Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OdNahlawi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OdNahlawi

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

08 October 2024

[edit]

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

[edit]

In this edit (quickly reverted) OdNahlawi appears to respond as though they are PeleYoetz. nableezy - 14:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the quote within it still suggests that they are answering as the other user. He wrote complained about what another user wrote, addressing PeleYoetz: Also, the choice of words, "PeleYoetz undid the changes and introduced WP:V errors in the article" doesn’t seem like you’re addressing me to explain my edits or calling for any action The doesn’t seem like you’re addressing me to explain my edits referring to what they themselves quote as being something written to PeleYoetz reads, to me at least, as answering as PeleYoetz. nableezy - 22:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Levivich, if he is saying what I think he is, is right that these two accounts are related to Galamore and likely Icewhiz. You can see it in the tag-teaming between OdNahlawi and Galamore and PeleYoetz, eg history at 2006 Lebanon War and Samir Kuntar most recently. nableezy - 18:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Sean.hoyland

[edit]

Article intersection evidence suggests that the likelihood that the PeleYoetz account is being used for ban evasion is significantly greater than zero, certainly high enough to trigger a checkuser in my view. However, the ratio of disruptive to non-disruptive edits has not been at a sufficient level to trigger an SPI report from me personally. The possibility that there are multiple disposable ban evading actors being used by a single source in the PIA topic area where ban evasion starts fires changes that calculation.

  • The state of affairs on 18 August 2024 was that the PeleYoetz account had made ~1050 edits spread over ~380 different pages with 175 pages in common with topic banned and blocked editor User:Gilabrand, many to articles with relatively low pageview and revision counts. This is documented here, including the intersections at the time. The article intersection count is now 187.
  • The article intersection data for OdNahlawi vs Gilabrand may also indicate a connection.
  • The ban evasion activity timeline demonstrates that operating multiple actors concurrently is a property of this banned user. So, if PeleYoetz is being used for ban evasion it seems sensible to assign a high credence to the possibility that they could also be operating the OdNahlawi account and that Nableezy's interpretation could be correct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a different way of looking at timecards using binned revision count histograms. I find them easier to understand than xtools' circle sizes.

On the sockmaster(s), from my highly unreliable software, computer says...

  • PeleYoetz close to Bukrafil (a Gilabrand sock) and Gilabrand.
  • OdNahlawi close to Icewhiz and their socks Eostrix and Seggallion.
  • Galamore close to Icewhiz and their socks Bob not snob and Eostrix.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roy, did you

