into it a bit and it seems that NoCal100 has decided to take the names of the watchers that came down to mess about on Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights some years ago... There are plenty to choose from. This report is about Sêmîazâz (Created on 15 November 2010 at 00:22) and it may be worth looking at some other accounts created at the time (not sure whether he creates them in batchs). It certainly looks like he may have created more accounts named after the watchers in the Book of Enoch. For example

In this case, Sêmîazâz did nothing since 15 November 2010 and has just woken up to revert edits by Supreme Deliciousness that are based on lengthy discussions and a consensus ruling by an uninvolved admin detailed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Current_Article_Issues#Settlement_illegality_text. He is also leaving genuinely bizarre and offensive edit summaries such as "Removing highly hypocritical and anti-Semitic "international community" opinion".

There may be sleepers named after the watchers.

etc, etc, there were many watchers.

Sêmîazâz was blocked for 24 hours at 06:22, 23 December 2010 by Malik Shabazz.

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

These two IPs has continued the same edits as the above by removing the consensus sentence: 75.25.30.252, 76.90.128.138 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You CU's are missing the boat here. User:JarlaxleArtemis is not Nocal. This is clear from IP range - Los Angeles is what 8 hours from Northern California - and from editing characteristics. Nocal is far more intelligent then this Jarlax dude. It went from assuming anyone on Northern California (population 7 million+) with a pro-Israel bent is Nocal to everyone in the entire California (population 37 million+) is Nocal. You guys are losing your creditability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree - it's not NoCal. Given the nasty anti-Muslim language, the personal attacks on Muslim editors, and the use of sleeper accounts from 2008 (some of which were created at the same time as known Jarlaxle accounts), this is definitely JarlaxleArtemis. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I saw identical user agents in there. Should we unblock Sêmîazâz, then? –MuZemike 07:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed. All we can do is keep blocking, as the user IP-hops all over the place. –MuZemike 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also now blocked:

Barring my comment above, the following are still  Confirmed as each other, and this is what I am precisely seeing:

We can unblock them all, if the community truly feels they are all unrelated, but this is what I see. –MuZemike 07:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm - for the record, the above bunch are all
talk · contribs) - Alison ❤ 06:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
10 January 2011
Suspected sockpuppets

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

This account showed up during a sockpuppet blitz on the MEMRI article. Starting November 2nd,a Nocal100 puppet Shen, Then? (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), and the sister account Shanghai Sally (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), joined brewcrewer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) in a series of reverts. After some low quality filibustering it disappeared. Only to re-appear, coming again to brewcrewer's aid for a third time in a minor controversy, nicely preventing any 1RR violations and then filed the RSN request I'd been asking brewcrewer to submit if wanted agreement on the section in question. At first I thought it actually was brewcrewer filing the RSN, as he'd just re-added the offending edit and was only one of two editors in favor of it. The account's timing and knowledge of ongoing, obscure arguments just screams sock-puppet. The question is who's. NoCal100 seemed like the best candidate as it matches his MO. As it's RSN was constructive I decided not to file the report and risk it looking like a punitive measure until the issue was largely resolved. Sol (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added Opportunidaddy. Another sparsely used account who's edits show up in obscure I-P debates, this time in the faltering RSN made by the original suspect. Wikistalk gives it a 7/25 with brewcrewer, less than the 9/15 of the other account, and with only one tag teaming but the writing style and punctuation is similar. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree but it seemed a little too coincidental. On the plus side, at least he's arguing his case.

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Opportunidaddy is Red X Unrelated. –MuZemike 15:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

06 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

A similar pattern with this user showing up at seemingly random times to request enforcement of ARBPIA against others shared with socks such as Mr. Hicks The III. Additionally, common articles with similar edits to past socks. The below is not a comprehensive list.

nableezy - 21:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another similarity that this user shares with past socks is the behavior exhibited when attempting to get another user blocked. This user, and past socks, will show up after an absence to report a user in the middle of an ongoing edit war, on occasion taking part in it to push the reverts to the required limit. Look at, for example, this series of edits. After a two week absence, the user reverts another users revert. The user waits for another revert, and then quickly proceeds to head over to AN3 where he reports the prior user for edit warring. This is a pattern seen in a number of NoCal's socks. Compare for example Mr Hicks The III's contribution here. More examples of similar behavior can be easily found. nableezy - 01:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is another giveaway that I would rather not share publicly as it may help NoCal evade detection in the future. Would whatever checkuser or clerk looking at this please let me know how I should send this information. nableezy - 06:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And based on this same giveaway, I have add Rym torch. It has been said that the user edits with a mobile device (perhaps a Blackberry (RIM) Torch), but I think the evidence I can provide might be enough that a CU is not needed. nableezy - 07:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically request that any evidence that I sent to the clerks not be forwarded to any user that is not a CU or an SPI clerk. Additionally, if a clerk could remind users that there is a section for comments by others and perhaps move the below to that section it would be most appreciated. nableezy - 22:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved AgadaUrbanit   
Haunted attractions in northern California

I find it really disruptive that some editors abuse Wikipedia anonymity principle in order to come back time after time as illegal socks into controversial edit topic areas. Abusive cases are common and only fuel negative trends that we observe there, specifically in P-I area, which User:Tzu Zha Men admits as his topic. Banned users should not edit Wikipedia and though there is a procedure for legalization after chill out time. I would not recommend coming back to the same topic area, contributing to other topics of this project would be most likely more productive. I'd appreciate the evidence forwarded also to me via email, though I am not an administrator and my opinion does not matter. Please notify me about email delivery if found acceptable on my talk page. In any case that administrators should find the behavior evidence as convincing and everybody has a smartphone now, and other ways to change IP, I am clearly asking this particular editor again not to come back into articles relating to this conflict currently subject to active arbitration remedies since 2008. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

I edit in the I-P area, devoting most of my efforts there to the creation of new article on BOTH sides of the conflict, such as

WP:AE. Looking over that complaint, I saw he was as guilty of violations of the same restriction he was complaining of as the other editor, and reported him. This is a bad-faith attempt at getting back at me for this. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  Clerk endorsed - I'm not sure about this, but I'm endorsing for a look. Nableezy, feel free to email me whatever you have and I'll pass it along as necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as an update: Nableezy emailed me, and I think his evidence is fairly sound. This checkuser should be run. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The technical evidence is  Inconclusive. Any actions will need to be based on behavior/evidence. TNXMan 18:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just wondering if there's any data in the CU logs or did you just check the two accounts listed above? T. Canens (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can someone forward me the evidence? T. Canens (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with Tnxman307's analysis. Does not seem terribly likely to be NoCal100, and not possible to draw a conclusion about any relationship between the two accounts listed in this SPI for technical reasons. Risker (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: This is being looked at by several individuals in tandem. Results will be forthcoming. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I've discussed this with Shirik and Risker. Basically, there's no usable technical evidence here (except that the DSL ISP here didn't seem to match NC100's old ISP). Going on behavior, for reasons that I won't
    discuss in depth in public, having considered Nableezy's evidence both above and sent to me in email, I'm satisfied that it is more likely than not that TZM and Rym torch, at least, are the same person, and that there's a reasonable probability that they are NC100. Accordingly, I'm blocking both accounts indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
17 May 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

