Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NazariyKaminski/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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


 * 1) NazariyKaminski was indef blocked on October 31, 2014 following a history of edit warring an personal attacks. MaverickLittle created an account on January 2, 2015. Their first edit was to created a blank user page. NazariyKaminski also created a blank user page.
 * 2) Both accounts have edited many of the same articles, with specific interest in Texas politics.
 * 3) Both accounts made significant edits to Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk.
 * 4) Both accounts routinely delete warnings on their talk pages by replacing the warnings with    - MaverickLittle:; NazariyKaminski:
 * 5) MaverickLittle signs their comments "ML". NazariyKaminski signs their's "NK".
 * 6) Both accounts edited at similar times: MaverickLittle; NazariyKaminski
 * 7) I discovered that MaverickLittle was a sock of NazariyKaminski more than a year ago and notified him of such (which they did not deny). I chose to look the other way per WP:IAR, hoping that the user would mend their ways and contribute positively to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, they have resumed the same type of behavior (edit warring:, personal attacks:, and general battleground behavior: ) that NazariyKaminski was blocked for.
 * 8) Both use the same spelling of "lede": MaverickLittle:; NazariyKaminski:

I think this is more than enough evidence for an block, but if not, please ping me as there is more that I could add. - MrX 16:38, 28 November 2016 (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
See also Sockpuppet investigations/MaverickLittle.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The account has now been indefinitely blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Editor Interaction Analyser. The sockmaster was blocked by User:Bbb23 in 2014, the sock MaverickLittle was blocked by User:MastCell in Nov 2016, and the sock SlackerDelphi was blocked by User:Bishonen in Sep 2017. The suspected sock (CS) was created 6 months and 11 days after the block of the last sock (9 sep 2017 – 20 march 2018).

The accounts all have in common that they edit
 * 1) both obscure and prominent pages for Texan politicians. The sockmaster was blocked for edit-warring on the Ted Cruz page
 * 2) basketball players for the University of Kansas,
 * 3) were two out of three editors to comment on the “The Fixer Upper” talk page,
 * 4) pages related to the “Jewish Home”,
 * 5) pages for first names and last names,
 * 6) pages associated with the abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. CS was warned for their editing to one of those pages. The sockmaster was such a devotee to the issue that they were first to edit in the announcement that a film was being made about Gosnell.
 * 7) Obsession with Elizabeth Warren's native heritage controversy (CS has 45 edits, NK has 13). All their edits to the Warren page are in relation to the native heritage controversy. CS was topic-banned in 2018.
 * 8) All have warnings and bans for edit-warring or tendentious behaviors

Edit summaries are similar:
 * 1) “r.s.”
 * 2) Misspellings of “concensus” (I count 29 such misspellings in SlackerDelphi’s last 500 edits and 41 in CS’s oldest edits
 * 3) things need to be “ton[ed]” down
 * 4) “breathless” language needs to be calmed down I count 6 “breathless” in CS’s last 500 edit summaries, 3 in SlackerDelphi’s, 5 in MaverickLittle's
 * 5) “added wikilink.”
 * 6) “valid” info must not be whitewashed/censored Both SlackerDelphi and CS frequently use variations of “valid” before “correct”/”reliably sourced” info
 * 7) “added picture.”
 * 8) “added photo.”
 * 9) names of “parent”, “mother”, “father”
 * 10) "put" results in order
 * 11) "calm" down text I count 16 "calm" in CS's last 500 edits, 3 in MaverickLittle's, 5 in SlackerDelphi's, some in NK's edits

