Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive

Add links
From 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:

01 February 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Similar style in edits and tone as past socks.

Common articles with past socks:

Besides the above there is the general common tone between the socks, though that is more difficult to give a set of diffs for. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Nableezy 15:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is more sporadic than prior socks, but even with that this user appears to be editing in the same time periods as past socks/sock pairs, compare The Kingfisher with for example NoCal100/Canadian Monkey, Epson Salts/Bad Dryer or Firkin Flying Fox. nableezy - 16:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

I invite you to peruse the archive of this page. This isnt supposed to be another forum for the defense of an ally. Your note is of literally zero relevance here. nableezy - 16:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • The overlap with previous socks is very interesting. I don't think we have a non-stale sock to compare to. There ought to be notes on the CU wiki but I don't know if there are. Perhaps a CU could take a look? @Bbb23: Sorry to nominate you and feel free to pass but your name is in the most recent archives more than any other active checkuser. Tim Canens used to be my go-to checkuser for NoCal but he hasn't been active lately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, @Bbb23:, fixing ping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell:  In progress. No promises, but I'll see what I can do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This was previously archived without comment. As the editor stopped editing for a while I left it alone, but as the editor has returned, and provided additional evidence in his edits, I am again requesting this be looked at.

Same general editing times as past socks, eg Attack Ramon, NoCal100, LoverOfTheRussianQueen

Common tone and language from past socks. Note that some diffs are repeated in different sections when they are examples of multiple commonalities.

Comments such as "this is policy" and "you need to", "you are required to":

", per policy" with the comma before for effect apparently.

Making the same argument on an assumed consensus for material having been in the article previously requiring that material to stay in an article, ignoring ONUS:

Capital T in talk in edit summaries (just a sample of accounts, true for nearly all of them, some have very limited number of edit summaries to compare though):

Common articles with past socks:

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Note - very similar to report against Attack Ramon in the archives here at 17 June 2018 - closed "Closing with no action by Bbb23.Icewhiz (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I said that in my opening line. nableezy - 03:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

05 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

User:Snooganssnoogans has suggested that this is the same editor as that behind the suspected sock User:The Kingfisher. I think the only fair way to settle this is to bring it here. The evidence is that UberVegan began editing 2 months after The Kingfisher was blocked and that "Both of you appear to have an obsession with adding 'this person is anti-semitic' content and running interference for anti-Muslim groups and individuals. Your edit summaries are similar, with both accounts saying "fx", "cmt", "cl", "qst", "+links", "-->" and adding "+" without a space before adding a comment in edit summaries.", that both added content to pages about how someone is engaging in anti-semitism[9], which is what the other editor also did. Both of you edited the page of the activist Ami Horowitz (known for pushing falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Muslims), and both of you edited the 'Jewish activism' sub-section of Ben Hecht, a screenwriter active from the 1920s-1960s." Also that "Both you and the other editor have also made around 20 edits each to the Michael Moore page, including making pretty much the same edit, with the same edit summary.[10][11]". UberVegan's response was not exactly constructive, but hopefully since I've brought this here instead of Snooganssnoogans they'll be calmer if they respond here. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to flesh things out a bit more: In terms of articles, UV has only made edits to approximately 27 articles (not counting drafts, talk pages and admin boards), and has happened to edit three of the same pages as KF (Michael Moore, the fairly obscure anti-Muslim activist Ami Horowitz and a fairly obscure screenwriter/playwright active more than 50 years ago, Ben Hecht). So, there's already a greater than 10% overlap. In terms of themes: they added supportive content to the pages of anti-Muslim activists and added content suggesting that others are being antisemitic. UV has edited Gatestone Institute, Nina Rosenwald and Ami Horowitz, whereas KF edited the likes of Daniel Pipes and Pamela Geller. Both have added content suggesting that a figure or org is dabbling in anti-semitism: UV[12], KF[13][14]. So, not only is there an a greater than 10% overlap in articles edited, but a large share of UV's editing is on the same themes (anti-Muslim individuals/groups and antisemitic individuals/groups). Both of them are also edit-warriors. Furthermore, this is not uncommon, but both users write "antisemitic" rather than "anti-semitic" in edit summaries, which indicates additional consistency in writing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Do I need to start a separate sockpuppet investigation to see if JBlackCoffee52[15] is also a sock of this sockmaster? JBlackCoffee52 also has in common with UV that he has edited the Michael Moore page and the Gatestone Institute. I don't really have time to sift through edit summaries and check on other NoCal socks to see similarities. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to User:Snooganssnoogans insinuation above or here. However, they are now put on notice that in the near future, I will be filing a meatpuppetry investigation into User:Snooganssnoogans based on UberVegan's edits on their talk page. JBlackCoffee52 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Likely to previous socks,  Confirmed to The Kingfisher (talk · contribs · count). Blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

JBC, UberVegan and The Kingfisher[16] have all edited the Michael Moore page, including JBC adding a quote from a Variety review of one of Moore’s films[17], which is the exact same thing that UberVegan did[18]. Kingfisher also added reviews of Moore films. Both UberVegan and JBC have edited the Gatestone Institute page, making similar edits and similar talk page comments (both engage in straight-up gaslighting).[19] Both JBC and Attack Ramon (a suspected sock) have edited the page of an obscure Israeli defense contractor, Elbit Systems.[20] JBC, Breein1007 (suspected) and All Rows4 (suspected) have edited the Golan Heights talk page.[21][22]. JBC, Tzu Zha Men (blocked sock of NoCal), Momma's Little Helper (confirmed), Breein1007 (suspected) and Canadian Monkey (confirmed) have edited Template talk:Did you know[23][24][25][26]. Both JBC and HupHollandHup have edited the Oliver Stone page, with JBC wanting to call him a “conspiracy theorist”[27] while HHH wanted to call him an anti-semite[28]. I can’t check more sock puppet overlaps because the editor interaction analyser doesn’t work properly for me right now. Beyond the overlap, in terms of themes, JBC typically adds content that attacks “anti-Israeli” / “anti-Semitic” groups, individuals and actions[29][30], while running interference for anti-Muslim groups, individuals and actions (such as the Gatestone Institute), which is what all of NoCal's socks do as well. I haven’t checked any edit summaries but there may be unique overlapping terms used in those. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

 Confirmed, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


As with other NoCal100 socks, this user edits a lot of pages related to cinema, but also appears to have an anti-Muslim bent[31][32] and an interest in anti-semitism.[33] The editor has overlapped with some of the socks (I don't have the time to look up every NoCal sock because there are dozens of them): [34][35][36][37] The editor has in his entire editing career made three edits on the Admin noticeboard for incidents: in two of those instances the editor voted along with two confirmed NoCal socks, UberVegan[38] and JBlackCoffee52[39] to have me banned. The third edit made by that user on the admin noticeboard for incidents is hidden in the logs, so I can't tell if he's voting in tandem with other users. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

What a pantload. Before getting the ping on my talk page about this, I'd never heard of NoCal100. CheckUser or do whatever for this - I don't care. Also Snooganssnoogans, you can go ahead and strike that awful "anti-Muslim bent" personal attack, which is as baseless as this SPI. - DoubleCross (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]


