Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soosim/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Soosim

Soosim (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
27 May 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Requested by TC Legoktm (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

Whatever the relationship, Scarletfire2112‎‎'s actions are questionable and appear to be inconsistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE. They should be removed from ARBPIA on that basis in my view or at least told that exploiting Wikipedia for advocacy is not okay and must stop.

  • Why did this editor appear out of nowhere and start editing the Amiram Goldblum, one of ~4.2 million articles ? How did that happen ?

In addition to assisting in the apparent targeting of Amiram Goldblum by NGO Monitor staff (see COI discussion) there other issues.

  • The editor's 4th edit was to add a cn tag. This suggests that they are being helped by a more experienced editor or they have a knowledge of Wikipedia editing that is inconsistent with their statement here. I'll note that when I did an analysis of about ~870 edits in 4 articles in ARBPIA, 2 high profile articles that have existed for many years, and 2 smaller newer articles, I found that for edits made by registered users or IPs with less than 500 edits, the probability of an edit being made by a confirmed sock rather than an apparently new legitimate non-sock for each article was 68.9%, 62.5%, 83.9% and 50.8%. So, blindly assuming good faith in ARBPIA is irrational in my view.
  • Their 20th edit was to nominate the Bab al Shams article for deletion based on "No RS. Not news. No substance in the article" a few hours after it was created[1]. This is an example of when nationalist advocacy becomes disruptive. Look at the number of RS in the article now. This looks like an attempt to exploit Wikipedia's rules to suppress information that they apparently don't like.
  • Their most significant contribution was to create an article initially called Delegitimization of Israel, a narrative of great interest to NGO Monitor of course. It was subsequently renamed and rewritten by other editors. This was a pretty blatant case of exploiting Wikipedia for propaganda purposes that they broadcast by notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel (and only that project) and linking it to 14 other articles.
  • They appear to have difficulty with rational policy based decision making. This presents a risk to content especially for BLPs. For an example, see Talk:Ali_Abunimah#Twitter_and_1RR where I tried to reason with both Soosim and Scarletfire2112. Frankly it was a waste of time so I gave up.

Sean.hoyland - talk 07:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add another oddity which suggest at the very least a close relationship between the two accounts.

Both accounts show interest in basically only two different topics: Israel/Palestine related material, and a restaurant featured in a US TV show.
  • Soosim:[2]
  • Scarletfire2112:[3].

Slp1 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Special:Contributions/Micro mortgage should be investigated in relation to this affair. It's a new account coming to the defence of Soosim [4]. (I came here via WP:AE where I was involved in another thread.) 5.12.68.204 (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Special:Contributions/Events_manager7 for the same reasons [5]. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Those are probably just throwaway accounts set up by some random hate filled ultranationalist Israel supporter with an axe to grind against Goldblum. Disruptive throwaway accounts and IPs like that are ten a penny in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SH. The on-Wiki dispute is being publicised by right-wing Israeli "public diplomacy" sites, so it's not surprising that the articles are experiencing this kind of disruption. Dlv999 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I didn't mean to add unnecessary workload. This looked similar to the Qworty case, but I see now there's a wider angle to it. Regards, 5.12.68.204 (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

Currently available technical evidence indicates that the following accounts are  Confirmed to be related:

It is less clear whether this is a case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. T. Canens (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Clerk note: I was leaning meatpuppetry and a warning until I saw Scarletfire2112's reply to you on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scarletfire2112‎‎'s claim to not know Soosim is not believable in light of the IP and behavioral match, so I think we can conclude that he is a sock. I've left Soosim unblocked as he should be able to defend himself at his ongoing WP:AE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soosim/Archive&oldid=1079420153"