Rym torch was blocked as a sock of NoCal 100. New editor Red Stone Arsenal was set up on April 26 and shares Rym torch's obsessive focus on POV issues in articles about Israel. After a flurry of edits on April 26 and 27, Red Stone Arsenal disappeared until May 16, two days after the sock-block of two different NoCal 100 socks, Rym torch and Tzu Zha Men.

The "duck evidence" here is Red Stone Arsenal's familiarity with and following up on a discussion of Start-up Nation at RSN, archived here. This discussion occurred between May 2 and May 5. Rym torch took part but Red Stone Arsenal had made zero edits anywhere between April 27 and May 16, so it is hard to guess how he even knew of the discussion. But he is able to find it in the archive and quote it to support his own view of the discussion.

One early edit was to revert a change by Nableezy, somebody Rym Torch has strikingly feuded with, see Nableezy's complaint at Rym Torch's talk page.

I notice that Roland R suggested Red Stone Arsenal is a sock of User:AFolkSingersBeard, who was banned on April 19 for abusing multiple accounts. I am not familiar enough with that case to make a comparison of the edits involved. What all these editors have in common is that their edits show little interest in building an encyclopedia but much focus on pushing POV into articles about Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original investigation ended with a block of the puppeteer, but this suspected sock had by then stopped editing, and was not blocked. It was suggested at the time that AFolkSingersBeard was itself another sock of serial sockpuppeteer
WP:AE, this restriction on a successful puppet identifier clears the way for more socks to emerge. Over the past couple of days, we have seen a big surge in sockpuppetry on related articles, and it is patently obvious that RSA is a disruptive POV sockpuppet, though whether of NoCal, of AFSB or of LDH is as yet not clear. RolandR (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
And Red Stone Arsenal seems to have stopped editing on May 17 as well, so perhaps indirectly this SPI accomplished something. But I do not see why Nableezy should be blocked from sockpuppetry investigations. I have never seen evidence of any disruption in that area, only of general benefit to the project. betsythedevine (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Red Stone Arsenal returned to editing on 6 June. This investigation is not yet over. RolandR (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Sighhh, this was already checked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AFolkSingersBeard/Archive. Seems betsy ain't here to build an encyclopedia , but to harass those with a different POV. My familairity with the discussion about

WP:RSN, and long before betsy ever heard of it. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't have much expertise at finding old SPI cases, I guess. betsythedevine (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OhanaUnited, the CU report did not even look at the possibility that these were socks of NoCal. It found that RSA was probably not a sock of AFSB. Following this, Betsy, with the support of HelloAnnyong opened this case. For what it's worth, I too agree with them that these are almost certainly part of the same abusive sock factory. The caution to Betsy is totally unwarranted. RolandR (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser reveals *ANY* accounts associated with Red Stone Arsenal (RSA) even if they're not listed in the case. Please avoid the misconception that checkuser only tries to link users mentioned within each case. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--I don't see what my not-finding-a-past-SPI-case has to do with the failure to WP:AGF that I really thought Red Stone Arsenal was the same user as Rym Torch, who was banned as a sock of NoCal 100. Furthermore, I did not mention filing this SPI anywhere other than on Red Stone Arsenal's talk page, so if I was secretly filing a fake SPI just to blacken his character I did a pretty weak job of it. I would like to request that OhanaUnited redact those

allegations about my motivation, which don't stand up to investigation. I completely agree that one should not file SPI as a weapon in content debates; I hope I will be equally ready to file an SPI if somebody on my side of an argument suddenly picks up an argument where a banned user left off. betsythedevine (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Please don't close or archive until corresponding AN/I thread is complete. (

link/permalink) Thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined This checkuser report have shown that they're unrelated per technical and behaviour evidence. User:betsythedevine, I am having a really tough time believing that you can't find previous cases because it is listed right on the main page with a big search bar and a large button that says "search all cases and archives". All you need to do is paste User:Red Stone Arsenal's name into the search bar and the result pops out. Since betsythedevine and Red Stone Arsenal have opposing POV at Start-up Nation, this case appears to be frivolous.  Clerk note: betsythedevine is hereby cautioned not to abuse the SPI process and treat it as a venue to eliminate others editors with different POV. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, consensus at AN/I and on other talk pages was clear that Betsythedevine was not abusing the SPI process and that OhanaUnited's comment about her actions was not correct. Fences&Windows 20:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: apologies to Betsy for the comment made toward her. Given the CU data in this case on Red Stone Arsenal, and the obvious lack of any inclination to take action on behavioral evidence, I am archiving this case. Best, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 days since the last clerk comment, 8 since the ANI...why are we still here? --
    (t) (e) 02:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12 October 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


