Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philscirel/Archive

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Philscirel

Philscirel (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date June 9 2009, 11:50 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Arnoutf

POV pushing on Fethullah Gülen by reinserting highly POV months old version, over all subsequent edits. Philscirel and all his previous socks have a long history of the following behavioural pattern.

  • Laying low for a few months and then suddenly a new editor appears.
  • The editor makes a few micro edits to some articles and then directs his attention to the Fethullah Gülen article.
  • An old version, that is lenghtly, highly POV, and filled with non-neutral non-reliable sources is reinserted. That a new editor so easily finds a months old version of an article, several dozens if not hundreds of edits ago is suspicious in itself; why would the new editor know this.
  • After reverting to the last consensus version, the editor goes into a series of reverts, where he insists that the highly POV version of the article is correctly sourced and therefore sacrosanct. He then starts to argue that all edits going against it are a form of vandalism.

This same mode of operation has lead to the blocking of a least three Philscirel socks I know of: user:Eranist, User:YusrSehl and User:Melitop. While I am always inclined to give editors the benefit of the doubt, it seems clear to me Philscirel is back. Arnoutf (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And another part of the same old pattern exhibited by pevious socks. Not engaging in talk pages; yet staying with the opinion that his version is the only possible outcome. This includes responding on his own talk page and the defense against claims opportunity provided here. Even after being explicitly asked to engage in talk page discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my answer. I am wondering how you will respond?.. Will you still make nonsense vague comments or list your specific concerns? The former seems to be pretty comfortable for you, right? The latter is what is expected though. I am ready to address your specific concerns if you have any. Thanks. Nurefsan (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For discussion about developing the article, I will only respond to comments made on the talk page of the article; here you are asked to comment on my accusation that you are the same person who has previously been involved in the Fethullah Gulen article under the user name Philscirel; keep your comments here on that topic please. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As accused party has not responded to the actual accusation (but has definitely seen this procedure - see Nurefsans comments on this page) I have once again notified him of this case [1].
I hope it can be closed soon though as it is open for 3 weeks now, and Philscirel/Nurefsan is pushing his agenda relentlessly on his favourite article. Arnoutf (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not fair on Arnoutf that he should have to spend this much time fighting vandalism. nurefsan/philscirel even had the gall to threaten to report Arnoutf for vandalism. --Adoniscik(t, c) 19:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

It seems unlikely that there could be more than one such user. Whatever his identity, to date Nurefsan has shunned dialogue (ironic, in view of Gulen's emphasis on it) and remained deaf to objections about his sources (which are mainly of a testimonial character). Such comments as he has deigned to make have been needlessly rude. At this point I have to agree that the article would be better without his involvement, though his insider's knowledge of Gulen and his movement might have been useful. Dawud (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog?.. Is that something you are looking for? And is that why you deleted almost all information in the article together with 100 references and attempted to rewrite it? If you are honest and sincere in putting the article to a better, more neutral, encyclopedic from, I would be glad to extend my offer to Arnouts to you as well: Do not vandalize or blank the page. Let us work on it sentence by sentence, reference by reference, argument by argument. Show me where the problem is, what is it, and why.. I would be happy to incorporate your suggestions and contributions. Nurefsan (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the article's discussion page? Dawud (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurefsan (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is irrelevant to this proceedings. The issue here is whether you are the same person as Philscirel. Philscirel started out as a potentially valuable editor, but turned sour (and stubborn) after he could not get it exactly his way. We gave him a lot of slack because of that promising start, but his own behaviour got him blocked. Your almost identical approach (including reinserting large sections of text originally written by Philscirel) and focus on the same topic (Fethullah Gulen) mae me suspect you are actually the same person (and therefore can be blocked for sockpuppetry). If your edits were less similar and problematic, I would never have started this procedure. Indeed, I did not so between May 27 and June 9th as I hoped you were a new editor, you convinced me you are not.
The only topic here is therefore the discussion: Is Nurefsan the same person as Philscirel. Please only provide argument in support or denial of that statement. Arnoutf (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Arnouth's suspicions; the behavioral evidence (trivial insertions to other articles with the ulterior goal of whitewashing Gulen's, profession of a desire to collaborate, a touchy finger on the revert button) strongly suggests that philscirel is back. Greetings! No doubt he wants to put in a word about the latest news about the military's alleged plan to counter his organization. That's understandable. Something should indeed be written about it, when the facts emerge, but probably not by philscirel, nurefsan & co. --Adoniscik(t, c) 19:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