20 December 2019

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


This editor immediately appeared on the Gatestone Institute page to argue after two NoCal100 socks were exposed on that page. This editor made the same argument on the talk page as those socks, namely that the organization should not be described as anti-Muslim. Like typical NoCal100 socks, the focus is on defending anti-Muslims and on accusing others of anti-Semitism.[40] The editor has also edited cinema-related pages, consistent with NoCal100 socks.[41] The editor also edits pages related to Israel, weaponry and warfare. In only 46 edits, there are considerable overlaps in behavior between this user and typical NoCal100 socks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 April 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The editor 'The bandoleer' edits in a similar pattern as the long-term abuser NoCal100.[42] The editor fits the following NoCal100 characteristics: (i) run interference for anti-Muslim groups and individual, (ii) edit pages for Israeli and Jewish subjects, (iii) edit pages on anti-semitism, and (iv) do lots of normal and minor edits to individuals involved in cinema. The editor has an overlap with the confirmed NoCal100 sock JBlackCoffee52 on (i) Gatestone Institute[43][44] and (ii) Distracted driving[45][46]. Additionally, the editor has a niche interest in massacres, just as NoCal100 does. The NoCal100 socks 'Attack Ramon' and 'Firkin Flying Fox' edited 'Qana massacre'[47][48], 'Fistook' edited 'Ma'alot massacre'[49], Reaper Eternal edited 'List of terrorist incidents in July–December 2013'[50]. The bandoleer has edited two pages with massacre in the title: '1989 Kandy massacre'[51] and 'Bologna massacre'[52]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor SharabSalam may also be in a position to add additional evidence, as he's familiar with some of the sockpuppetry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Comment by Shrike

[edit]

Those articles are in crux of I/P conflict not everyone that edits is NoCal sock --Shrike (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • At best  Possible. @TonyBallioni: you might have better insight here.
 Behavioural evidence needs evaluation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, don't have the UA details, but I'd go with  Unlikely based on the log and my understanding of ISPs in this region. I'll AC/DS TBAN him from that article though. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06 May 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Here come the Suns has already been blocked by the arbitration committee, but I believe that user, and JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, are the latest incarnations of NoCal100. Both users edit at similar times as past socks. JungerMan doesn't have a ton of edits to compare to, but the timecards show similar times away: JM, HCTS, and compare to for example Canadian Monkey, or NoCal100, or When Other Legends Are Forgotten. Both users participated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Floquenbeam_2 (both voting no), with that being JungerMan's first edit in 2 years.

Similar interests:

There also seems to be the similarity of carrying on grudges through accounts. With bradv , HCTS had a dispute about a report he filed not resulting in a block. And now you can find JM demanding that bradv resign his bit over something that afaict has nothing to do with him.

There's additional evidence regarding tone I can add if needed, but this should be enough for a check I would think. Nableezy 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also compare JM: this amounts to a list of commonly edited articles, with edits made to different parts of the article, often many years apart. Similar lists could be constructed for any two editors active in the ARBPIA topic area. to Firkin Flying Fox: The evidence presented so far consists of "they have been editing the same (little-viewed" articles as other socks". Before people get too carried away with "the overlap above is too strong to dismiss as mere coincidence," argument, let's do a little experiment, shall we? Suppose one wants to prove, using the same sort of "evidence" that Huldra and the filer of this report , Nableezy, are actually sock puppets of each other, we can easily construct the following set of overlapping articles ... I could easily construct such "evidence" lists for Nishidani and Nableezy, Huldra and Zero0000 and many others. nableezy - 16:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Snooganssnoogans, both JM and Attack Ramon have made the same exact edit at Mark LeVine (JM, AR), a page with an average of 15 views a day. nableezy - 16:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hounding of old foes is another giveaway. There is just a level of spitefulness in how he does it that, to me at least, is a dead giveaway. Take for example the following sequence. Nishidani makes a comment at an AfD that JM had created. Shortly after that JM follows Nishidani (violating WP:WESTBANK in the process, which was a result of an arbitration case that saw two NoCal accounts topic-banned) to a page that averages a whopping 4 views a day. Quoting from a prior report on Los Admiralos

NoCal100 also has a history of following Tiamut. Tiamut reverted an edit by Los Admiralos Nazareth and Los Admiralos reverts her minutes later. The edit that appeared in Tiamut's contribution history directly before the Nazareth edit was at Viva Palestina; shortly after Los Admiralos reverted Tiamut at Nazareth he then follows her contribs and edits Viva Palestina.

It's just a level of pettiness and vindictiveness that screams out NoCal100. nableezy - 02:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re BMK, you're only checking against NoCal100, not the tens of other sockpuppet accounts he has. nableezy - 04:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, look at JM's first 500 edits. After the 500/30 rule was put in he used STiKi to get past that point. His vandal fighting days seem to have have past at that point, and he renewed his interest in the ARBPIA topic area. But my point here is that 7 edits out of 1200 is a bit different than 7 edits out of 700. I think there's enough here for a check (honestly I think there's enough here for a DUCK block), so will see what happens. nableezy - 04:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]
SPI is not the place to continue personal fights between editors involved in the ARBPIA topic area. CUs/Clerks/Admins can review the relevant material below, but I'm hatting it because it has already gotten out of hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