The account Foo Bar Buzz Netz has, as their only edits, been either making SPIs or related edits about a user (Noisetier) or been reverting or striking the users, or IPs, edits. A past sock of NoCal100 queried FT2 in the past about (see here, which followed this) and they apparently have been communicating over e-mail about it since then. After HHH was blocked as a NoCal100 sock, a new account has picked up on the years long harassment campaign that NoCal has waged against the user in question (past usernames had been retired). It is very obvious that FBBN is a sockpuppet account with the sole purpose of harassing another editor, and that should be enough for a block, but given NoCal's infatuation with Noisetier and the contact with FT2 about that user, which has continued as FBBN, I am confident that FBBN is in fact NoCal. FT2 admitted here that FBBN had emailed him with a past account. The exchange between HHH and FT2 suggests that this was the account. If FT2 would simply come clean and say which account was used to email him initially then this could be resolved quickly. Or better yet he could just do the right thing and block FBBN as a block evading sockpuppet harassing a user in good standing. nableezy - 12:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC) 12:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FT2, if you dont wish to conflate the issues then dont. Just tell us, is FBBN the same as HupHollandHup, which is the same as NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, Mr Hicks The III, Tzu Zha Men, Rym torch, ... ? nableezy - 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly does not look like you trying to not conflate the issues. Could you please answer the question? Is HHH a past account of FBBN? nableezy - 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not plan to post my beliefs about the past account. Technically I have enough evidence to believe FBBN should not be editing. I have explicitly said this to FBBN, and also stated it on-wiki so it's unambiguous, which is what matters here, and I've told FBBN that if he wants to edit again how to go about it (that's up to him). The rest was told to me as a functionary and by email. I believe our other Checkusers are aware of the past account and if not I would be happy to inform them so they can resolve the case, or so they can disclose the past account if they feel it is appropriate. Feel free to have the last word on what you would prefer, but this page probably contains the information needed for a patrolling admin or Checkuser to decide what should happen. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a question of beliefs, it is a question of fact. Do you or do you not know if the HHH account was used by the person operating FBBN? Your evasiveness is unwarranted as nobody is asking you to reveal anything covered by the privacy policy. Nothing in that bars you from answering such a simple question as do you know if FBBN is the same person as HHH. No matter, I think it is already clear that FBBN is a NoCal sock and I await an admin to do what they are supposed to, as you are obviously unwilling to do so. nableezy - 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 said that a prior account of FBBN contacted him about the Noisetier issue. He also said that a prior account of FBBN has active sanctions against him (that alone is enough for a block of the sock, and I cannot understand how a functionary (!) has been allowing this crap to continue). HupHollandHup emailed FT2 about the issue with Noisetier, and is the sock of an account that has active sanctions against him (NoCal). I think it is fairly clear that HHH=FBBN, and given that it is already established that HHH is NoCal that relationship is likewise clear. Is there a reason this is still open and this account is not yet blocked? If a CU is really necessary, my guess is that Rym torch is going to be a close match to this account as I am pretty sure that this one is likewise editing on a mobile device. nableezy - 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all Checkusers know; it's left to them whether to make it public. I haven't blocked either side here. In fact no-one has an obligation to act on a case if they choose not to, and both open cases have probably been read by many admins now, but all of them have obviously decided not to block (yet) on either of the current cases yet. The community has the information for a patrolling admin or Checkuser who wishes to decide these SPI cases, which is what is needed for now. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two "sides" here cannot be compared. You are knowingly allowing a multiple times banned editor to continue their year long harassment campaign against a user that is, as far as I can tell, in good standing. Forgive me, but based on your blatant disregard for applying the
WP:SOCK policies against a user you know is banned from editing, I just dont believe what you have to say about some consensus that has no record anywhere on-wiki. [N]o-one has an obligation to act on a case if they choose not to?!? And you are actually a functionary?!?! Wow this place is messed up. nableezy - 14:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for
ignoring points made before. Sock policy (including scrutiny) isn't optional. Seeking agreed disclosure to other editors when a user voluntarily returns to an old topic area is not "harassment". IP socking and threats to disrupt are not "good faith" and may impact "good standing". Checkuser matters may be routinely handled off-wiki which is why all checkusers are required to identify under WMF policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for once again continuing with your oh so misplaced condescending tone. And for, again, refusing to follow your repeatedly stated intention of separating the issues of FBBN and Noisetier. You, a former arbitrator, have allowed a user that you know to be banned to continue editing. A user that had two accounts banned from commenting on the topic area that FBBN has been focused on in one arbitration case, a user who has amassed an impressive number of sockpuppets, many of which whose sole purpose has been to harass other users. Ive responded to your asinine assertions regarding Noisetier where it is relevant. But as you say below it is not relevant here. What is relevant here is that FBBN is a sockpuppet of an account that is banned from editing Wikipedia. If Sock policy is not optional then that user should be blocked. End of story. No matter how many kB of irrelevant noise you attempt to place on this page, the only things that count are that NoCal is a banned editor and that FBBN is NoCal. nableezy - 16:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, is somebody going to block this obvious sock of NoCal, an obvious sock that FT2 has admitted has active sanctions against? nableezy - 14:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

