Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ali Muratovic/Archive

Evidence submitted by IcarusVsSun
Fairly obvious duck. Besides the incredibly similar usernames, both accounts (and IPs) all edit the exact same articles in the exact same ways. For example:


 * "Correcting" Arabic names.
 * Removing citation requests without adding a source.
 * Changing ethnicity on biographies to state Bosnian/Bosniak, rather than Serb/Croat, without a source.
 * Adding unnecessary italics to sections of articles.

IcarusVsSun (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by IcarusVsSun (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

based primarily on the name's of the accounts, the editing times, the creation of articles without references, and the displayed interest of both accounts in regard to names, I'm endorsing this to check the link between them. I also note that both accounts have been involved at least a little bit in editing articles about Australian footballers. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

that the accounts are related. No comment on the IPs. --Deskana (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocked and tagged per duck and technical evidence. I'm going to leave the IPs alone. They haven't been active in the last few days. It's likely their IP changed. Hopefully autoblock will help.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 17:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by 124.185.6.208
Duck case. Editing the same set of articles in the same manner. Also, very similar usernames (both accounts are Slavic-Muslim names).

Similar edits include:
 * Removing specific cultures from articles about cuisine, while leaving "Bosnian/Bosniak" intact.
 * "Correcting" Arabic names.
 * Removing citation requests without adding a source.
 * Changing ethnicity on biographies to state Bosnian/Bosniak, rather than Serb/Croat, without a source.
 * Adding unnecessary italics to sections of articles.
 * Editing articles about Australian cities, and adding/editing unsourced information about demographics.

The user has used many different IPs to evade the indefinite block on his main account. Muratovic has also had a recent sockpuppet account of his blocked,. This new account, Hadi Mahmutovic, was created only a few days after Osmanovic was indef blocked.

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by 124.185.6.208 (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

✅. Brandon (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 23:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

10 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I'm noting this here after observing a pattern of edits that has previously been identified by User:No such user as this sockmaster's anonymous sockpuppets. 

The pattern is the same - the apparent love of Bosnia coupled with a hate of WP:REDLINKs - and the ISP - Telstra's 58.160.0.0/12 block, while these recent IPs actually match the same /23 block.

Does anyone disagree with this assessment? If not, should we employ some harsher measures when they appear? They produce a lot of changes, not all of which are abusive, but it's a fair bit of work to verify them all for the abusive parts. It's especially troubling that they seem to have a propensity to edit WP:BLPs. -- Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I agree with User:Joy. About a year ago there was a pattern of matching edits from the different IPs above. The similarity suggested that they were sockpuppet accounts. Denisarona (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Having dealt with Ali for quite some time, I'm under impression that his intentions are basically good, but he's sort of autistic; he never communicated anything back, nor acknowledged that he understood numerous explanations and warnings. Unfortunately, competence is required, so he should be formally or informally treated as banned, with edits rolled back regardless of merit (because of their sheer volume). Unfortunately, he's just a time-waster. No such user (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This sockmaster has been inactive for years, he has nearly no known socks, and most of these IP addresses are inactive or blocked. It's therefore very difficult to agree with your determination of socking. Probably better is that any obviously disruptive editing of articles Ali is known to edit be dealt with by non-SPI blocks. I'm sorry that we can't really help here, but thanks for your submission. AGK  [•] 20:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)