CS is very likely a sock of NK per WP:DUCKTEST. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Update: CS was topic-banned from Am Politics by User:Bishonen today (previously, both the master and a sock were banned independently of one another for the exact same reason CS was banned: tendentious editing, edit-warring and whitewashing the pages of extremists). I would still like this sockpuppet investigation resolved. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I reviewed the list of claim similarities. I don't have any idea what similarities are supposed to be. I clicked on the diff given and those edits aren't mine.  --  CharlesShirley (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I reviewed only the first three "Edit summaries are similar" statements. [1]: SlackerDelphi said "R.S." but CharlesShirley said "r.s.", not the same. [2]: Sadly the spelling "concensus" is common, I happened to notice today that another Wikipedia used it. [3]: In fact CharlesShirley did not say “ton[ed]" in the first-mentioned edit summary. Of course, if there is a technical investigation, we don't have to care what an essay says about ducks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * thanks for the exceptionally detailed report! There's enough here (plus some other things I noticed) to call this proven. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * 1) The last sock was banned in Jan 2021. Goodtablemanners (GTM) made their first edit in March 2021.
 * 2) This sockpuppet ring is all about abortion and contraceptives (see past investigations). GTM has edited numerous such pages: do ctrl+F for "abortion" and see also edits to various abortion rights figures. While GTM has stayed away from pages related to Kermit Gosnell (which was the smoking gun evidence in the last investigation), GTM has edited pages for anti-abortion movies, which is precisely what the other socks did.
 * 3) Capitalized "ALL" in edit summaries
 * 4) toning down "breathless" coverage
 * 5) "changing to past tense"
 * 6) "rewording" and "wording" (highly common edit summaries in all accounts). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty thin gruel here, Snooganssnoogans. Purely coincidental. Believe it or not, different people sometimes use similar expressions. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Behavior is pretty much similar -- same topic interest, battleground and aggressive tendencies, unconstructive talk page dumps.I would think a checkuser is in order. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' As I told Snoogansnoogans on my talk page, I had no previous knowledge of an editor called NazariyKaminski. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Previous to what? SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Re SPECIFICO, CU isn't an option here because NK was never checked to begin with, as far as I know. Looking at the behavioral evidence, the "toning" and "breathless" similarities are fairly persuasive; "rewording" and "wording" moderately so; "ALL" not particularly and "changing to past tense" vs. "moved to past tense" are only very slightly. Comparing all of GTM's edits to all of CharlesShirley's, we get by ctrl+f:
 * "wording" × 64 GTM,× 76 CS
 * "tone" or "toning" × 1 GTM, × 4 CS
 * "breathless" × 1 GTM, × 14 CS
 * I also found 5 other similarities on relatively uncommon words, usages, or patterns, which I will withhold but log privately with another clerk.
 * But this is excluding all the things I ctrl+f'd for from one that were blank in the other. I'm pretty good at picking out the kinds of stock phrases sockmasters are likely to reuse, and those kept coming back empty. I did the same with eye-catching phrases that CS used in their talk archives, searching through all discussions GTM has commented in, and also didn't get anything interesting. This isn't just things that were identified in the last SPI either; CS had a pretty notable edit summary quirk (formatting something in a fairly uncommon way—will also log with another clerk) that GTM lacks.GTM has so little overlap with past NK sox that it almost comes back around to be suspicious, seeming deliberate. They and CS have both removed content from Michael Flynn they found unduly negative; then again, so have I, so that can't be that distinctive.Now, a good sockmaster can learn their own tells and avoid them. Not a lot of people seem to do it, which I suppose we should be grateful for, but it's totally doable; if we don't see much of it at SPI, it's probably because those people don't get caught to begin with. But the thing that gets me, then, is how the "tone" and "breathless" edits happened at all, when they were two of the most obvious things to avoid, given their mentions in the last filing. A slip-up? It'd have to be.I can't recall clerking a case like this, where there was both compelling evidence of socking and compelling evidence of not-socking. In the past when I've had to close a case as not proven (read: more likely than not, but not likely enough to block on), it's been because there just wasn't that smoking gun, but here it's more than that; sometimes you can't even hear the metaphorical gunfire, while other times it seems like it's right in your ear. So I think I have to call this not proven as well and close without action. Feel free to email me if you have questions about the tells I'm declining to disclose here.  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)