As Sir Joseph notes, this amounts to a list of commonly edited articles, with edits made to different parts of the article, often many years apart. Similar lists could be constructed for any two editors active in the ARBPIA topic area. Do you want to see Onceinawhile use "fix link" in an edit summary? [53] - is he/she a sockpuppet of NoCal100, too? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious: why did you return to editing July 2019 after a two-year hiatus? I'd also like to note JM resumed his editing two months after "Attack Ramon" was blocked as a NoCal sockpuppet. Attack Ramon's last edits were to the page of Mark LeVine, a page with low pageviews and low levels of editing activity. Guess who edited that page two months ago? JM.[54] Furthermore, JM and Attack Ramon made the exact same edit to the page, adding a "primary" tag.[55][56] With the exception of one other edit, JM and Attack Ramon are the only editors to have made substantive additions to that obscure page in a year. Attack Ramon's first edit was on 3 July 2017 and his last edit was on 29 May 2019. JM just happened to take a hiatus from Wikipedia between 26 June 2017 (a week before Attack Ramon made his first edit) and 26 July 2019 (less than two months after Attack Ramon's last edit). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was laid off, and had bit more time on my hands. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JungerMan Chips Ahoy!: Can you explain making the exact same edit as a banned NoCal sock on an obscure page? I suggest not wasting your time; that find from Snooganssnoogans feels the nail in the coffin.
I have been reflecting for on your last couple of months here. I suggest reading WP:RFW. Your aggressiveness at the pages we interacted on did not help your "cause", they just made it all more fun and so attracted lots of people. I understand you might consider it exciting to keep running the gauntlet, but you are wasting the time of a lot of good people who volunteer their time for the sole purpose of sharing knowledge with the world. I get that you don't care about those editors who have different political perspectives to you, but you are wasting the time of those who agree with you too, and hundreds of other good people – admins and other editors – for selfish purposes. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you made exactly the same edit [57] as Zero0000 ([58] on an obscure page? Of course you can, and so can I: you both are ideological fellow travelers (Or in Zero000's formualtion, your "two accounts display indistinguishable political positions and indistinguishable zeal to push that position into articles.") - In the ARBPIA topic area, you tag team on articles in support of each other, but that does not make you socks of each other, nor does the fact that you edited more that 1200 articles in common, often within seconds of each other, including such obscure articles as Mausoleum of Abu Huraira which get 16 views a day. ([59]) JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is damning evidence. I'd also add that in JM's earliest edits, he made minor edits to the pages of people involved in cinema, which perfectly syncs with NoCal users' behavior. See for example: [60][61][62]. However, in JM's post-2019 edits, there are no edits to cinema-related pages (possibly because it's been noted as one of NoCal's behavioral patterns on the long-term abuse page for NoCal[63]). The editor's edit history also seems to revolve around the same kind of fringe-BS-defending that NoCal's socks engaged in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other behavioral evidence: There is not much to go from in JM's edit summary language but of what little distinct language that JM used since 2019 (when editors have started to look closely at NoCal socks), JM uses "fix link"[64], same as NoCal socks[65]. JM uses "strong" source[66], same as NoCal socks[67][68][69]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If someone edits something eight years apart from another editor, is that evidence of socking? In the IP area there are always going to be articles that are edited by the same editors. Is Nableezy a sock of Huldra or Nishidani since they always seem to be at the same article? Every time a new editor shows up, Nableezy hounds them and asks "What is your other Wikipedia name?" or "Have you ever edited Wikipedia before?" This has to stop because while Wikipedia does have socks, this chases away new editors, we know new editors usually come to controversial articles first and chasing them away by being aggressive should not be allowed either, even though in this case the subject is not a new editor. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not hound users, please stop making personal attacks and abusing the purpose of this page, that being to investigate abusive sockpuppetry, not for you to make unsubstantiated claims in an attempt to ignore that. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you would close down WP:SPI, simply because some of the suspects support your editing position? This post is shameful. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Onceinawhile, I don't believe that's what I said. But weren't you the one who opened an SPI against him merely because he didn't support your editing position? That was shameful. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying we should allow "new" editors even if they are clearly sockpuppets?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam, I don't believe that's what I said. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then what did you mean when you said "Every time a new editor shows up, Nableezy hounds them and asks "What is your other Wikipedia name?" or "Have you ever edited Wikipedia before?" This has to stop because while Wikipedia does have socks, this chases away new editors" please explain.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam, putting things in bold doesn't change meanings of words. I suggest you read what I wrote again. This isn't the place to have a discussion on how to treat new editors. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, making accusation against the OP in SPI without providing evidences seems suspicious.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SharabSalam, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy!/Archive Please stop bothering me. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said against the OP. You said "Is Nableezy a sock of Huldra or Nishidani since they always seem to be at the same article?" and "Every time a new editor shows up, Nableezy hounds them and asks "What is your other Wikipedia name?" or "Have you ever edited Wikipedia before?". Also, that SPI seems legitimate. PS: you don't need to ping me, I have this page in my watchlist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any accusations. Have a nice day. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating to see above that a NoCal sock started the Naharayim article. JM's aggression during what was an otherwise calm discussion was striking, as were his almost 100 combined talk page edits at Naharayim and the related First Jordan Power House.[70] It's clear that the editing time zones are the same[71][72]. One thing that caught my eye in those conversations is that he reasonably regularly starts posts with a lower case letter - i will take a look at NoCal socks for the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had some run-ins with Suns before he departed. I have not been precisely keeping track but JM seems to have popped up in a lot of the same places and seems to like following me around like Suns did. Not very scientific I know, still.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, Maybe it because you edit same hot-button topic in ARBPIA area --Shrike (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could be so, I started to notice right after Naharayim discussion here which I would not have thought to be a hot button issue (not then). See how it's a discussion with Suns so I couldn't be bothered then to have yet another argument with him and I let it go. Then when someone else showed up to to do the RM, first one on the scene is JM. Maybe it's just a coincidence.Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two accounts display indistinguishable political positions and indistinguishable zeal to push that position into articles. Zerotalk 15:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As do you and Nableezy, or you and Nishidani. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, I may say this about every participant in this discussion that active in WP:ARBPIA area from both sides of the conflict Shrike (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make what Selfstudier said clear, this looks suspicious given the amount of evidence that Nableezy has provided.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also find this pair of edits to be suspicious (same page): SelfStudier ([73]); Zero0000 ([74])? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt either of them would object to a check if evidence were laid out. I also doubt either of them would refuse to answer a fairly basic question. nableezy - 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to a check. I am pre-empting inevitable "behavioral evidence" claims that will pop up when the CU come up negative, and showing the flimsy nature of these claims. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk)
Oh I can bring more evidence, dont you worry about that one. nableezy - 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. You'd would assume that if you had any better evidence, you'd present that, instead of a list of commonly edited articles. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a lot of unnecessary work if a check will show anything definitive. Im happy to see what a CU says. Oh, and there is a tad more than a list of commonly edited articles. Just a smidge. nableezy - 16:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, though some people are trying real hard to make it seem that way. There's usage of common phrases like "fix link" in edit summaries, which probalay half the editors on Wikipedia use, and which I've already shown one of the participants here uses as well, etc...
For kicks you can look at a comparison between say , Nishidani and Huldra - [75] - there are 800 (count'em ! 800 ) articles edited in common between them, some of them seconds or minutes apart, and which include obscure articles like Quandamooka_people which average 19 views a day or Yurlayurlanya which averages a whopping 1 view per day, yet was edited by both of them, within a day of each other, and at similar times of day (2100 -2300 UTC). Reasonable people see this for what it is - editors with common interests, who edit similar articles, maybe even inspired to edit them by the other's edit they saw in their edit history. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the different timecards, and the lack of any evidence of similar argument style or language, sure, maybe Nishidani and Huldra are the same person. You should file a report and ask for a check. nableezy - 17:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think those two time cards (different timecards, with their huge overlap between 2000-2400) are far more similar than these two ([76], [77], but you missed the point entirely. I don't think that Hudra and Nishidani are the same. And I imagine that if a CU is run on them, the technical evidence will be negative. But I could construct exactly the same "Behavioral evidence" for both of them, the way you have done - lots of article in common, some extremely obscure, some edited at similar times, all of them (in the ARBPIA domain) edit from the same POV. You don't consider the behavior evidence enough to say they are the same, but if a CU check does not link me to UberVegan or JBlackCoffee52 (the two latest confirmed NoCal socks, who might not be stale), you will try to use use exactly the same evidence to conclude the opposite about me and NoCal. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That I have edited the same obscure article about Indigenous Australians as Nishidani is easily explained; User:NSH001 and I regularly ce these articles after Nishidani has expanded on them (typically to get rid of blanks, etc) Huldra (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JM's response is reminiscent of the response that other confirmed NoCal socks give: NoCal socks always respond by accusing others of sockpuppetry and of explicitly linking edits by specific editors. See here where UberVegan does the same shpiel:[78]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a fascinating example of how you can't win: If one does not defend himself against sock accusation - that's evidence of guilt (see above- Nableezy's comemt - "I also doubt either of them would refuse to answer a fairly basic question"). But then if one does repsod to the accusations - that even more evidence of guilt - that's what all NoCal Socks do - per above! JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is responding to a sockpuppet accusation evidence of sockpuppetry? No. Responding to a sockpuppet in the exact same way that confirmed NoCal socks respond? Yes. Just as you do above, NoCal socks responding to accusations of sockpuppetry by: (i) accusing the accuser of sockpuppetry, (ii) linking the accuser to another prominent account, (iii) listing the specific number of pages that the two have overlapped, and (iv) emphasizing that they edited the pages with seconds and minutes between them. That's exactly what UberVegan did here[79] and you did above. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I then leave the article, alas:

Very interestingly: JCA! does NOT reinsert it again, ie, he is not "watching the article, he is just following me around.

