Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi/Archive

30 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

IMO all these users are one and the same (or at least few of them) and an investigation for them being sockpuppet should be taken into consideration. I don't remember having any interaction with User:Don Zaloog/User:Ahmed Ghazi, on Talk:Aisha (or as matter of fact anywhere) another User:Ibn Katthir was active in the discussion. User:Don Zaloog/User:Ahmed Ghazi has not done a single edit on article Aisha. But in a threat mail to me User:Don Zaloog/User:Ahmed Ghazi where he refers "great pious commentators (e.g. Ibn Kathir)", user with same name is active on article Aisha. Edit pattern of all these users are quite matching and similar. For details of threat mail please refer Abusive mail thru wikipedia by user:Don Zaloog & probability of sockpuppets.  Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' See Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Tijfo098 (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
for a check on the following users:, , , , , , ,. All except Ibn kathir appear to be SPAs intent on editing Aisha to display her marriage to Muhammad in a positive light, in particular they seem intent on editing it to try and play down any controversy that might exist with regard to her possibly young age at the time of her marriage. Examples:. Ibn kathir displays a slightly more mature MO than the other accounts, however, he could well be the master account here, and seems to pursue the same agenda, e.g..

Not endorsed to check the following users:
 * - seems to be editing the article in the opposite manner of the SPAs, in that he's not trying to make it out as though Aisha was old(er) at the time of her marriage, rather he removes such content: . He also shows interest in areas outside of Aisha.
 * - just seems to be some passing vandal.
 * - this single edit is not enough evidence to justify a check.
 * - the fact that Ahmed Ghazi apparently referred to Ibn Kathir (whose name one of the SPAs above uses as their user name) in an email is not nearly enough evidence to justify a check. The behavioural patterns don't seem to match.

A sleeper check would also be appreciated. Thank you very much, SpitfireTally-ho! 00:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I want to add a little bit to this. I've been active on the Aisha article for quite some time now, and Faizhaider (who opened this request) pointed out to us that some off-Wiki canvassing/meatpuppetry may be going on, so that could be what we're seeing here. Having said that, I would have also endorsed the check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, see  # (del/undel) 11:50, November 29, 2010 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs | block) renamed User:Don Zaloog to "Ahmed Ghazi" ‎ (424 edits. Reason: WP:CHU) . -- Avi (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been about a week since this was endorsed, and we've had no action on it yet. There's a report on ANI about at least one of the sockpuppet's behavior, so I think the check is still needed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

✅:



✅, though this looks like a case of abandoning a previous account:

All other accounts, as well as the two above-mentioned pairs of confirmed accounts, are ❌. –MuZemike 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I've blocked and tagged Zaza8675, and blocked Someone65 for a week for sockpuppetry. I'm going to leave the other two accounts alone for now, as I agree with Muzemike's assertion that one could have been abandoned. The rest does seem to be meatpuppetry, and some of them have been blocked for edit warring, attacks or harassment. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)