My comments on Noisetier's past SPI case may help. I have not blocked either user in the Noisetier-FBBN case (my comment). Policies fairly address both users and can be invoked by anyone, as they have been here. I think other Checkusers do know FBBN's past account but if not I'll inform any Checkuser. But to confirm, FBBN should not be editing at this time, and the fact his concerns are valid and upheld doesn't really change that. The matter of Noisetier is in the hands of other editors and FBBN should not edit the wiki even if Noisetier is active. To underline this, I emailed him details of what to do if he wants to edit again on Sept 16, it is up to him if he wishes to follow those tips. If he does, he has the information. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I would not classify the user behind FBBN as "harassing", although he is far from clean himself. Rather he started by doing the right thing in this matter and approached Checkusers with very high quality evidence which gained Checkuser consensus and agreement that his concern was upheld, and only when nothing happened, created the FBBN account. Once created the only activity of the FBBN account has apparently been to attempt to enforce the Checkusers' formal decision told to Noisetier, that Noisetier must not edit the I-P topic area as things stand. He
WP:SOCK breach after being blocked for a week at SPI. This is not relevant to FBBN's case now and does not excuse any misconduct of his own; but may be worth considering in mitigation if he wishes to edit properly again. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It is normal that you consider that FBBN doesn't perform harashment given both you and her (not him) have performed harashment for more than one year.
Among other things that will be discussed in private, you forget to mention that when your friend HupHollandHup contacted you, she edited (controversialy [27]) the articlles realted to the I-P conflict from which she was banned and you forget to mention that you provided to her private information, as she published herself on the internet.
You should be banned from wikipedia. Your whole attitude in this mess shows that you are a danger for the wikipedia community.
91.180.102.235 (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just stick to the facts, especially when the issue is emotional, as Noisetier almosty invariably did when he contributed richly to articles that were riven by hostile editing.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone really doesn't like the idea that sock policy and checkuser consensus is not optional (as explained patiently before), and that SPI case results "user X = user Y confirmed" are publicly posted for hundreds of SPI cases (as explained patiently before). The matter is and always has been in Noisetier's hands. A user serious about their privacy and trying to "clean start" is strongly advised to avoid the topic area if it is a concern, by both as stated in sock policy and clean start policy; if they choose not to then policy is very clear their old and new accounts are at risk of being linked publicly, especially if they try to secretly return to the same topics. (As explained patiently before). Good faith users do not tend to post deliberately misleading statements, lie about past editing to functionaries, or threaten to be "wikiterrorists" if Checkusers don't agree to look the other way. (As explained patiently before). FT2 (Talk | email) 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody on this talk page posted deliberately misleadig statements, lied about past editing to functionaries or threatened to be "wikiterrist".
You know this. Everbody knows this. The fact to hammer something doesn't make this becoming truth but indeed : libel... Libelt... There will always remains something.
You behaviour is harassment (Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive (...) [and] the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantageous to the victim".
87.66.188.121 (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two things are publicly known. (1) User:NoCal100 is permabanned and yet continues to hunt and stalk editors with a relentless quest for taking scalps via socks on wikipedia. He targets good editors.(2) Noisetier was a very accomplished, neutral and prolific contributor to both the French and English wikipedia on I/P articles, where he has, by common consent, a deep command of the best sources. Whatever the mysterious exchanges in emails (something NoCal uses, but Noisetier appears to fear), the public facts are these, and should carry weight. I only know that he got upset. There is no need for him to make a 'clean start'. The only point at the moment is, a permabanned editor who caused a huge amount of disruption, with a flair for technical manipulation, has, in the view of several editors experienced in I/P issues, once more gone for Noisetier, over a few innocuous edits, and had a hearing, which appears to weigh against the erudite Noisetier while giving credence to a notorious destructive permabanned editor. The scenario is, frankly absurd. You may have evidence from emails, but the way the issue has been presented here seems tio flagrantly go against the fundamental goals of this encyclopedia. To encourage talented contributors, and keep POV-warriors from driving them out, with animus and technical gamesmanship. The thing requiring investigation is NoCal, primarily, and I see nothing being done.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's support of the psychopath FBBN is truly bizarre. Here he admits that FBBN is a sock who should not be editing, but not only doesn't he block FBBN as is obviously required but even supports him! The fact is that FBBN's sole purpose is to out an editor who has legitimate personal reasons for editing anonymously. Zerotalk 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange idea of "support" and if you have evidence of
Cleanstart policy
warns very strongly that privacy is unlikely to be protected and links to old accounts will probably be made if users return to the same dispute areas after returning - their new accounts are likely to be linked by others which is exactly the problem here, it's a known issue. I have tried to resolve it privately with Noisetier with a lot of patience and was met from the start by refusal to show any good evidence of a real privacy issue, dishonesty about past editing, and threats to sockpuppet. The policy is very clear on the likely failure and probable policy breaches of CLEANSTARTing in secret back to a dispute area one is known previously. We warn people that if they have genuine serious privacy concerns they probably should not return to the topic area, but Noisetier has insistent on doing so, and insisted on ignoring the fallback advice in the policy, that he should in confidence first agree how he will proceed with Checkusers. Your comment is badly overstepping the mark.
I offered help almost on "day 1" to Noisetier for dealing with any alleged bad faith reporting if he felt FBBN's operator was editing improperly and needed review, which Noisetier did not take up. I endorsed that the evidence related to Noisetier is valid and also that FBBN should not be editing; but I have chosen to not block either party or conflate the two matters. Policies exist to handle all issues in this case, which any user can invoke, and I suggested and invited people to do that long ago if it was needed. Being advised/suggested to act if it's needed, then "blaming" others for one's own decision not to act, is a bit silly. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the time nor patience to figure out what the charges are against Noisetier, but if a noCal100 sock is still trying to unnerve him off the English wikipedia, then some vigorous measures should be taken. I have known Noisetier, in his various guises, for over 4 years. If one must use a silly and misleading tag, he is on the 'pro-Israeli' side, I on the other. While we disagree in substance in the higher interpretation of history, I have never seen anything from him that doesn't underwrite a deep commitment to both
WP:NPOV, and to the discipline of factual history. He has excellent contacts with the Israeli historian profession, knows the subjects intimately, reads widely, deeply and closely and has been subject to unusual hounding, precisely because his reasonableness and fairness in assessing evidence is disliked. NoCal has specialized in taking out good editors like him and has had several scalps (my own included, but he went down with me at the time). Whoever he is, he is vicious and extremely determined. Noisetier was almost outed at one point, I forget the details, or feared he was being tracked down. He is very sensitive to the hostility he receives from editors on what is 'his own side'. So, please be very, very attentive to what is at stake here. Noisetier was a very valuable editor, scared off, and whatever incidents in the past tell against him, he is missed on all sides by serious article builders.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
11 August 2012
Suspected sockpuppets

Fairly obvious IP sock of NoCal, happy to email evidence if needed. nableezy - 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC) 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, feel free to e-mail me. I am not familiar withNoCal100 so I would appreciate concise and direct evidence. Amalthea 16:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, hadnt noticed this. Ill send it along, but as the IP is quite now I dont think there is much to do here. nableezy - 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Not every IP from California that don't have Pro-Palestinian bias is NoCal.--

WP:RX 05:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

And who said they were? You would be well advised to leave this alone, socking isnt a partisan issue. nableezy - 06:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And whoever claimed otherwise?--
WP:RX 06:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
The people making it one by lining up in defense of their "side" when they dont even know the evidence. nableezy - 07:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • No evidence, no service (and IP hasn't edited for two weeks). Amalthea 14:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10 January 2013
Suspected sockpuppets

Behavioral evidence that I'd rather not make public, happy to email a CU or clerk. nableezy - 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sending an email now, thanks. nableezy - 17:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Received your e-mail, will see if I can follow your argument later today. Amalthea 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

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

Wait, so you checked the accounts without any evidence? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. Simply being listed on a SPI page is never sufficient reason for a check, but I didn't really explain so I understand your concern (particularly since I saw your name listed in the archive earlier).
You will notice in the archive that I handled this SPI the last time, and already received information via e-mail back then. Comparing those tells plus doing pretty standard account comparisons gave sufficient grounds, but not for all accounts. In particular, I do not see any connection to All Rows4 (besides trivial edit summary matches and the common interest in articles related to Israel, which I pretty much disregard due to selection bias).
Amalthea 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed that

are the same. The former was blocked as a NoCal sock.
I see no direct connection from those to the other two accounts, so I will require evidence before I can consider checking them.
Amalthea 17:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blocked Dixy per contribs and CU. Waiting for evidence and further CU for other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here, but have little time right now; will look at it later today. Amalthea 11:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I will look into it in two days. :/ Sorry about that.
There are indications that they might be a match, particularly for They think it's all over. However, taking technical evidence and everything I got via e-mail (from two editors, thank you both) into account, I don't think it's conclusive at this point. I'll try to keep an eye on it, and I assume so will Nableezy. Amalthea 12:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Per the above, I'm closing this case. If further evidence turns up, feel free to file another sockpuppet investigation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
08 October 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


