Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq./Archive

29 June 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This will need to moved to the most applicable name, I've just got no idea what that is yet. Filing this case based on WP:AE.

Here come the Suns: Exactly the same edit in response to a revert at Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories (Here comes and Kipa) both using the relatively uncommon word "attribution" in their edit summaries.

Here come the Suns and Qdodm890 also edited List of World Heritage Sites in the Arab States which looks like a relatively out of the way article.

Unlucky Irish, Qdodm890 and Kipa Aduma, Esq.: On Old City (Jerusalem) block sock Qdodm890 makes an edit in November 2013, reverts it at the end of Jan 14. At the beginning of Feb 14 Unlucky reverts, Sepsis reverts, Kipa reverts, Sepsis reverts then Unlucky reverts again. Based on Unlucky Irish's contribs it looks like SPA and probably a sock of someone.

Franken Farther: These edits (Franken Kipa) to 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens suggest that the two accounts may be related

The connection to 123.3.35.1 above can be seen with these two edits (123.3.35.1 and Kipa) to Ariel University.

I suspect Kipa Aduma, Esq. was looking for an edit war as they could associate themselves with an established user but it needs to be mentioned that they carried on the edit war (from (Brew)) at Murder of Shalhevet Pass. As I said I don't think the exact same edit (Kipa, Brew) from both accounts tells us that they are the same person but it must be considered. The usual give away stuff (WP:BEANS) doesn't rule out a connection.

There is also some evidence of Kipa following Sean.hoyland around (also see this on AE). For example at Murder of Shalhevet Pass, Ariel University. Though what this means I'm not sure.

Perhaps related to Aa42john given this revert of User:Aa42shirley which hadn't edited the page in the last 1000 revisions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
Comment That's a huge load of work, man, and I commend your diligence and patience. Since this IP sockpuppeting game is assuming appalling frequency, is causing collateral damage to many editors, and time-wasting complexity in the I/P area, wouldn't it be about time to set a simple rule there? No 1R rights until you have done 200 edits, or better, 500 edits to wikipedia generally before entering that danger zone? Most of those names do edits that are in-your-face outright bad, but are useful for POV warriors because, revert them, and a serious editor can't touch the page for a day.Nishidani (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that was a lot of work, commendable, but we do need to set up new framework to stop the creation of these throwaway accounts. Two small changes which I think will only produce benefits are unlimited reverting (for experienced editors) of accounts with <250 edits, the same as we do for IPs currently, and that <250 edit accounts who focus mainly in the IP area which break 1RR are hit with one month blocks, not a warning or one day block. Sepsis II (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dangerous. It would be bad for editors (experienced or not) to be given discretionary power. That smacks of elitism. There must be dozens of ways of lowering the temperature, and the workload for everyone. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong reply? Sepsis II (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Nishidani 100% here. One of the most disheartening experiences on Wikipedia is that in controversial areas, like the I/P-area,  is that the cheaters are given all the aces. "Throw-away-accounts" waste an enormous amount of our time, time which could have been spent productively adding/expanding articles. If we just had a rule that no account can edit articles under ARBIA sanction without having, say, 200 or 500 edits elsewhere on the project first; then I think  a large parts  of the socks would go away. Huldra (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. No edition of articles under ARBIA before 200 edits elsewhere on the project. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But a majority of accounts which make one of their first dozen edits on an IP article are not socks. We should just be free to revert the actual problematic accounts without consequence like we do with IP edits. Sepsis II (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've begun a thread on discussing possible changes to ARBPIA on the matter of socks, if those interested in the matter could join the discussion that would be great. Sepsis II (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I believe enough evidence has been presented to check at least some of the reported accounts, hopefully the technical data gets us somewhere. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Unlucky Irish and Qdodm890 are, and the rest appear to be ❌. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the results of the CU, no action is taken. Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)