 | This page is an current main page . |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Almaqdisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Aboosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Alathiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
Elizmr 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence
- Aboosh's first two edits were on an AFD discussion page:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam.
- Aboosh was able to fill in vote using correct format and used edit summary even though he had not made an edit before and did not even have a welcome note with helpful advice on his page.
- Aboosh's POV is similar to that of Almaqdisi who has a very strong opinion on the issue under discussion.
- One of Aboosh's only two edits on Wikipedia thus far was to defend Almaqdisi:
"Strong Delete:Amoruso, I do not see any uncivil behaviour that Almaqdisi has showed in his comments. He has explained to you the concept of Fiqh in Islam. His explanation is very accurate, and there is nothing uncivil about it. It is a very extensive well-founded science and you cannot dispute whatever you feel like. This is an issue that has to have an input from Islamic scholars ONLY. Also, Beit Or, Islam does not open a wide door for discussion and interpertations as many non-muslims wish for it to be. So, this discussion must be ended and for this page to be deleted.Aboosh 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)"
- Alathiri was welcomed by Almaqdisi, his edit to Al-Aqsa Mosque was promptly "organized" by Almaqdisi, and his other few other edits consisted of detailed discussion on Talk:Dome of the Rock and then a comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third holiest site in Islam. All in all the pattern is suspicious for a new user, and it fits well as a sockpuppet of Almaqdisi. TewfikTalk 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comments
- I believe Elizmr is correct. Note that both Almaqdisi and Aboosh used the same type of reference to user names in which the user names appear "red and in-active".[15] [16] Note that he's referring to me out of all users, supporting "Almaqdisi" in his same language, and then also choosing Beit Or out of all people, another user that Almaqdisi often said the same things to in the Al Aqsa article [17].
Note the very similar use of the language "subject is not open for non-Islamic interpertations" [18] in many of his edits : [19], use of "muslim scholars" often [20], the word "masjid", and him referring to Beit Or [21] etc. He also recently was found to upload images under false pretext of it being a creation of his own even though it wasn't as part of this battle. [22] Amoruso 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My Response:
- Having other users strongly arguing and supporting my opinion does not mean that this accusation is acceptable.
- If I need help or support in a topic, I request that officially from a knowledgable person by a kind request at his user page. These are easy to find by looking through the various catagories WikiPedia offers.
- The fact that this new user, Abooshi, started his Wikipedia Journey at this article is not my problem really.
- I keep discussions logical and authentic, and hate forging of facts, particularly to
al-Aqsa mosque related articles and
Palestine
- I am only a commentator at the discussion page, it is not me who is proposing to start with AfD.
- Many users replied directly to Amoruso because he is the one who started this article with the support of Chesdovi. Both of whom are found not knowledgable enough in regard to interpreting and using the Islamic sources. My properly cited contributions can be found at Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestine. I keep high quality standards in my citations.
- I believe it is my right to show my opinion regarding this article when I consistently find an attempt by the user Amoruso to force edits that can only be described as a disinformation attempt in regard to al-Aqsa mosque in general. His edits are driven by wrong and discredit beliefs such as the one in which he argues that the Dome of the Rock was built for Jews [23], [24]. This is actually a main reason why many users believes he created an article which is having an AfD case [25].
Thanks. Almaqdisi 07:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- you could have maintained some credibility if you argued that Aboosh is your friend that you asked to join wiki for this purpose, but not you exactly. That would have made atleast some sense. I think by now the evidence is clear it's indeed a sock puppet. You should have focused on a cover-up story rather than irrelevant attacks. Amoruso 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Amoruso, the fact that you like to accuse me when it is proven that your inputs to Wikipedia are all wrong and reverted again and again should tell the credibility you are seeking here. I do not need a cover up story for a Hoax you are coming up with. It may be as well that this user Aboosh is a friend of yours who created this user name for you to make such an allegation. If you continue your behaviour this way, you will be reported for your continuous personal attacks and accusation nonstopping against those who keep cleaning up behind your propoganda and wrong edits like these [26], [27] and this [28] ! Almaqdisi 00:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh no, please don't report me for "wrong edits" :) (is "The Prophet" upset?) Also I suggest you don't do it on the
WP:3RR page again :) Thanks for amusing me
.
Amoruso
As long as we stay
WP:COOL and factual, it is always my pleasure.