These might not just be NoCal's sock puppets, there is a very good chance User:AndresHerutJaim could also be running some, or all of these accounts. A comparison of articles edited, ongoing practice by these two of hounding my edits, the sudden reawakening of these sleeper accounts, plus an obviously experienced user makes these accounts obviously linked to one of the many pro israeli extremist sockpuppeters. Sepsis II (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Sepsis II (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

User:GoGoTob2 is a blocked NoCal sock. Both Firkin Flying Fox and GoGoTob2 have edited the same 2 obscure articles in the ARBPIA topic area (see [28]). Firkin Flying Fox may also related to throwaway account User:Itch Eye Bear, also used to target Sepsis II, judging from the similarity between the edit warring reports they filed here and here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or examine the following improbable coincidence at Talk:East_Germany/Archive_4#Capital_city. The initial response is from Firkin Flying Fox. The rest was handled by NoCal socks User:Jeff Song and User:Ruby Tuesday ALMWR. Note in particular a good example of NoCal's use of sockpuppetry for deception where he said "there were objections to your edit – first by 87.68.160.34, then by Firkin Flying Fox, then by Alssa1, then by Ruby Tuesday ALMWR, and now me [Jeff Song]". The editor interaction report for the 3 accounts is here. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD, would you be able to provide the UTC timestamp for one or more edits you examined made from a wifi hotspot at an airport ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I can't be certain that the edits were made from an airport, they do appear that way to me, and all of the October 7 edits were made from the same location. I'll also note that I didn't see any other suspects on that range. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Elockid, and today the Firkin Flying Fox account filed this report against Pluto2012, someone NoCal has been apparently harassing for years (...no idea why, before my time I think). Trying to settle old scores is one of NoCal's characteristics. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another improbable NoCal sock-Firkin Flying Fox intersection, at

WP:V compliant content fully supported by cited RS. It was restored by Dailycare here, another of NoCal's perceived old enemies I believe. The next edit to the article was by Firkin Flying Fox. The edit was to the same sentence, this time removing the specific words from the RS cited that were not to his taste. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I 'felt' that it was NoCal, but as I said at the edit-warring page, there was no smoking gun. That however is so exceptionally coincidental, it can't be a coincidence. Well done Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NoCal's behavior in the topic area resembles and is as puzzling as flower constancy. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add another user to this ?

The account is exhibiting typical characteristics of a NoCal sock visiting his favorite flowers.

  • [29] - immediate proximity to Supreme Deliciousness edit
  • [30] - immediate proximity to I am One of Many, an editor who previously (2013-03-05T02:42:31) reverted an edit by NoCal sock GoGoTob2 at the same article
  • [31] - immediate proximity to Supreme Deliciousness edit
  • [32] - multiple instances of proximity to Pluto2012. The Valleyofdawn account looks suspect too.
  • [33] - immediate proximity to Dlv999 edit (who had reverted an edit by Kipa Aduma, Esq., another suspect account)
  • [34] - immediate proximity to Zero0000 edit
  • [35] - immediate proximity to Dlv999 edit.
  • [36] - immediate proximity to Dlv999 edit.

This kind of behavior, following these editors (among others), is very characteristic of a NoCal, and his MO is to use multiple socks in parallel. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • {{DiffsNeeded}} ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you - there is now enough evidence for a check, but unfortunately, the only edits I can see by Firkin Flying Fox appear to have been made from a wifi hotspot at an airport. I am endorsing this for checks by another CU more familiar with NoCal100. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a swing at it, I'm in the same boat as DoRD. NativeForeigner Talk 21:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing conclusive I got was that Jennifer Worth (talk · contribs) is a  Possible match. Considering that they have been found to be editing from an airport (on multiple occasions actually), I would not be surprised if this user is trying to edit from different locations to try and seem like different users. This would explain the gaps in the editing history. Elockid(Boo!) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
01 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


See [37]. Rschen7754 05:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
22 November 2013
Suspected sockpuppets


Andres is a prolific sockpuppeter, his puppets always target the IP articles, reverting the edits of a certain group of editors, and he often uses sleeper account such as this one which just woke up. There is little evidence which can be used to show this is Andres other than how he edits as his accounts don't stay around long enough to overlap articles. He runs multiple socks at a time, each making a spasm of edits, then going back to sleep. Elockid seems to be most familiar with Andres accounts. Sepsis II (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Sepsis II (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
29 March 2014
Suspected sockpuppets

The IP reverted two of my edits [38][39], I reverted back for numerous policy reasons as well as that the IP was likely Nocal100 based on editing behaviour and IP location, then this John Paris Circle account was created, their first and only two edits were the same reverts as made by the IP. It is extremely likely that this user has other active accounts so please do check for them. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I don't know about the John Paris Circle account but I think NoCal is probably operating several sporadically used accounts at the moment. That's his usual MO as you can see here. Stuck in SD with Yaming is an account that springs to mind. It's making the kind of edits NoCal makes tracking the usual perceived enemies Dailycare, Zero, Dlv999, Sepsis etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  •  On hold - You have provided evidence for John Paris Circle = 128.32.198.212, but not why either of these is NoCal100. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk declined - after no response. Rschen7754 20:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I'm closing this case. The only connection between NoCal100 (who was blocked back in 2009) and the IP is an edit to the falafel article. This edit from the IP is trying to change the lead to say the dish is "Middle Eastern" rather than "Arab". This edit from NoCal100 is inserting a reference to a Jewish recipe blog (not even changing the content of the article). That is the closest overlap they have, which to me is pretty much "none". Therefore, it's impossible to connect the dots between an indefinitely-blocked editor (NoCal100) and John Paris Circle (who may be the IP, but that is no policy violation). I'm marking this case for closure, no action needed. -- Atama頭 22:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
06 July 2015
Suspected sockpuppets


All Rows4 was brought up in the past, along with two other users that ended up being blocked. I think there is additional evidence that substantiates a link between NoCal100 and his extensive sockfarm and with this user and would like this looked at again. Whoever is looking at this let me know and I'll be glad to email the evidence. nableezy - 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 20:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its behavioural evidence, and given how dedicated the user has been in socking Id rather not give him additional tips on how to get away with it. As far as who to run the CU against, the last sock blocked was I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk · contribs), but I think there are a few CUs that have some data on NoCal stored elsewhere. You can see for example in this report jpgordon was able to run a CU and compare it with past data. nableezy - 21:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize Ive presented no evidence, and I dont intend to offer a course to NoCal on things he should avoid so that he isnt caught. You can see in the archive I dont exactly have a track record of making spurious accusations regarding this user's socks, and most of the cases have had the evidence emailed to a CU or a clerk. Its been a while since Ive filed one of these so if that is no longer an allowed practice so be it, but I dont see why one should divulge publicly a users behavioral patterns so that they can modify them in the future. nableezy - 21:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do HJMitchell. nableezy - 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: email sent. nableezy - 19:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

