Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali36800p/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
Suspected sockmaster Ali36800p was WP:1AM on maintaining a large infobox on Iraq war. 5 hours after being told that the only way their preferred version would stand is if other editors came in and agreed, 2001:14BA:4612:DC00:3D1C:461A:2793:97D5 comes in and makes the same unsupported assertion that the insurgents defeated the US for its first ever edit, then with its second makes the same argument as Ali36800p. And then, 18 minutes later, Ali36800p comments "see look, 2001:14BA:4612:DC00:3D1C:461A:2793:97D5 agrees with me". Less than an hour after Ali36800p was blocked for disruptive editing, 31.201.179.84 makes their first ever edit perfectly mirroring Ali36800p's views. 12 minutes later, IranSlayer does the same thing. All used similar levels of grammar, capitalization, and vocabulary. User:Tamzin indicated skepticism whether the IPs are true socks or just joe-jobs. Either way, they could use a block, perhaps with the presumption of a Joe-job since IPs cannot be CU'd to accounts. However, a CU could inform us if IranSlayer is a true sock of Ali36800p or a joe-job. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (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

 * Ali against IranSlayer to determine whether joe job or sock. IPs seem to be throwaways so taking no action for now. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 00:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ali36800p is ❌ to . . --Blablubbs (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing. Spicy (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Account has two edits total, both to the Iraq War page, and to the infobox, on which which the disagreement that led to the indef of Ali36800p took place. Edits include misleading edit summaries ("Added content" and "fixed typo") which match a common uninformative edit summary used by Ali36800p. (First page of Ali36800p's contribs shows several examples, such as for which "added content" makes little sense as an edit summary.) EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2023 (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

 * - although suspicious, I don't believe the evidence presented rises to the level of requiring a check of the account. I'd suggest keeping a close eye on the account though — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally I wouldn't override a clerk, and not one of TNT's experience, but I took a closer look at the suggested connection (and now with a few more days and edits), and these looks similar enough; for example the particular section in Iraq War in the two edits from the 16th was originally created by one account, then tended on that page almost-exclusively by the other. These two accounts have the same narrow range of IPv4 addresses. I can't say these are confirmed due to differing platform use, but behaviorally they are a clear match. I've blocked the new account accordingly. Izno (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)