Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gilabrand/Archive

09 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

A credible allegation has been made on my talk page of sock-puppetry. I emphasise that I find the allegation credible but not conclusive so I'm filing this because I would like further input from people used to analysing diffs to look for patterns and because I believe there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to request a CheckUser.

Bukrafil has commented on an active AE thread concerning Gilabrand (which Gilabrand has not), which is presumably what led (the filer of the relevant AE request) to scrutinise their edits, and would be an attempt to evade scrutiny and deceive the community if the allegation were proven. His conclusions are summarised on my talk page (link above), but to summarise:
 * Bukrafil and Gilabrand share an interest in villages in Israel and its occupied territories, in particular those alleged to have been depopulated or which have been the scene of alleged misconduct by Israeli forces during the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * They make near-identical formatting errors when adding tags, leaving a space after the end of the sentence but not before the beginning of the next. Gilabrand example; Bukrafil examples:, , ,
 * Bukrafil and Gilabrand have both edit-warred (editing several months apart) to add identical material to the article caviar (regarding the opinion of a chef on the best caviar being from Israel)
 * Both use "Rumania" in lieu of the (much more commons but equally valid, as I understand it) "Romania", both in the context of R(u|o)manian immigration to Israel.
 * I don't know about Ubie the guru; that account is an obvious sock and I blocked it as such, but it also commented on the AE thread concerning Gilabrand in Gilabrand's defence. Its first edit was to a talk page to continue a dispute with (with whom Gilabrand seems to have a long-running feud—see, for example, Gilabrand's response at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142 to a complaint filed by Sepsis II).
 * I'm aware that CUs won't comment on the IP but may find it useful for comparison. Others may also wish to compare the behavioural evidence. The IP came to my talk page to harass me shortly after I raised the prospect of a block for Ubie the guru; a coincidence, possibly, but I doubt it. The IP has no other edits.

— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I got suspicious already when I saw Bukrafil's making the same type of changes that Gilabrand had done and when I also saw that he had started edited again after Gilabrand had stopped. When Bukrafil wrote in the AE case some days later, I was sure it was the same person. It reminded me of how Gilabrand had defended himself in the older AE case. The same story about how he improves Wikipedia and removes bias etc.

Both rewrites much and makes several edits on one page directly after each other. This can easiest by seen by looking at their contributions ( and ). Also notice the similar explanations in edit summaries.

It is known that Gilabrand often formats the refs bad. He has been told about it several times such as here, here and here.

Here, here, here and here, Gilabrand removes info related to schools because such "listings" is not right or that Wikipedia "is not a brochure". Bukrafil does the same thing here.

Here and here Gilabrand removes a long list of books because they are "unused". Bukrafil does the same thing (see these edits on an article).

In the article Caviar, Gilabrand had in May 2012 added info about the caviar from Dan, Israel (kibbutz Dan). That day, he also added the same thing to the article Dan, Israel. The info in the article Caviar got removed partly in June and partly in July. Bukrafil reinserted this in November 2012. That got removed by a user in January 2013. Gilabrand reinserted and reworded it last month.

What is perhaps most interesting is when Bukrafil edits, as briefly mentioned in my intro.

Gilabrand was blocked on 18 December 2010 for three months. One month after, Bukrafil is created. Bukrafil edits for some days and again on 23 February 2011 and 8 March. Bukrafil doesn't edit again until 5 June. Gilabrand got indefinite blocked on 25 May. As said, Bukrafil starts editing again on 5 June. He's very active that month and the following (July) and then he stops. On 9 August, it is decided that Gilabrand's ban is going to end on 25 August. Bukrafil does some editing on 11 September and 25 September and then stops. He returns on 24 October, where he mainly made many edits on Canada Park and did some edits in mid-November. He returns on 6 and 16 February and then doesn't edit until two times on 19 June. It is nearly always about Israel and Palestine.

On Khirbet Qeiyafa, Bukrafil made many edits on 22 June 2011 and then he stops. Gilabrand makes many edits on 2 November 2011‎ and some two weeks later and never returns until he made one edit for two months ago.

On 21 November 2012, Bukrafil is back. He makes eights edits, all on Caviar. His first edit is to reinsert Gilabrand's edit about kibbutz Dan's caviar. Gilabrand had been reported for edit warring on 19 November. After 19 November, he didn't make any edit with that account before six days later.

Bukrafil doesn't return until one year after that. On 20 November 2013, he starts editing again. He edits four days later too. In the same time, Gilabrand hadn't edited from 14 November (the day a case was made against him at AE) until 25 November, with the exception on answering in the AE case and his talk page. After that, he made two edits one month after on Eyad al-Sarraj and didn't return until this AE case.

So what we are seeing is that Bukrafil often edits when Gilabrand is not doing it because he is either blocked or has cases against him at AE. He was evading blocks with for some years ago and the pattern was clear then too. He was indefinite blocked for "the persistent evasion of arbitration enforcement sanctions and the continued disingenuous response".

Bukrafil has also also has reinserted material to support Gilabrand and also defended him at AE.

Maybe you should also take a look on 85.65.99.40 and see if there is a connection too Bukrafil and the other accounts. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * commenting here to note that I consider myself to be an uninvolved admin. Most of the evidence above was compiled by on my talk page and the above is mostly consolidation and analysis of that. As there are arbitration enforcement considerations if the allegations are proven, I would appreciate the opportunity to comment from that perspective on any potential enforcement action against Gilabrand or to refer it back to AE in the event that the current request is still open.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is messy. The following accounts are ✅:
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * It is highly likely that the person controlling the Gilabrand account and the person controlling the Burkafil account, at the very least, know each other IRL, and very that they are the same person.
 * The following accounts are ✅ with respect to each other and ❌ to the above:
 * . T. Canens (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅:
 * It is highly likely that the person controlling the Gilabrand account and the person controlling the Burkafil account, at the very least, know each other IRL, and very that they are the same person.
 * The following accounts are ✅ with respect to each other and ❌ to the above:
 * . T. Canens (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ with respect to each other and ❌ to the above:
 * . T. Canens (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . T. Canens (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . T. Canens (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Topdiggie created for those two accounts. All others from CU results blocked indef and tagged as sockpuppets of Gilabrand. Gilabrand blocked indef. Closing now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Evidence will be forwarded to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org. NB: I became aware of the Checkthe account back in 2016, alas when I became aware of it more than 3 months had passed since last edit. However, I just noted that Checkthe did 2 edits last month, so CU should now be possible. Huldra (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Email (with diffs) sent to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org, and Gilabrand notified, Huldra (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Bbb23: have sent you a copy of the material I sent to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org, Huldra (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23, sent you another email, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I haven't seen your e-mail on the list yet. It may be held up in moderation (I am not a list admin). In the meantime, if you wish, you can e-mail me the same material, and I'll take a look at it. For now, I've put this report on hold.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I received your e-mail (I do not reply directly to user e-mail). Please explain why your evidence cannot be posted here. I see none. If you wish to explain privately, you can send me another e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * For several reasons that I decline to enumerate, I am closing this report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)