I am not a sock puppet, and these allegations, presented without any evidence, are baseless. They seem to be part of a multi-year campaign that the filer has been waging against me. As @Amalthea: has previously looked at the "evidence", and concluded "I do not see any connection to All Rows4 (besides trivial edit summary matches and the common interest in articles related to Israel, which I pretty much disregard due to selection bias)." [40], I'd ask that he review the current e-mail "evidence", as well. All Rows4 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea said that before they received additional evidence. After receiving the past evidence and running a check he or she said I don't think it's conclusive at this point. Not quite the same. HJ, by all means send whatever I sent to you on to Amalthea. Oh, and there is evidence, just not publicly posted here. nableezy - 19:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
  • @Nableezy: Why is it necessary to e-mail the evidence? Also, assuming there is new persuasive evidence, what would I run a CU against? Do you know of a non-stale puppet? It doesn't leap out at me when looking at the archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nableezy:} I invented "it's not you, it's me" is  Stale. Jpgordon made his finding five years ago, and he doesn't say how he did it. I'm declining the CU. In my view, you should present evidence here, but if the clerk who reviews this wants to accept evidence by e-mail, that's up to them. At this point, you've presented no evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

19 August 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

In regards to the long term abuse of the sockmaster, for

WP:BEANS reasons, I would not like to give evidence publicly. Happy to email it to a clerk/CU. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Email sent to HJ Mitchell. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Already blocked. Closing the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note I'm reopening case as the closure appears in error. The current block was for the dust up with now former admin Malik Shabazz, not for socking, and Brad is asking for an unblock. As such, a determination needs to be made here by a separate admin before it can fully dealt with at the user's page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FUNC). I'm putting this on hold until the evidence is sent. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Kingsindian: As Vanja says, the functionaries' list is a good place to send private evidence. I'm familiar with NoCal, and I'm also happy to receive it personally (hjmitchell at ymail dot com) or I can read it from that list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HJ Mitchell: Have you received the evidence? What's going on? Vanjagenije (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the account being blocked for separate matters and no update on the private evidence, i'm closing this case for now. We can revisit the issue if the account is unblocked or if there are other suspected socks. Mike V • Talk 01:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14 September 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


First edit after registering is to edit in opposition to Tiamut on an obscure page, a user NoCal has a long history of hounding. Other behavioral evidence I'd rather not publicly post, though if HJ Mitchell were to look at the last evidence I emailed to him it applies to this user as well. Nableezy 18:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Looks like this user has been suspected of being NoCal100 earlier but was inconclusive. I am resubmitting this. Typical NoCal behaviour here, very reminiscient of All Rows4 here: long dormant account reactivated for taking sides with a new user against old editors on the "other side", like Nishidani and Zero. Earlier activity was similar, targeting Pluto2012's edits here. As an aside, HJ Mitchell, since the Brad Dyer case is dragging on, may I also suggest that this user be CU'd against them, in addition to the confirmed sock All Rows4? The behaviour is very similar to here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the user being "supported" here was banned as a sockpuppet - (I have my doubts about whether they are really a sockpuppet) - but the behaviour of FFF is very similar to the All Rows4 sock who was supporting a sock of Wlglunight93. That may not mean much, since so many editors in this area are socks, but something to keep in mind. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "typical NoCal behaviour"? All I see there is someone disagreeing with your POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by disagreeing with my POV, since I didn't even participate on the Tel Rumeida page (I have no interest in it). Perhaps you mean the All Rows4 case. The typical behaviour is taking sides with a "new" editor, against the usual gaggle of old editors on the "other side". Insisting on "equality of sources", passive-aggressive goading behaviour (stating that the other person lacks reading comprehension is one obvious case, but there are many more). There, I have already given lots of
WP:BEANS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
What you just described fits so many editors in the topic area, you'd need a whole fresh set if that was the basis for blocking people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be great if we had a process where an editor gives their suspicions and qualified admins with helper tools decide if it is enough? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Firkin Flying Fox is  Inconclusive due to the use of open proxy (and satellite) services. The user agent is different to two other socks I checked though. Moving to open queue for behavioural analysis. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to close this. The account is currently inactive, the checkuser finding was inconclusive, and the behavioural evidence is not strong enough in my opinion. I'll close in a few days unless anyone wants to present new evidence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CU results are inconclusive, as is behavioral evidence. Open proxies are (I guess) blocked by Callanecc, so there is nothing more to do here. I'm closing the case. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