I see the same for Jerome Adams, where I added critical stuff twice, just to be revered by JCA! within minutes: me adding, JCA! reverting, me adding again, JCA! revering again I then left the article. Interestingly, after I left, far, far more critical things about Adams were inserted to the article (including accusation about him "lying to the public") ...these JCA! for some reason never removed, ie, he isn't interested in the Jerome Adams-article, just in following me around,

I see the same with Zero0000:

  • 23:57, 30 March 2020 JCA! first edit: agreeing with one who disagree with Zero, but no follow-up, or protests when article fails the GA-review, ie, he is just following Zero around,

And, as I have said before: feel free to CU me, or others. To the best of my knowledge, Nishidani, Zero000, Nableezy and I are all in different countries, (and I assume none of us have moved much lately, due to covid-19), Huldra (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting, but has nothing to do with the sockpuppet allegations. And I will repeat: I don't doubt that you are a different person form Nishidani, I'm just showing you that similar "behavioural evidence" could very easily be constructed showing how you edit very similarly to him. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The "following around" seems to be a theme here. Selfstudier mentioned it above too. And the almighty mess at Well of Harod / Ain Jalut at the moment is a result of JCA following me there from Naharayim. Once this nailed-down-coffin has been buried, I will make sure to remember that when a "new", obviously long-in-the-tooth, and highly aggressive editor starts following me around, to think of NoCal. I suspect he will never stop coming back, but his behavior gives us all a reason to stick around so that's fine with me. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with the sock allegations. Pr WP:DUCK: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck". And the above behaviour is typical of the "Nocal100-duck", Huldra (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, can you prove that you and Nishidani are not the same person? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Joseph: Of course I cannot here "prove it", no more than I can prove I am not Queen Elisabeth II, or that I am not Donald Trump. BUT: CU are free to CU me anytime, I edit from a fixed land-line. AFAIK Nishidani is in another country from me, Huldra (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The similarities between Huldra and myself consist in a concern to write articles according to the best available scholarship. We are not here to tweak for POV effect, or follow editors we dislike to revert them, as you do (in my case just the other day, following me to Wadi Qana, reverting me, and then changing the standard Arabic name to the less familiar (in international scholarship) modern Hebrew term) So let's just all drop this and let the checkuser examine the evidence, i.e. Nableezy's case. Conversing here is improper for a SPI case, and most of the above should be hatted as a distraction.Nishidani (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, that's a personal attack and a comment on a person and not edit, which is a violation of one of your many "final warnings" you received at AE. Please strike. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without attempting to entangle myself in any of the above drama, this seems to be a very strong claim. Not only are the articles edited and the type of edits and POVs pretty much aligned, but the level of hostility during the investigation too. The lines of argumentation used by the accused are almost identical to those used by a user determined as being a sockpuppet in in June 2018. Domeditrix (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checking the Editor Interaction Analyzer between NoCal100 and JungerMan as a (relatively speaking) neutral party, I find very little evidence to substantiate the claim that they are related. The analysis shows only a 10 article overlap, and the number of edits is under 10 for both editors for all the articles, except 30 edits by NoCal100 to Gaza War (2008–2009), to which JungerMan made 7 edits. Neither the number of overlaps, nor the volume of edits in each article is anywhere near what one would expect from sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And , FWIW, the already blocked Here comes the Sun also has a 10 article overlap with NoCal100 (differet articles), again with a small editing volume. Also JungerMan and Here come the Suns have only a 3 article overlap. Overall, I'm just not seeing any evidence in the Editor Interaction Analyzer reults for sockpuppetry, but I will stress that I have not looked through what I assume is behavioral evidence presented above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nableezy: A fair point. What I've done in the past is to compile a list of the various socks, sort it by the number of edits, and then check the socks with the most edits against the suspected sockpuppets. This, when the resulting evidence supports the contention, has (to my memory) never failed to work to convince a CU to run a check. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A personal opinion: After looking at a number of JungerMan edits, they are clearly not a new editor, but a sock. I don't know if it's a sock of NoCal100 or not, but Ihva eabsolutely no doubt that it's a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

06 October 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Obviously not a new account; essentially single-purpose agenda account.

This is clearly not a new editor. Of course s/he/they could be any of a half-dozen banned right-wing POV-pushing sockmasters, but the combination of timing (account created shortly after NoCal100's previous sock was identified and blocked) and the combination of Israeli and US political partisanship strongly suggests NoCal100 to me. MastCell Talk 21:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

The editor bears many of the hallmarks of a sockuppet. I asked the user last month[86]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

25 December 2020

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


See below. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

KevinL When you say  Highly likely does it mean the same geographical area or its more then that? --Shrike (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

12 January 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


The account was created three weeks after the blocking of User:JungerMan_Chips_Ahoy! ([87], carried out on further CU evidence). The editor edits on the same time zone as the NoCal100 socks.

Most edited pages of all known NoCal100 socks

The edit history has been built via mostly (83%) semi-automated edits. The editor’s career started on 27 May with 106 normal-looking edits in 10 days to edits related to Switzerland (a neutral country for a neutral topic). The editing then pivoted to patrolling recent changes for vandalism, with 572 semi-automated reverts in c.12 different bursts over the course of a month, mostly using redwarn. Having crossed 500/30, on 7 July the editor made their first ever article talk page comments, apart from two very small ones during the Swiss edits, and first ever non-automated wikipedia noticeboard comments, with 1 edit each to 6 voting surveys all in the space of 30 minutes, in which the two largest comments related to ARBPIA topics at RSN: [88][89] RSN happens to be the single-most frequented page of the NoCal100 socks when added together. See here [90][91] which compares all identified NoCal100 socks (two lists because the tool has a max limit; see image to right which has been sorted to show the most edited pages).

More broadly, despite having made just 186 non-automated mainspace edits, the editor is an expert with four particular noticeboards, all four being the statistical favorites of the NoCal100 socks per the links and table above:

Other than the above (ARBPIA-related noticeboard comments, and continued occasional streams of semi-automated edits), in the mainspace post-500/30 their manual edits were to almost exclusively ARBPIA topics. The editor turned up at some of NoCal’s favorites:

And a few random pages which NoCal seems to like (this is a selection, I have a longer list):

There are also similarities of tone/style that I can bring out if helpful. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated the minor corrections pointed out by 11Fox11 (the underlines show the edits), which are helpful but have no bearing on the overall picture.
I am working on the behavioral analysis. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Comments by Shrike
[edit]

Its a retaliatory filing because of WP:AE. Those articles are frequently edited by users that interested in the topic including the filer himself. Some of evidence is anti-Vandalism reverts [93] [94], like was noted the user use semi automated wiki soft to fight vandalism. Also Nocal socks edited many articles so you can take any random user especially if they interested in I/P conflict and say he is a sock because article intersections --Shrike (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The filer first[95] edit was elaborate wiki graph without any intermediary version first edit with no drafts. By using the same logic we could suspect the filer to being sock of someone but that would a a fishing expedition and not appropriate. --Shrike (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Selfstudier
[edit]

I do not know enough about process to say whether the editor is a sock of NoCal100. Having had several interactions with this editor, while in theory possible, I find it quite unusual that a relatively new editor be so well acquainted with WP procedures, diffs new to old (there are other examples): 1) an AE filing 2) re WP ABOUTSELF 3) Alert (twice!) 4) Citation style Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 11Fox11
[edit]

This is a continuation of Onceinawhile's appalling behaviour, and a retaliatory filing to the AE. The retaliation is evident by Onceinawhile notifying me in mirror form to my notification. Onceinawhile made offensive Holocaust comparisons and personally attacked over 5 editors and is facing sanctions.

The report is false, and contains a blatant falsehood ("186 mainspace edits"). I do not have 186 mainspace edits, I have over a 1,000 edits and reported many disruptive users to AIV and UAA. I also recently reported a couple instances of disruption to ANEW and AE.