Almaqdisi 01:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Reiterating my discomfort with this issue, as I have explained under my profile Aboosh, I am looking forward to have this issue resolved ASAP and for Almaqdisi's name and my name to be cleared and for this episode not to be repeated again without providing the accused party the benifit of doubt. Aboosh 08:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think Almaqdisi's response is adequate. Aboosh probably only supported Almaqdisi and perhaps emulated his style a bit because he seemed the most vocal proponent for deletion and because his arguments seemed the most persuasive and compelling in terms of the theology this article sticks a red hot poker into. I would have waited for more evidence of a consistent pattern before pursuing this.--Amerique dialectics 04:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for commenting (although it was a bit of an attack on the speed with which I reported from someone who clearly has a "dog in this fight" (to use a really unpleasant expression) since you were the one who placed the AFD that Aboosh emerged during.) I agree that the response is probably is adequate, and I have nothing personal against either of these guys, but we need an impartial admin to come and check their IP addresses to make sure they are different and then the whole thing will be settled. Right now we just have "he said; he said". I hope someone will come and check this out soon. Elizmr 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment to Tewfik: Tewfik, I find it strange and quite selective and picky that you add User:Alathiri to the list of suspects. If I will follow the same standards in chasing new users, do you suggest me to file sock puppets complaints against User:Beit Or and User:Amoruso as their input is quite the same? Good luck Tewfik, and hope to have better WikiPedia editing time with you. Cheers. Almaqdisi 20:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ha input the same ?? Take a look at contribs... are you saying you're not connected to Alathiri?? Amoruso 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Conclusions
This is best taken to WP:RFCU. Kilo•T 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Mallaccaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
Apro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
168.233.1.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
168.233.254.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Report submission by
--Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence
Mallaccaos (talk · contribs) and Apro (talk · contribs) are both participating in a mediation at Talk:Alexander the Great, and advocate the same positions. I suspect a single person is using both accounts to make it seem like multiple users support his position.
Mallaccaos' account was created Jan 31, 2006, but this user had already been editing since fall 2005 as the anon users 168.233.1.6 (talk · contribs) and 168.233.254.6 (talk · contribs).
- Furthermore, the contributions of Mallaccaos and 168.233.1.6 roughly correlate with each other: for instance, on March 9, 2006, both 168.233.1.6 and Mallaccaos edit . This is just from looking at a short date range.
single-purpose account
created for the dispute there; but Mallaccaos is also contributing to the dispute as if these are two separate editors.
- Comments
- Comment Akhilleus, I am using a server at work which is used by thousands of other people not only at our home office but nation wide which are routed back to our home office's Info Center. I'm sure many of us share IP addresses and also sure that I am not the only person from my company who has accounts on Wiki or uses it at work. As for advocating similar issues for one thing if Apro is Greek it wouldn't surprise me that he shares similar views as me and as you said I'm not on the talk site nor do I contribute to the issue as extensively as he does. No, I am not Apro but I am now curious to find out if he does work in the same company as me. Regards. :) Mallaccaos 26 October 2006
- Oh for goodness sakes, not this again. I am sorry, Akhilleus if you feel I am suspect because I hold similar views Mallaccaos but I can say with definate positive certainty that I am not Mallaccaos nor CretanPride nor anyone else for that matter. I've always used the user name Apro everytime I joined a group. And yes I do have a wiki account, which I got a few months ago or whenver and have used it through work, which I am doing so now and which I never bothered to hide my IP because I have nothing to hide. Apro 26 October 2006
- Apro PM on the way. Interested to find out where you work. Hope I am not intruding. :) Mallaccaos 26 October 2006
- Roger that. Apro 26 October 2006
OK, I went back and read Akhilleus's evidence a second time and I can see where he might be suspect of all this but I must stress here that I am not a sockupppet of Mallaccaos and neither is he a sockupppet of me. I did receive an email from Mallaccaos and can confirm we do work for the same company, thankfully not my boss, LoL, but I'm not exactly sure how this can be resolved here. Is it against the rules for people who share similar IPs to be wiki editors? Apro 26 October 2006
New comment. The series of posts above display an idiosyncratic trait shared by Apro and Mallaccaos' signatures. Rather than use ~~~~ to sign with a timestamp, they manually type their username and the date, without an exact time. Sometimes this leads to mistakes in signing: see this diff by Mallaccaos, and this diff by Apro. In the comments above Apro's and Mallaccaos' usernames lead to their User talk pages, another unusual and shared feature. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand what signing ones name manually means anything, I am sure that neither myself nor Apro are the only wiki editors who sign our names manually. Plus how is it explained that on this page we are both at the same time posting and talking on wiki within seconds of each other without logging out of Wiki.[32][33] Mallaccaos 27 October 2006
- Don't know how Mallaccaos signs his name but I'm too lazy to type it in so I usually copy & paste it, take out the time, change the date. I figured if anyone wants to see the timestamped they can look at the history page. Is there a certain Wiki policy way editors need to sign their name? Is it mandatory to have the timestamp ~~~~ after posting? Apro 28 October 2006
- Conclusions
This is obviously becoming a long term problem between this article. I am therefore taking no stnace on it, and recommend you take it to WP:RFCU. Kilo•T 12:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the
read this
for detailed instructions.