29 October 2015

Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral evidence happy to email. @HJ Mitchell: past emails apply here as well, a few other things I can send that further supports a connection. nableezy - 17:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Simply pinging Nableezy to make them aware of HJ Mitchell's response, in case they haven't seen it. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the 7th edit he's familiar with vandalism here. The summary on his 9th edit was "take it to the talk page" here. His 24th edit was moving a page here. His 34th and 36th edit was referencing RSN here and here. After only a few weeks of regular editing he seems proficient in using Twinkle and PRODing articles here, the list goes on...
Also, there has been a number of IPs which have also made this claim here and here.
Nableezy has a lot of experience spanning six years with this master, so I suggest taking that into account. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tanbircdq: I agree that it's very likely that his isn't the editor's first account (see my comments below), but even in this topic area "not the editor's first account" is not necessarily synonymous with "NoCal sock". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so has Nableezy's email of behavioural evidence actually been received and reviewed by anyone? What about the fact that there's IPs who've been making the same accusation here and here. I'm guessing this isn't Nableezy as he's not edited those pages previously. Is a CheckUser going to be performed to find out if he's controlling any other accounts? Tanbircdq (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry got busy, never sent the email. Ill try to get to it by the end of the week. nableezy - 23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: sent nableezy - 22:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Happy to receive any evidence by email, but I'm not currently convinced. Without
    saying too much, there are some traits that are consistent with NoCal, but others that aren't. My gut feeling is that this isn't the editor's first account, but I'm not seeing anything that conclusively links them to NoCal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've received the email. I'm becoming more convinced, and have asked on the functionaries list for a checkuser to have a look in the hope that technical evidence can shed more light on things. Given the season, this may have to stay open for a little bit longer to allow for slower replies from everyone involved. I may not be about tomorrow and am within minutes of shutting down for the night, but will attempt to look in on Sunday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HJ Mitchell: I've stayed clear of this case for a variety of reasons. However, what are you asking a CheckUser to do? A check of the user only in the hope that another account is found? Do you have a non-stale account to compare the user to?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoCal is prolific and disruptive enough that if there isn't data on him on the CU wiki for comparison with suspected socks, there should be. I may have what I need now, though, thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HJ Mitchell: Okay, but I've done some more probing, which gave me some good technical data, albeit not complete. I don't know what you have, but I'm prepared to block if you believe the behavioral evidence is persuasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for being slightly crytpic, @Bbb23:, I sent you an email. I was waiting for a second opinion on the behavioural evidence; I'm pretty confident having seen their recent edits, I was just a little wary of confirmation bias. If you think that, in conjunction with the technical evidence, is enough then by all means go ahead and block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10 September 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Behavioral evidence happy to email. @HJ Mitchell: if youre still willing to look at these Ill email you shortly. nableezy - 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to avoid publicly posting information that NoCal can use to modify his behavior to evade detection in the future. As you can see from the archive this is not a once in a while sock master, this is years of ban evasion. It isn't the type of private material that needs to go to the functional list, but all the same I'd rather not give NoCal a blueprint on things to avoid doing in the future. nableezy - 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{ping|Bbb23} I'm not playing a game, and I'll send the email to the functionaries list. The idea that evidence on a long term sock master must be publicly posted so as to give that persistent problem a blueprint on what to avoid is mind boggling. I have never once opened an SPI without presenting evidence, I just don't present it in a public forum when the user is a long term sock master and has shown every indication of continuing to come back to cause further disruption. Please re open the case and I'll send the email today. nableezy - 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • @Nableezy: Unless the behavioral evidence involves sensitive information (personal information, emails, logs, etc.), please post it here on the SPI case page. If so, please email the functionary team at functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Otherwise, the case may be closed without prejudice. Mike V • Talk 19:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Additional information needed - Pending response from Nableezy, this should be removed from the "open" queue. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nableezy: We've played this dance before. Do you know how many socks we have that have been active - many more active than this one - for years? Yet those cases aren't exempt from the requirement that evidence must be presented. You're saying the information isn't sensitive enough (I believe you) to send to the functionaries list, but you don't want to post it publicly. In the past HJ has helped you out, but that hasn't happened here for whatever reason. I'm closing the case. You can reopen it if there is evidence for us to look at.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold - Waiting for Bbb23 or some of the Checusers to respond to the content of e-mail. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been no e-mail received from Nableezy by the functionaries list. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 October 2016

Suspected sockpuppets


Past NoCal socks have operated in tandem, with one editing mostly outside of working hours of the US west coast and the other working during working hours. You can see this here with NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey

That pattern was continued with a number of socks working mostly during working hours (this has Canadian Monkey, Millmoss, They think_it's_all_over and GoGoTob2) and others mostly outside of working hours (this shows NoCal100 Dixy_flyer LoverOfTheRussianQueen HupHollandHup)

I think this was continued with Bad Dryer and Epson Salts, shown together here with the NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey pair).

Besides the timing of the edits, there is a similarity with multiple past NoCal socks, capitalizing the t in talk in their edit summaries, eg: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Edits from past socks: NoCal100 [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]

Canadian Monkey [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]

I am Dr. Drakken: [68] [69] [70]

HupHollandHup: [71] [72] [73] [74] nableezy - 21:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC) 21:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: what type of behavioral evidence would justify a CU? What exactly are you looking for, as less evidence than this has gotten checks for this sockmaster in the past. What is it that you are looking for? There are common interests, similar argumentation style, common time zones, even common times during the week between accounts. What else do I need to present to justify a CU? nableezy - 23:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Ill compile that today (and today means today promise). I think the problem here is the CUs that had previously dealt with this had more familiarity with NoCal so I didnt spend the time getting the diffs on that, its obvious to people who have dealt with him, but I hadnt considered that not all the CUs have the same familiarity with each sockmaster. As far as socks, Bad Dryer was never confirmed as NoCal, but Courcelles said it was a possible here. Im not sure if that is also stale. nableezy - 16:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of articles in common between Epson Salts and past NoCal socks, but Im going to focus on the odder ones.

Outside of the ARBPIA topic area, there are further similarities.

I'll be adding more on similarities in style a bit later. nableezy - 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23, sorry for not putting this together to begin with, I wasnt sure what you were looking for. Future reports will be more complete. nableezy - 20:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: one last question, sorry, would it be appropriate to tag Bad Dryer as well? nableezy - 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I told Nableezy that the above evidence is insufficient to justify a CU. At the same time, I told him I would let a clerk or administrator evaluate the behavioral evidence. I have therefore declined the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nableezy: You provided express evidence for two things: edit timing and the capitalization of t in Talk in edit summaries. You said nothing about "common interests" or "similar argumentation style". Core behavioral evidence includes showing that the users edited the same articles (or at least the same topic areas in a way that was unusual), that they edited with the same POVs, that they supported each other in discussions, either directly or indirectly, and that they used certain phrases on Talk pages. Your kind of evidence is minor and has almost no value by itself but might when added to core behavioral evidence. You also have a steeper road to climb because the previous socks are  Stale, as far as I know (do you know of one that isn't?), meaning I have nothing to compare Epson Salts against.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nableezy: The behavioral evidence isn't really for CUs but for clerks. It's not that a CU can't evaluate the evidence, but generally they don't. Bad Dryer (talk · contribs · count) is not stale; they have three non-stale edits because they protested their block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


Firkin Flying Fox was previously found to be editing behind open proxies in this investigation and went dormant when those proxies were closed. When this account became active again the rules had changed for editing in the ARBPIA topic area such that a minimum of 500 edits were needed. Which were achieved by such strings of edits as this and this, making trivial edits in a short period of time like the 11 edits instead of 1. Anywho, having reached 500 edits the user has returned to the ARBPIA topic area. An even earlier report (here) provides additional evidence and a check then only showed the user editing from an airport. As the user is again active and the last report was shelved due to his inactivity I'm requesting a check now. Nableezy 07:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case nobody wants to go back into the archive, here was the evidence previously presented demonstrating a link for a check, with updated links for the broken tools there: User:GoGoTob2 is a blocked NoCal sock. Both Firkin Flying Fox and GoGoTob2 have edited the same 2 obscure articles in the ARBPIA topic area (see [76]).