No, I didn't do either of those. If you think they're socks of those cases, please file there. And please try to be concise. I know you want to provide a lot of evidence, but realistically, if you write a wall of text, nobody's going to slog through it all.
To be honest, I'm dubious about most sock reports in this topic space. Just being pro-Israel or pro-Palestine doesn't automatically make somebody a sock. See WP:NOTFISHING. Anybody who is pro-XXX is likely to have a large editing overlap with all the other pro-XXX editors, and given that they tend to live in a small geographic area, they're all likely to have similar timecards, use the same networks, etc. RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious about everything, so you are not alone there. I'm not interested in people's beliefs on the conflict, because it tells me nothing about whether they are evading a ban. Can you clarify whether a situation where an account made ~1050 edits spread over ~380 different pages with 175 pages in common with topic banned and blocked editor represents concise and sufficient evidence or whether it is fishing? Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for interest, I'm also dubious about most sock reports in this topic area, but in my case, it is because I don't believe WP:SOCK is enforceable in practice in the topic area for a variety of technical and cultural reasons, and blocked actors simply create new accounts, so there is little to no utility in detecting and blocking dedicated recidivist ban evading actors. I'm moving towards the view that our inability to deal with ban evasion in PIA for well over a decade now should probably be incorporated into the ArbCom remedies for the topic area by suspending the requirement to comply with WP:SOCK. This might, in my view, somewhat counterintuitively have a number of advantages over the current situation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roy with all due respect, it's a little frustrating to have one SPI patroller say "we need more evidence" and then the next one say "too much evidenced." We don't know how much is the perfect amount of evidence that y'all want. We can't read your minds.
Also, I did "file there" as you suggested, and noted that below. Wouldn't it make sense to check both at the same time? You literally told me not long ago not to sweat where things are filed, now you're telling Sean to file elsewhere? Again, which is it? We need some clearer instructions here, and you know it's hard to tell which LTA sockfarm a particular account is a part of.
And no evaluation of behavioral evidence? This goes way beyond being "pro-X" or "anti-Y." Again, with all due respect, being pro-X or anti-Y absolutely can be a dead giveaway for sock of meatpuppetry. You know that recently-created account that rushed to XC then immediately started arguing the moon is made of cheese? Yeah, almost certainly the same person/group as that other new account that rushed to XC and immediately started arguing the moon is made of cheese. There just aren't that many people who really want Wikipedia to say the moon is made of cheese. There aren't that many people who would claim the Masada myth isn't a myth, or Golan Heights belongs to Israel, or Palestinians aren't from Palestine, or mainstream historians are fringe, etc. These are uniquely crazy suggestions, they are the best behavioral indicator of sock/meatpuppetry. Not a lot of people will say with a straight face variations of "God gave the land to us." That's an outlier view.
I'm surprised you found these accounts "unrelated" because I just flat out don't believe that. "Inconclusive" ok but really, unrelated? Two totally different and legit ISPs, user agents, etc? Neither using a proxy, nor public Internet, nor other privacy measures? And if that is true, then what about meat puppetry? It's just so obvious they're working together that I'm surprised you don't seem to consider it.
I mean, for Pete's sake, he used the word "me" and "my" and a different username multiple times in the same edit. How is that anything other than game over? Have you ever seen somebody else do that and not be a sock? Levivich (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clearer: I'm not looking for another CU so much as I'm looking for dialogue that leads to understanding. Perhaps if someone would specifically comment on the specific evidence brought forward here and at the other case, that would help SPI filers understand how to better evaluate evidence and make better SPI reports in the future. Levivich (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich

[edit]

"I thought I was on a different page" doesn't explain why one account would use the first person ("addressing me to explain my edits") when answering a message directed at another account on the other account's talk page. When it comes to socking, answering in the first person for another account is tantamount to a confession. I've noticed similarities between these accounts before and was thinking about filing an SPI but never saw anything as clear as OdNahlawi answering in the first person for PeleYoetz.

I would add to this list:

Some additional evidence:

Uppagus created Jan 28; PeleYoetz May 9; OdNahlawi June 18.

Similar and somewhat distinctive timecards: Uppagus's timecard, PeleYoetz's timecard, OdNahlawi's timecard

All three edited almost-daily to get to XC. Once they hit XC, both the frequency and number of edits declines:

  • Uppagus edits almost daily until 5/7 (1st 500 contribs); hits XC 5/7 [1]; stops daily editing 5/7, switches to a few days a week, then a few days a month (post-XC contribs)
  • PeleYoetz same: edits almost daily until 6/18 [2]; XC 6/17 [3]; stops daily editing 6/18 [4]
  • OdNahlawi same: edits almost daily until 8/8 [5]; XC 8/8 [6]; stops daily editing 8/8 [7]

All three make liberal use of vague stock edit summaries, e.g. "Added information", "Adding information", "Added info" (see the contribs lists linked above for examples).

PeleYoetz and OdNahlawi have edited hewiki, though Uppagus has not: Uppagus's xtools, PeleYoetz's xtools, OdNahlawi's xtools

Overlaps:

EIA for all three: [9]. All three accounts' edits reflect a noticeable Israeli nationalist POV. Levivich (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I mentioned these accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#09 October 2024. Levivich (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OdNahlawi&oldid=1251127869"