- Suspected sockpuppeteer
Messenger2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Suspected sockpuppets
63.17.106.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.17.51.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.17.55.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.17.58.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.17.64.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.17.93.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
63.17.33.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Religion Puppet Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Anti Bean Critic Rules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
DoctorColgan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
WheeeeeePuppets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Yankaas76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
BruceKarateLee76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hello G. and Y. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Whey is (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I Plead Gulity As Charged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Penandy42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
AndyCanada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I suspect that IP addresses starting with 63.17 are actually in fact User:Messenger2010.
I was alerted to Messenger2010 being a sockpuppetmaster when the user slipped up and edited one of their socks spelling mistakes.here in the middle of a
Requests for comment
discussion.
Perhaps the most immediate and obvious piece of evidence is the reverts that have gone on on the following articles in the last 24 hours since this page has been made. These articles include the
Biological Value
articles. All reverts made by IPs beginning with 63.17 back to version by one either the suspected puppet master or one of the other suspected sockpuppets.
- Evidence
Have a look at this edit by Messenger2010 [34] and compare it to this [35] and this [36]. Notice the how the spacing, tone and wording is nearly identical.
The obvious evidence is located on talk page for the
strawman
argument.
Please notice the striking similaries of the subject edit patterns and use of language and catch phrases ( such as "POV Pushing/Pusher" (a key identifier) and also "Experienced Wikipedians needed", overuse/misuse of term POV, use of the word "unencyclopedic" in edit summaries)
Some Examples:
Master:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Messenger2010
Sock #1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.17.106.109 ("POV", "unencyclopedic")
Sock #2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.17.51.115 ("Experienced Wikipedians needed")
Sock #3
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.17.55.215
Sock #4
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.17.58.67 ("Experienced Wikipedians", "POV Pusher")
Other socks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.17.64.192
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.17.90.25
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.17.93.101
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.17.61.40
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.17.63.214
- Notes
Another reason for exposing this sockpuppet master is to due the harrassment and wikistalking of myself (and to a lesser extent other editors like
David D. and
Glen S that has been perpetuated by the socks starting with 63.17. See here:
[38]- Puppetmaster and Socks Obsession with "POV" on Soy and Biological Value-Related Articles
This is all without mentioning the POV edits on the
Biological Value articles. (and in the soybean and soy protein case, both master and puppet in the same discussion
[39],
[40])
I beleive that a WP:RFCU will show that Messenger2010 and the socks are the same user. May I suggest that Messenger2010 is using the Anon IP socks to perpetuate deeds that push and break the boundries of the policies and guidelines of Wikipeda, while keeping the Master account "clean" to make formal complaints about users that don't share the same views he does on the articles listed above (one strong example of this is the case of 71.240.246.79 - the user received a {test4) warning on a third violation (two from the Master) for actions that were not simple, obvious vandalism, but were a POV dispute [41]. Something the Socks and Master are both currently engaged in on the Biological Value and Soybean pages.
Nonetheless 71.240.246.79 was blocked after the Puppetmaster complained [42]. All the while the soybean and biological value article's neutral tone and source accuracy are being threatened by the sockpuppets, who bully their way with strawman arguments and fake wikipedia warnings to make unaccurate changes that are scientific in nature (and difficult to verify), and passing off strong opinions and claims as facts to articles.
Then of course there's these messages that have been left on my talk page. [43]. [44] I don't think it's that much of a stretch connecting them to this case considering the timing of the posts occuring shortly after this. An admission of guilt? Both accounts have since been blocked indefinitely.
- New Accounts Since this Investigation Opened
Since this was discovered and posted here, at least one new account has popped up:
meatpuppets
- though I won't hesitate to call them full out sock accounts.
Worse, this username borders on being a "confusing, misleading, or troublesome username". In reality, Dr.
Biological Value page. See the edit summary in this edit:
[45] by
Doctor Colgan, and the edit made by one of suspected sock puppets here:
[46].
DoctorColgan refers to these edits saying "added my info back in", however this user has not contributed these edits in the past from this account
[47] on the Soybean article, only on the Biological value article and only as a anon IP starting with 63.17.
I'll let the reader judge if it's more than just a coincidence.
Thanks for looking into this, I know the admin that looks after this will have their hands full - hence the suggestion for a quick solution via WP:RFCU. Regards. Yankees76 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am NOT innocent
Please convict me of my funny behaviour.
I would like you to immediately ban (ASAP) all accounts and let me start fresh.
Also, where do I go to turn myself in.
Please do not put any hand cuffs on me(oh scary). Thanks: Andy I Plead Gulity As Charged 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Conclusions
This should be taken to WP:RFCU. Kilo•T 12:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As seen in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starkish, this user voted to keep the topic, when no other contributions have been made by him. The article in question, Starkish has no edits by this user either. I therefore put forward that this account was created as a sockpuppet to help sway the argument around the aformentioned AfD. Piuro 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Master:
Puppets:
Blanked as a courtesy per user request.
