Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tombah

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tombah

Tombah (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tombah/Archive.


16 April 2024[edit]

– An SPI clerk has relisted this case for a checkuser to make another check.

Suspected sockpuppets[edit]

The editor shows some similarities to Tombah.

  • Article overlaps
    • Owenglyndur vs Tombah
    • Owenglyndur vs Hyrcanus (confirmed Tombah sock). The overlap is only a couple of articles, but they are pretty obscure with low activity and with little to no edits between Owenglyndur's and Hyrcanus' edits.
  • Use of NOTNEWS to remove incidents involving the death or injury of Palestinians.

My credence in it being a Tombah sock is somewhat diminished by them having even more article overlaps with Gilabrand.[5] and their contributions to Commons, which resemble Gilabrand's activities more than Tombah. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the content and style of their edits in English and Hebrew as well as at the photos they uploaded and you can clearly see that this is not even similar to Tombah.
And based on the topics they are dealing with, it seems unlikely to me that it is Gilabrand either.
It seems illogical to me that every time there is a new Israeli editor who is interested in archeology and Jewish history, they are immediately considered sockpuppets of Tombah.Eladkarmel (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eladkarmel, I appreciate you taking some time to look at it. I have fairly low credence in a match too, hence the word "some" in the report. I can't comment on the accuracy of a statement like "every time there is a new Israeli editor who is interested in archeology and Jewish history, they are immediately considered sockpuppets of Tombah". I don't think I was around when Tombah was active, I'm not very familiar with them and I think this is the first time I've filled an SPI that includes them. As for illogical, pattern matching is difficult and unreliable. I wish we could solve the extensive sock problem using logic. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that Israeli editors who are interested in archeology and Jewish history are essentially invisible/of no interest to me. Editors who remove incidents involving the death or injury of Palestinians or revert Huldra are visible to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you can understand what caught my attention, when I just started editing on the English Wikipedia, I was also told I was a sock puppet of Tombah (luckily I have been very active for 12 years on the Hebrew Wikipedia, and that's what saved me). I also saw other similar accusations that seemed very unlikely to me.Eladkarmel (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are not explicitly denying that you are a sock of Tombah. Obviously, this is highly suspicious. Yes, I agree people can be a bit over-enthusiastic in sock-hunting, including me. I guess we are still hunters at heart. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When they opened the discussion about it, I was not aware of the discussion. I think that before starting such a discussion it is worth checking in depth. (Anyone who opens my edits in Hebrew, and the truth is also in English, understands that I am not him) Eladkarmel (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately even with depth, and I'm a fan of depth, we often see the patterns we want to see. My SPI here is an example of that, which is why I am quite happy to undermine the case by pointing at data in Commons that does not fit the theory. Tools like the Editor Interaction Analyser automate selection bias. Every SPI case leaves out all of the data that does not fit the neat theory of the case. I would rather there were a lot more checkusers and all editors were routinely checked. It's such a fundamental problem in a rules based system like Wikipedia, to have 2 classes of editors, one that has to follow the rules or lose their editing privileges and the other that does not have to worry about that because they can regenerate themselves. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tombah&oldid=1222947984"