As for the "evidence", if Onceinawhile has even a minimal level of integrity they would immediately file a report saying he is a NoCal100 sockpuppet. As Shrike says Onceinawhile's first edit is very advanced markup, which I don't understand. Onceinawhile has hundreds of articles in common with NoCal100 sockpuppets (NoCal100, Bad Dryer, Canadian Monkey). Onceinawhile haunts Wikipedia boards frequented by NoCal100 socks, in particular:

AE: Onceinawhile made 98 edits and this is his top posted Wikipedia page. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 17 NoCal100 sockpuppets.

ANI: Onceinawhile made 79 edits and this is the third-most Wikipedia page he edits. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 14 NoCal100 sockpuppets.

ANEW: Onceinawhile made 5 edits to this Wikipedia page. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 18 NoCal100 sockpuppets.

RSN: Onceinawhile made 45 edits to this Wikipedia page and this is 8th most Wikipedia page he edits. Onceinawhile says this page is frequented by 20 NoCal100 sockpuppets.

I am not myself saying Onceinawhile is a NoCal100 sockpuppet, the above is to point out the quality of the evidence. Probably most Wikipedia editors edit AE, ANI, ANEW, and RSN. Probably most editors who edited Israel/Palestine a bit have articles in common with NoCal100 sockpuppets, Onceinawhile has hundreds in common. Several of my common articles are from anti-vandalism reverts from recent changes, for example my single edit to Oliver Stone is reverting an IP edit (one minute prior) without sources. I do not have Oliver Stone on my watchlist. I am not interested in the Oliver Stone article. I got there because the IP's edit was in recent changes. 11Fox11 (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile's report contains additional fabrications. He states: "Having crossed 500/30, on 7 July the editor made their first ever article talk page comments and first ever wikipedia noticeboard comments". However, this is demonstrably false, as I edited talk on 27 May and 28 May, and edited a noticeboard on 11 June. Surely an editor manufacturing false evidence at this noticeboard, in a report that is entirely retaliatory, is sanction worthy? 11Fox11 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, when I made my comment the report read: despite having made just 186 mainspace edits. After I made my comment, Onceinawhile deceptively changed their text to add "non-automated". Onceinawhile did not strike their false statement. Onceinawhile did not leave a note in their text saying they amended their false statement. This is deceptive editing, in addition to the three manufactured falsehoods in the report when I commented. 11Fox11 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nableezy
[edit]

If you're going to claim somebody is making false accusations, maybe don't misquote them when you do? The quote was 186 non-automated mainspace edits. Not 186 mainspace edits. nableezy - 14:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youre right, I just saw it when I read it over after the edits. Should have included a note saying what he edited. nableezy - 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Drsmoo
[edit]

Blatantly retaliatory, and with no evidence. If having an advanced first edit and posting in the IP space qualifies one as a sock, than the submitter is as well. Drsmoo (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Beyond My Ken
[edit]

I assume that "186 mainspace edits" is a typo for the 1896 total edits 11Fox11 had at the time. [96]. Also, "Fox 11" is the name used by TV station KTTV in Los Angeles [97], so "11Fox11" is a violation of the username policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Username reported at UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by 11Fox11
[edit]

Copying my response at UAA where Beyond My Ken copied the same comment: I did not even know about that station, I don't think I've ever edited anything about LA or TV stations. Fox is an animal, a Fox (surname) family name, and Fox one is specifically a Fox (code word) for launching a missile. When I chose my user name I had all this in mind, not some TV station in LA! If an admin considers this a violation, could my user name please be changed to user:FoxOne? And if any numeral is forbidden for Fox, then user:GoFoxGo? 11Fox11 (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I have reviewed the evidence, both behavioral and technical, and in my view, it is not sufficient to block for sockpuppetry. The behavioral similarities appear to be coincidental. Closing without action. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05 April 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Kenosha Forever registered on 13 February and immediately showed a very surprising familiarity with wikipedia, look at his first edits, its clearly a returning user. First edit. "No consensus for this": [98]

יניב הורון previous sock Watchonly used to follow me around to articles he hadn't edited before. Siloam inscription:[99], Hezbollah:[100]

Exact same behavior as Kenosha Forever: Siloam inscription:[101], Organ transplantation in Israel [102], Dead Sea Scrolls: [103], Syrian brown bear: [104]

Editor Interaction Analyser:

Watchonly - Kenosha Forever Overlap: [105]

יניב+הורון& - Kenosha Forever Overlap: [106]

I'm asking for a CU on יניב הורון and a general range CU. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah, did you do a range CU or only against יניב הורון ? The account is definitely an old returning user. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Deliciousness - They were completely different ranges. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oshwah, but did you also check other accounts in Kenosha Forevers range? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Deliciousness - I checked all ranges as diligently as possible. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Seems like fishing expedition SD just don't like that his POV edits are reverted. Yaniv and Kenosha seems in different time zones and editiing patterns are different --Shrike (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Kenoshas first edits, its an old returning user. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary he didn't knew how to ident until I told him [107] Shrike (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He likes following me around as well, of course that doesn't really prove anything but I tend to agree that he does not seem like an inexperienced editor. Anyway, Shrike, you and he are busy "teaming up" on me, are you friends irl? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Selfstudier#WP:ONUS and the extended content box just below.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't I don't know anyone in wikipeida in IRL .What about you and onceawhile are you friends in IRL because you support him in every argument? --Shrike (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor sees that he is not an inexperienced editor. A range CU should clear things out. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said fishing expedition which is not allowed Shrike (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not fishing, there is behavioral evidence that show clearly its an old returning user and his behavior is similar to יניב הורון other sock Watchonly. Two other users also have suspected Kenosha of being a sock, Nableezy: [108] and Jokkmokks-Goran [109] So its not just me and Selfstudier. But four different users. If he is innocent, then there is nothing to worry about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I was gonna file this exact same SPI/CU request but looks like someone else also noticed the similarities. Yeah this looks very much like Yanniv. There’s the usual overlap of two different topic areas (I-P and Poland) with the same POVs. Also, it’s obviously not a new user:

  1. First edit is to restore edits by Watchonly, a confirmed sock puppet of יניב הורון and in it KF cites consensus, a Wikipedia policy (in their first edit!)
  2. Second edit and first one on talk references “POV pushing” which is also Wikipedia nomenclature a true new user wouldn’t use.
  3. Minutes later in another comment KF makes a statement about putting something “in the lede”. Not “lead”. “Lede”. Thats a smoking gun right there. A new user who’s been on Wikipedia only couple of hours would not, well, they probably wouldn’t know that the introduction here is called a “lead” and most certainly would not spell it “lede”, which is also a Wikipedia thing.

This isn’t “fishing”, it’s “ducking” as in pointing out obvious WP:DUCKs. And yeah, it’s Yanniv. In addition to the evidence above, check out overlap with another, older Yanniv sock, User:Aroma Stylish [110]. There aren’t that many articles there but that’s because Aroma got caught pretty quick. But look at what is there. In addition to Islam in Israel, there’s three pretty obscure articles: Tel Dan stele, Zikhron Ya'akov and Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. Given that neither of these sock accounts has edited all that much the fact that they wound up at same three obscure articles can’t be a coincidence.