WP:DUCK if anything, but this is fairly obvious if you look at the history of Fethullah Gülen. Black Kite 17:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 10 2010, 15:13 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Arnoutf

Edits on

WP:DUCK. Arnoutf (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Arnoutf (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined because  Stale, will need to be decided on behaviour, SpitfireTally-ho! 16:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 IP blocked –MuZemike 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a
Checkuser
.
Report date February 15 2010, 19:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Arnoutf

Reversion of

WP:DUCK. Arnoutf (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

information Administrator note Blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date February 19 2010, 18:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Arnoutf

Philscirel on

WP:DUCK. Stereotypical behaviour: Period of calm followed by series of sockpuppets that only aim to revert the Gulen article to the highly POV Philscirel version. (in this case pervious changes by Vndlrepellent and 71.72.81.83 - both blocked as Philscirel sock in the last week or so). New user claiming expert knowledge on the history of this article. New user claiming to support a consensus version which is not consensus at all but only ever been supported by Philscirel and his increasing army of (blocked) socks..... And another hallmark Philscirel behaviour: Calling removal of biased information (but leaving more or less balanced information) blanking Arnoutf (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: B + E (Ongoing serious pattern vandalism and community ban/sanction evasion)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

Self-endorsing for CheckUser attention per the frequent recent socking. Also to see if that underlying IP has changed any and to see if it can be hardblocked. –MuZemike 05:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and they're both already blocked also. –MuZemike 22:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 21 2010, 09:46 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Arnoutf

Fethullah Gulen again. Came out of semiprotection yesterday and today the same POV pushing edit only ever made by Philscirel before was made again, interestingly this IP number was previously blocked for being a Philscirel Sockpuppet for making these exact same edits (and then the page was semiprotected), so Phil did not change IP for now. Please block again. Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request –
code letter
: CODE LETTER (Unknown code )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Arnoutf (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined This has been confirmed to be his IP address in February of this year, I recommend at least a month block this time. Auntie E. (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date April 25 2010, 08:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Arnoutf

User created and autoconfirmed with as single goal POV pushing on

WP:Duck. Arnoutf (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
]


Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

No real room for doubt here. Blocked 71.72.81.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 90 days again, based on its earlier effectiveness (note that the resurrection here coincides with the expiration of the block on the IP address). Blocked Turnurban indefinitely as a sock.—Kww(talk) 16:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


05 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


on page

WP:duck
. Although slightly more subtle than before the anon editor has by now shown about all the typical behaviours of Philscirel. These are: Sudden substantial changes after a long period of stability (edits typically made during summer). Always including reference to Gulen being philosopher (while there is no single source that supports that), reverting the page to something closely resembling an old heavily biased version removed after blocking of yet another Philscirel sock, heavily relying on Zaman newspaper articles (controlled by Gulen hence not reliable). Acting as if wanting to discuss, but not willing to accept changes of even a comma in the own text. Claiming that the own version (only ever supported by Philscirel socks) is indeed a stable version supported by many Wikipedians. Accusing others of bad faith etc. Calling removal of biased information supported by well known inreliable source vandalism. Although this time it took some time to develop, this combination is very typical of Phiscirel and his socks. Arnoutf (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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
13 August 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


Being an IP it was blocked for 1 week, just last week through a case listed here by me. Just came off that block today, and reverted to the sockpuppet version of

WP:duck. As this IP has not changed in a week I ask for a longer block, and/or semiprotection of the Gulen article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Arnoutf (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Additional evidence for WP:duck after reading the ranting on the Gulen talk page. The anon user claims that many, many user support his/her view. This is typical of Philscirel of socks, claiming that many users support their view..... all of whom are blocked sockpuppets of..... Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philscirel/Archive&oldid=1074046696"