Both having made the same exact edit multiple times:

Or examine the following improbable coincidence at Talk:East_Germany/Archive_4#Capital_city. The initial response is from Firkin Flying Fox. The rest was handled by NoCal socks User:Jeff Song and User:Ruby Tuesday ALMWR. At the actual article FFF has made the same edit as a blocked NoCal sock:

Similar edits to RTA at another article:

Similar edits to Jeff Song at another article:

Similar edits with Canadian Monkey regarding statements by Benjamin Netanyahu about the 9/11 attacks:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nableezy (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional coincidences:

nableezy - 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the note under Huldra #2 is most damning to me. We all know each other pretty well by now, and just as I can remember things NoCal has said by tone so too can he. He remembered a line from a dispute with Nishidani from that page when he was IP socking then (previous IP that was claimed by a NoCal sock same area), with his typical MO of following Huldra, or Nishidani, or Zero, or myself, and making comments like I don't believe I've ever seen such a bald-faced lie on Wikipedia before. He remembered the response, but didnt remember it happened with not FFF but with an IP sock. Why would FFF have any knowledge of that page or dispute? That talk page averages 1 view a day this year. Compare that comment with FFF: "outright lie". nableezy - 08:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Comment by Nishidani

Nableezy. I think of the four comparisons above the first and second are identical. Looking at the others, two are particularly strong because the articles are far from mainstream, and it looks extremely odd for FFF to share the same interest in them that a known sock has.

  • At Ileana Ros-Lehtinen FFF is alternating with a sock. But at
  • At Pariah state FFF essentially repeat the sock Jeff Song'ed edit( Revision as of 01:11, 20 March 2012) almost 2 years later (Revision as of 14:47, 13 March 2014). It stretches the imagination to think of this as coincidental.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Shrike

There is nothing unusual in removing statement that Israel is Pariah state by person that have Israeli POV.--Shrike (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@Bbb23 and DoRD: Can It still be checked if he editing under a proxy or from airport?--Shrike (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were found to be doing both at different times in the archives. I doubt the CUs will run another check as it's unlikely to shed any more light. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Beyond My Ken

FWIW, NoCal and FFF show overlaps on four articles:

Gaza War (2008–09). [77] The last is one of the articles that NoCal00 edited the most in their short career: 30 out of 1,412 article edits (their 3rd most frequent article edited). [78]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

comment by 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, starting with the ones recently added to the FFF-Nocal "evidence" by Nableezy:

  1. Giv'on HaHadasha typically gets 5-15 page views but has been edited by both
  2. Beitar Illit sees less than a hundred views a day, but has been edited by both
  3. Ezra Nawi averages 18 views but has been edited by both

In fact the users share a whopping 793 (!!) articles in common, [79], including such obscure articles in unrelated areas as Shrek (Saj bread) with less than 20 daily views, or Wadi_al-Arayis with less than a single page view per day.

I could easily construct such "evidence" lists for Nishidani and Nableezy, Huldra and Zero0000 and many others.

So no, the article overlap is no "coincidence", but neither is it evidence of socking. What it obviously shows is that in the I-P areas, much like any other politically charged topic, there are groups of editors from both sides of the issue who are drawn to the same articles, and edit them from a certain similar POV, and they likely get to these articles , including "obscure" ones by following each others' contributions- not in a canvassing or otherwise coordinated effort - but by simply looking at what their like-minded editors are doing, and joining them. This is no great mystery , the editors are explicit that this is what they are doing - e.g "I follow Huldra's page, noted that a DYK article was mentioned there, and read over the page, and made some elementary improvements basically in style and grammar" - [80] Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Huldra

I am 100% fine with any CU checking me, I edit from a fixed land line.... The only ones of the 4 mentioned above (Nishidani, Nableezy, Zero0000 and me) who are on the same continent, AFAIK, are Nishidani and me....and we are in the opposite ends of our continent. Actually, AFAIK, none of the three others have ever even been to my country.... so please go ahead and check us! Huldra (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Shrike#2

@Huldra: But the evidence here is behavioral not CU.The fact that you have the same POV with the three other users that you mention doesn't mean that your socks and that FFF argument(whatever he is right or wrong)--Shrike (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Huldra#2

@

Talk:Mausoleum of Abu Huraira. Now that is interesting.....as FFF never edited that article...or talk page, or anything at all around December 2017. Which makes me go looking for who did edit that talk page.... And I get this IP: 207.246.100.114 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) ...and surprise, surprise: it geolocates to California....Huldra (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment by Nishidani#2

About 95% of the sockpuppets in the I/P area have one POV, and it isn't 'Palestinian'. There are, my my estimation, three operating now. One puts up with the attrition mostly, without complaint. The function is to make the I/P area even more dysfunctional that it is now, where edit-warriors are numerous (by edit warrior I mean anyone with a high revert rate vs constructive contributions, whose edit summaries are subjective and, ultimately, pretextual) Given the toxicity, I commend zero tolerance of anyone who mechanically gets past 30/500 drops in, and basically goes to controversial articles to elide, erase, or complicate otherwise simple issues. Quite a few editors turn up and simply, while having a clear POV, don't do that. It is classic sock/meatpuppet behavior, and though hard to prove (one feels these things instinctively but that is meaningless in terms of fair judicial assessment), it is not hard to see that such editors have no encyclopedic interests, and therefore their presence is pointless.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Some checkuser magic pixie dust would be lovely, but do we have anything non-stale to compare FFF to? Perhaps someone could look and see if there's anything on the CU wiki? I'm reasonably confident this is a NoCal sock, and very confident that it's someone with a longer history than this account; the lack of familiarity with the relatively new 30/500 requirements would support the hypothesis that it's a banned user behind the account. I agree that the overlap above is too strong to dismiss as mere coincidence, and there's evidence in the archives of FFF frequenting NoCal's known haunts, editing from an airport and proxies (as NoCal has been known to do). I'd say this is possibly, bordering on likely, NoCal but it's been a while since I looked at NoCal and I'd really like input from another admin familiar with case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, this is going to have to be decided using behavioral evidence. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree and have formally declined the CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked further into this, I'm confident enough to block FFF. The combination of relitigating old disputes and familiarity with the other editors in the topic area (for what would appear to be a fairly inexperienced editor) and repeating the edits of/tag-teaming with previous NoCal socks is fairly conclusive, as is Huldra's comment #2. I haven't had time to look into the report below yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17 June 2018

Suspected sockpuppets


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:

Common articles with past socks:

This user I believe combines with the Firkin Flying Fox user, but I personally doubt a CU will find a solid connection as they appear to edit on different days exclusively. You can see here that FFF will edit for a period, then stop with FF with AR then beginning to edit, then stop, and so on. There is one period where they went FFF-AR-FFF on back-to-back-to-back days, but it generally has a prolonged period with each user going dormant when the other is active. Nableezy 20:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive/1&oldid=1142566740"