It’s a sock. Volunteer Marek 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who is the sockmaster, but this is clearly not a new account. And its involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference), the article created by known sockmaster Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz (who has also been known to tag team with Yanniv), is worrisome, given that this AfD is being infested by a number of likely socks. WP:NOTHERE may be worth considering. This eerily reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/About the Civilization of Death, an AfD of another attack page created by Icewhiz, which needed a second AfD a year later since the first one was swamped by accounts now blocked as socks. User:Oshwah: given the above, may I suggest running a CU on the new accounts participating in that AfD? There are way too many quacks here, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its one of the old users that used to disrupt the A-I topic area a long time ago, possibly User:Breein1007. Thats why the CU didn't find anything --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, Volunteer Marek, and Supreme Deliciousness: It's obviously a sock, but I don't think it's Yaniv, because this account has edited during Shabbat. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, NoCal100. Quelle surprise. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, Bradv, Supreme Deliciousness Did anyone look at the other suspicious accounts that cropped up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference)? Should I list them here? There is not enough behavioral pattern on most of them to clearly ID the master, except the quack quack new accounts don't vote like this in AfDs etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

16 March 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


Having made no edits in 7 years the user appears at ANI claiming a long memory as reason to support a topic ban (here and here. Prior to the 7 year hiatus, the sock operated in tandem with other confirmed NoCal100 socks and against his usual targets (Zero, SD, myself):

The rest of his edits are reverts of his usual targets: Of Zero:

  • 2nd edit ever to a page with around 20 pageviews on average
  • again of Zero again at a page with ~20 views on average

Of Supreme Deliciousness:

Given the low edit count there isnt enough to go by on the timecard to make it blindingly obvious, but same start/stop times consistent with sleeping during the evening on the West Coast of the United States (eg Canadian Monkey) Would be an astonishing coincidence for an editor to take 7 years off to then show up at ANI, and just based on the comment such as lies as usual as compared to I don't believe I've ever seen such a bald-faced lie on Wikipedia before or outright lie by past socks gives me a very NoCal100 vibe. nableezy - 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 23:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Seems clear to me, but I have been wrong before. I would also note a few other "sleeping" editors appear to have awoken for this ANI discussion, in particular User:Geshem Bracha. The account has just over 550 edits,[111] of which almost all were made between Jan and Sept 2020, stopping shortly after achieving extended confirmed status. Then after a six month hiatus the user appears out of the blue at this ANI with a series of comments.[112] The timecard is different to Alaskan wildlife fan, but the fact pattern is similar. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think thats somebody else. nableezy - 00:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the same kind of "vibe" that led you to make a similar false report against User:The Kingfisher [113], and which led that user being incorrectly blocked for nearly 2 years, as he tried to get himself unblocked, until ArbCom intervened?
You'd think that experience would have taught you that not every editor on the US West Coast who disagrees with you is a Nocal sockpuppet, but I guess as long as there are admins gullible enough to fall for your nonsense, you'll keep on doing it. Alaskan wildlife fan (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think that. I think you however are a NoCal100 sockpuppet. And the evidence for that thinking is above. I gotta say, remembering a username and password from 7 years prior to bust out when needed is impressive. Like I cant imagine having that level of dedication to something. Its amazing honestly. nableezy - 01:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I highly doubt that "every editor on the US West Coast who disagrees with [Nableezy] is a Nocal sockpuppet", but I'll bet that some of them are. It's the job of the admins here to find out if Alaska wildlife fan is one of them or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like how the defense is there was one account that was not a sock, not that this account is not a sock lol. But reliability? Idk, I generally think something like 90% of the accounts reported are confirmed socks is a pretty good hit rate. I do indeed think thats a solid hit rate. Do you not? nableezy - 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's also one person who went through the bother of filing an appeal all the way to ARBCOM, not that all of them are socks, just that they edit in the same timezone. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, User:Kenosha Forever was blocked today by Bradv as a sock of NoCal100. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I was very close to starting a sockpuppet investigation into that user. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That it was a sock was obvious (1, 2) but it was difficult to determine of whom. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I agree with the suspicion that this is probably some kind of returning user, but in my view, there is not sufficient evidence to block the account as a sockpuppet of NoCal100 specifically. Since the account seems to have become inactive since March, I'm going to go ahead and close this without action for the time being. If the account resumes activity, we can deal with it again then. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14 October 2021

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]


To begin with, there is no doubt that the timezones do not match here. The editor says on his user page he is located in Maryland, and the editing times are definitely two hours displaced from past NoCal100 socks (NoCal100) However, there is off-wiki evidence that the person operating the accounts starting with User:Isarig (vanished to User:Former user 2) through NoCal100 and the rest has since found reason to be located in Maryland, and if it helps a checkuser I'd be happy to send that evidence along in email, but it most certainly would violate the privacy policy to post it here and as such this report will be focused on the commonalities between the editors while acknowledging that they are very much located across the country from each other.

The tone is NoCal100 to a tee. As one example, how he repeatedly across socks says to read WP:ONUS as a directive:

Also telling others to get consensus first in their edit-summaries:

Common articles with past socks show a wide range of common interests, not simply ARBPIA.

*Iran-Israel proxy conflict (average of 5 views a day)Timeline: Aroma Stylish, Inf-in MD

There are common interests going across topic areas, from Fox News, to articles with a handful of views a day such as Hot Mobile or obscure books like Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine. If a functionary would like me to send on the evidence connecting the person operating the past accounts such as Isarig and NoCal100 with Maryland please let me know. Would also bet dollars to donuts that User:AgEng is the same, but not enough in the diffs to go on for that. Nableezy 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior regarding moves:

nableezy - 16:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guerillero I dont doubt it, like I said in the opening line the person operating the User:Former user 2 (Isarig) account appears to have moved. Unfortunately this is entirely behavioral based. nableezy - 03:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

  • Is this the new thing, filing an SPI against User:Inf-in MD once a month? Last month it was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Free1Soul/Archive. Despair not Inf-in MD, I too was dragged through the mud here in this case with false baseless accusations based on little more than a long tirade and interest in the same topic area. The evidence above is entirely unconvincing, not meriting even a check, and the whole "Maryland angle" is actually exculpatory evidence. Inf-in MD's username openly gives MD (Maryland) and this was also declared on their user page from September 1st. NoCal100 is known to be from Mountain View, California, not Maryland. That Nableezy, after seeing Inf-in MD's Maryland declaration, found some online indication that a random Jewish-American possibly moved is no evidence at all. If the location of Inf-in MD were an unknown secret, this revelation would mean something. As it is, all there is here is an extremely weak attempt to tie someone to a case 2,450 miles distanced from them. 11Fox11 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the user that filed that, and this page is for discussing sockpuppetry, not the incredibly offensive and imaginative found some online indication that a random Jewish-American possibly moved. Kindly do not disrupt the purpose of this page, thank you in advance for cooperating. nableezy - 21:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence presented above is beyond weak, all you show is that Inf-in MD edits Israeli topics and that you dislike them. 11Fox11 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately your view on the merits of the evidence is not all that important here. And oh by the way, the commonalities stretch across topics. As noted in the report. It shows common interests in right wing media, in Trump's Covid response, in a random movie, in an al-Qaeda in Iraq leader. Some of those articles are so little viewed that it boggles the mind that there is that many intersections. Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, besides averaging 1 view a day, has had two edits in the last two years. Hot Mobile has 10 edits in the last two years. But this user just happens to share those articles with other NoCal socks. Huh. There is also the common tone, and Ill be adding about the general pettiness in the editing and hounding. nableezy - 22:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your claim on NoCal100's location is a pretty clear violation of WP:OUTING. Maybe dont do that either. nableezy - 21:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Outing? Another specious claim. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive/1, which I read after being falsely accused here myself, is filled with NoCal being in Mountain View, California. 11Fox11 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it says one IP address that is thought to be NoCal maps there. But one more time, this page is meant to investigate sockpuppetry. Not for the defense of an ally. Sockpuppetry is wrong and we should all be against it. If you have anything to add about the topic, besides your misguided belief that it is based on me finding that some Jewish American moved, great. If not, kindly stop disrupting the purpose of this page. This might be shocking to you, but people do indeed move, and the person who operated User:Israrig, NoCal100, and the rest is banned from editing Wikipedia. Not just when he is in California. nableezy - 22:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NoCal and his socks edited so many articles so anyone that edited the topic area and interested in Jewish topics there will be some intersection. I too frequently cite WP:ONUS.Maybe I am nocal sock too? And lets not forget we already had false positive[116] --Shrike (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, your English proficiency is considerably worse, and you dont have the same tone, and you dont have common interests outside the topic area. Not really sure why the need to obfuscate here, but whatever floats your boat I guess. I do wish a clerk would stop such things, but the archives are filled with the defence of socks by allied editors so I guess it is not surprising it continues here. nableezy - 12:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is yet another of those accounts that swiftly climbs to 500 edits promptly takes an interest in the IP area and suddenly is an expert in all things WP. Of course this need not mean a NC100 sock. Idk myself how much importance to place on it but JMCA was given to starting talk page comments with a small letter (several examples here) rather than a capital letter and I notice that IiMD also does this (several examples here).Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by these comments about the 500 edits, which I have seen elsewhere, being used to imply these are not good faith editors. A new editor with interest in the IP area joins Wikipedia and starts editing. Within their first 10-20 edits, they get a notice (usually from someone on the other "side" of the conflict - see examples, from both "sides" , [117], [118] ) that they can't edit these articles until they have has 500 edits, coupled with a deletion of their edits. So what are they supposed to do? They want to make those edits, so they go and edit elsewhere until they have 500, and then they come back. What's so unusual or so difficult to understand about this? Inf-in MD (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retaliatory harassment, sanction Nableezy. On 28th August Nableezy threatened Inf-in MD with harassing behaviour. This meritless report of little substance (the evidence consisting of Inf-in MD editing Israel related topics) is merely an enactment of that threat. Would the closing admin here please sanction Nableezy for this retaliatory behaviour?--Hippeus (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Giving somebody a do unto others warning is not threatening with harassing behavior, jfc. Your activity in this topic area has been interesting to say the least, but thats another topic for another venue. This one is for investigating the abuse of our policy on multiple accounts, and the number of editors who think it is appropriate to come here with comments unrelated to that is a serious problem. This is not the first time youve lied about evidence (I recall an instance where you posted a link showing hounding, but with a convenient start date chosen so that my earlier edits to every single article didnt show, whereas the honest link would have shown the exact opposite), but one more time the evidence here is not just editing Israel related articles, there is the common interests outside the topic area, there is the similar tone, and there is the intersections at articles that literally maybe one person a day looks at, and not even most days. So in conclusion, stop making things up. Thanks. nableezy - 13:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No @Hippeus, it’s not harassment (!?) and Nableezy will not be sanction for trying to battle infamous socking problem in the I-P topic area. The socking problem that also mysteriously occurs in one other topic area under the 500/30 restriction.. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Over the years, at least 560 confirmed ARBPIA socks have been identified here at SPI. Almost all of them have been on Hippeus' and Inf-in MD's "side" of the fence, and Nableezy is one of the best sock-catchers. The CUs here do a good job and will judge wisely as always regardless of Hippeus' proposal that the messenger should be shot instead. Zerotalk 13:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legit dont understand how people are lining up to try to stop an investigation of a multiple times banned editor. Its seriously shocking, and every person who's engaged in such behavior should be banned at least from this page if not the topic area or Wikipedia. nableezy - 13:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there were already admitted false positives because someone actually had enough time/effort to appeal to arbcom I suspect there was much more according to this investigations it seems anyone that have similar pov to nacal and from California automatically his sock Shrike (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only a select few administrators ever get to be CUs. It's interesting that you have such a dim view of their competence. Of course there will be false positives and false negatives, but there is no reason to believe that they don't get it right most of the time (with a reasonable bias towards "not proved"). Zerotalk 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont want to speak to English proficiency, but we dont use the plural of false positives when it is singular. Do you see how many confirmed and suspected socks there are? You can suspect what you like, but that was emphatically not the basis of any block, and it is not the basis of the evidence above. I am not going to engage with any other editor who so transparently attempts to protect sockpuppetry in this topic area on this page. I await a clerk, and I'll try to fill out a bit on some more tone comparisons soon. nableezy - 14:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy - Regarding Hippeus... it is a fascinating fluke ( yeah.. :) ), but one infamous globally banned user used exactly the same argument in the past to defend socking accounts in this very topic area arguing with you:

  • Quoting Hippeus (account initiated Dec.04/219) -->..the evidence consisting of Inf-in MD editing Israel related topics [119]
  • Quoting banned user (banned Oct. 01/2019) -->The evidence above seems to consist merely of general interest in Israeli topics [120]
Yeah... - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - quote: To begin with, there is no doubt that the timezones do not match here Nableezy, these days time zone matches do not have significant importance anymore since, before arrival, the bulk of sock puppet accounts prepare for VPN connection from the time zone of their choosing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think he actually moved, but thats based on private evidence. nableezy - 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet of anyone, let’s just get that out of the way.

What is presented below is a list of common articles, which shows nothing more than an interest in similar topics, which happen to be quite popular ones (Israel-related articles, US politics). Several people commenting on this report have already pointed out the same thing. I freely admit being interested in those topics, as are thousands of other Wikipedia editors.

While the list might look impressive to the superficial viewer, it is statistically insignificant. At the time this report was made, I had edited 531 articles. This list, minus the two fake entries at the end (aroma stylish is not a sock puppet of NoCal100) that were apparently added in an attempt to mislead by making the list longer that it really is and adding another “little viewed” article (more on that deceptive tactic below), and minus the entries for Former User 2 who does not seem to be related to this at all, has 19 articles in common . That’s an overlap of less than 4% . Even including the fake entries it is less than 4%. I am fairly certain that overlaps of similar magnitude or larger could be constructed for any user interested and editing in those topics.

To see why such lists are completely worthless, consider a thought experiment: Suppose I continue editing at the same pace (500 articles/3 months) for another 2 years, continue editing in the above two topics areas which overlap with NoCal100’s interest areas, but add a new topic of interest which has no such overlap. In two years, I will have amassed an additional 4000 articles, and no doubt picked up more overlapping articles. Maybe another 50. The list of “common articles” is now going to be three times as impressive, since it is cumulative and will always go up, but in reality, will now represent an overlap of just 1%.

The conspiratorial mindset sees “little viewed” common articles as damming evidence, but there are simple explanations for them. Look at the Zakaria Zubeidi article, for example. It is true that if you deceptively choose to present the last few weeks, it averages 82 views a day, but if you look at the week when I made my first edit there – [121] it averaged more than 2200 views per day, and was likely one of the highest viewed articles in the Israel topic area at that time (e.g – it had more than twice the views of Palestine Liberation Organization or Palestinians , 7 times the views of Palestine etc..) and for good reason – Zubeidi had just escaped from prison in a highly publicized event, and was headline news for 2 weeks, which is how he (and his article) came to my attention.

Similarly, Hot Mobile (average of 19 views a day) and Yes (Israel) (52 views a day) are both the result of an extensive debate I had with User: Iskandar323 over at Talk:Bank_Mizrahi-Tefahot (which eventually found itself escalated to Arbitration Enforcement report against Iskandar by another editor), over the inclusion of a lengthy block of text about the bank being included in a list of companies that a Norwegian fund had divested from. This block was added to a dozen or more other articles (including Hot Mobile and Yes) , but ultimately a consensus of uninvolved editors concluded that it was undue for those articles [122], so it was removed from all those articles (by a different editor). A couple of these were then re-added to the articles by an editor apparently unaware of the consensus to exclude, so I removed them.

And a similar thing happened with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi – there was a Reliable Sources discussion about CounterPunch that I participated in [123]. Counterpunch was deprecated as a result[124], and so I removed it from a number of articles, among them Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which came up in my search for articles using that deprecated source (as did [Panama Papers ‎]], Hamilton (musical), Hamid Karzai, U2, Kidnapping and many others)

The filer thinks “it boggles the mind that there is that many intersections” – but a rudimentary understanding of statistics and probability makes it more mind boggling if there wasn’t any overlap. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, with its one viewer a day? And the tone? And the exact same answer to an SPI as a previous sock. Aroma Stylish is not a sock of NoCal, you are right, sorry about that one. Will strike those two. nableezy - 13:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the exact history of every single edit I made, but I think that one was the result of seeing User:Valp being told he can't edit Amin al-Husseini (a page with over 350 daily views), since he didn't have 500 edits, and checking to see what else he edited. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tone "claim" was made against Kingfisher too what turned to be "false positive" Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive#01 February 2019 Shrike (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Shrike. There was one false positive. That does not mean that nobody is a sock of NoCal100, and the tactic of misdirecting here is as it was utilized by you in the past is as bogus as it ever has been. Yes, I was wrong on The Kingfisher. Would you like to count how many times I was right? nableezy - 16:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ive struck comments by two blocked socks of a banned user. Shocker. nableezy - 02:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I was right at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hippeus/Archive. The same user casting doubt here did exactly the same at that investigation, with 5 comments defending the sock. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shirke did the same thing here:[125] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I was last reported to AE, now banned sock 11Fox11 wanted me sanctioned. Inf-in MD then predicted to 11Fox11 that "The report gets closes with no sanctions, at most a warning." Now that is interesting, as Inf-in MD only had 6-700 edits to their name at that stage, and had registered 6-7 weeks before. As you can see from the 11Fox11-talk page, I found his ability to predict (correctly) pretty ahem, impressive. Also totally unbelievable. I don't know whose sock Inf-in MD is, but if he never had any previous account, then I was born yesterday, Huldra (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... @Huldra - .. and how exactly Inf-in MD ended up at the article about WW2 in Poland[126] I just edited[127] few hours earlier? Okay, let’s presume, yet again, it’s another case of those remarkable flukes - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    well.. they could have checked the edits history of editors commenting here and followed them to the article...anyway, just noting this fact. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

This case is being reviewed by Tamzin as part of their training as a clerk. Please allow them to process the entire case without interference. You may pose any questions or concerns either on their talk page or on this page.

  • With Guerillero's statement in mind, I don't see any of the behavioral evidence here as strong enough to justify a behavior-only conclusion of sockpuppetry. The evidence presented is consistent with what is alleged, but is also consistent with two people with similar sets of (fairly closely related) interests, where one of those users has 20k+ edits going back to 2008 (across their various accounts). Jumping into PIA topics upon getting EC is sock behavior... but is also the behavior of someone who is interested in PIA topics, goes to edit one, and finds out they'll have to wait till they hit 30/500. And none of the behavioral similarities is distinctive enough to overcome the null hypothesis of unrelated accounts. Closing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-archival note: checkuserblocked and tagged as proven by Maxim. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 July 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Inf-in MD was blocked in mid-December and this account was registered shortly after the CU data for that account would go stale on 4/30. The user immediately showed proficiency in editing, with this being their 12th edit a day after registering, complete with perfectly formatted citation template. Since then there have been a number of commonalities that suggest this is the latest reincarnation of NoCal100, with the topics spanning the Arab-Israeli conflict to politicians in California to various right-wing American political topics and COVID related edits:

what part of "policy quote" is not clear to you

Amdocs with an average of 272 views a day:

There was no such thing as Palestinians with average of 25 daily views

Lorena Gonzalez (California politician) (85 daily views)

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Beto O'Rourke

Gun show loophole

NGO Monitor - timeline between accounts

COVID related:

Similar timecard to Inf-in MD nableezy - 16:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

[edit]

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

17 August 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

And So It predates Inf-in MD, with edits in May and July 2021. Inf-in MD was then used exclusively from July through being blocked in December 2021. And so it was active in mid-April 2022 until Izzy Borden was used from April 30 through being blocked in July (month edit counts for Izzy Borden, Inf-in MD, And So It to help visualize). And So It resumed editing shortly after in August. The editing times are similar for all three accounts (And So It, Inf-in MD, IB).

As far as evidence in edits, the tone is again NoCal100 to a tee. So is the seeking confrontation with old opponents. See for example:

The tone, hounding, and editing times, along with the contribution history combined with the last two blocked sock accounts, suggest this account is the latest NoCa1l00 sock. nableezy - 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Roy, I can add in terms of behavioral evidence if needed. nableezy - 16:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will be needed; the issue at hand is a technical question on how to interpret some CU data. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

14 October 2022

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

Based off of the discussion at the Icewhiz SPI for this user, it appears likely that this account is NoCal100. The evidence by GizzyCatBella reproduced here:

[157] <--> [158]
[159] <--> [160]

Additionally, NoCal, like Icewhiz, has repeatedly followed the same targets, Nishidani, myself and Iskandar323, as well as apparently Volunteer Marek (which admittedly threw me off-track in to thinking it was Icewhiz). This account was registered one week after JungerMan Chips Ahoy! was blocked from this investigation, and one day prior to Trying to reconnect (blocked in the following October investigation) nableezy - 19:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quickly add one more piece of evidence to my analyses from here
Blocked sockpuppet of NoCal100 [161] <--> CZUQZ [162]
At this point, I have no doubts the CZUQZ account belongs to the banned NoCal100. Too few edits by CZUQZ to be all coincidence. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS - You can also witness how engaged Icewhiz and his socks were in defending the obvious sockpuppetry of NoCal100. Just in case there is a need to verify whether these two know each other. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy NoCal100's sockpuppets deliberately make edits into WW2 Poland-related topic pretending to be Icewhiz (not only by engaiging in disputes with VM). It's done to deceive people at ISP, so they file investigations under Icewhiz. Keep this in mind for future cases. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Huldra

[edit]

When I saw the report against this editor under Icewhiz-socks, I thought that was strange; an editor who manage to revert Iskandar323, Nableezy, Nishidani and Volunteer Marek multiple times in under 50 edits (!) looks more like Nocal, IMO. Walks like duck, quacks like a duck... Huldra (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]

23 July 2023

[edit]

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

The yearly NoCal100 sock-- see below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
  • I looked into this account as a sock of Nocal as a result of a private tip. Technically, this is  Possible, but I became convinced of the connection with a behavioral comparison, which makes it  Likely in my eyes:
  • They share the same POV and edit in the same topic areas (Israel and American politics), and fall into beefing with the same few editors
  • They have similar styles of communication, making multiple short, increasingly snippy replies in talk page discussions, often debating about the reliability/use of sources. Comparing RS with past socks Chips ahoy and Izzy makes it obvious.
  • They leave their userpage a red link, as with the above two socks (which only became blue after being tagged)
  • They favor using italics and bolding in discussions, and make similar spelling errors (often with the last two letters of a word getting swapped)

 Blocked and tagged Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100/Archive&oldid=1167645130"