Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Banimustafa/Archive

08 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Wakwakwiki, on their talk page at User talk:Wakwakwiki, says "The user Historyfeelings has also been granted the status of Autopatrolled unlawfully as most of his article are vandalism and they are usually rejected by Wikipedia as they talk about tribes and families (In the Arab world) which is banned by wikipedia regulations".

On my talk page at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee, Banimustafa says "The user Historyfeelings has manged to obtain the status of Autopatrolled unlawfully.... Most of his article are vandalism and most of them violates Wikipedia policy as they are written solely to glorify his/her unknown tribe and village which is banned by wikipedia regulations".

Both making an almost identical choice of words seems a rather unlikely coincidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the confession below, CheckUser does not appear to be needed now. This editor has been using the two accounts to take part in the same dispute, which is not an acceptable use of multiple accounts - edit-warring with User:Historyfeelings at Jerash and Jordan using the Wakwakwiki account, and using the Banimustafa account to seek support for their actions, eg at Talk:Jerash and at several admins' Talk pages. Also, the Wakwakwiki account was indef blocked because of apparent legal threats (see User talk:Wakwakwiki), so I have also indef blocked Banimustafa for the same reason, now that we know that account is operated by the same person. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I reviewed, Wikipedia policy regarding multiple accounts.Wikipedia allows multiple accounts as long as they are not used for Sockpuppet and I believe it is not the case with my accounts

Yes I have more than one account in wikipedia. I created Banimustafa account in 2006 and Wakwakwiki in 2011.

I created the new account Wakwakwiki to conceal my personal identity for safety and security, as the first account was pointing to my surname. I used the old account Banimustafa, just to make a point about my contribution to the article Jerash, which the user HistoryFeelings  was trying  to vandalize since some months ago by replacing Souf with Sakeb, while keeping the same words which I used for describing the souf role in the development of modern Jerash.

The my accounts were there much longer than the dispute with HistoryFeelings and that is a proof that it is not a case of Sockpuppet. If I was using them to support my editing war with HistoryFeelings, I will not use the same words as you described in the case and in this case I would not even be involved in any talks. My defense is verifiable by checking the history of the article, which prove that I never been involved in Sockpuppet.

My contibution to the article in 2006 is described by the edit history of the article: (cur | prev) 23:23, 8 April 2006‎ Banimustafa (Talk | contribs)‎. . (5,446 bytes) (+1,128)‎

While my try to stop Historyfeelings was in 2012 (cur | prev) 23:33, 5 May 2012‎ Wakwakwiki (Talk | contribs)‎ m. . (16,037 bytes) (+687)‎. . (undo vandalism, inaccurate information and unjustified deletion of authentic citations)

However, if you check the history of the recent edit war with HistoryFeelings using the article history you will note that I did not use my old account Banimustafa in editing the article, which prove that my good intention. I used the account Banimustafa in the complains and the discussion, just to make a point that I was the editor of the information which Historyfeelings was vandalizing, by replacing the word Souf with sakib and that what made me angry as I spent many hours and days in developing the article from its beginning the user Historyfeelings.

In addition, the user Historyfeelings was in fact the one who was doing Sockpuppetting using different IP addresses in the editing war as described below: (cur | prev) 23:40, 6 May 2012‎ 46.185.160.11 (Talk)‎. . (15,350 bytes) (-691)‎. . (Undid revision 490973090 by Wakwakwiki (talk))

The edit history of the article also showing the user involvement in several editing wars before mine, while I never been involved in such wars as showing by history of the article edit, neither using the old account Banimustafa, or using the new account Wakwakwiki.

I hope this explain the matter. Best Regards Banimustafa (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per Boing!'s comments and Banimustafa's admission, I'm reblocking and tagging the sock and closing the case. Banimustafa should respond to the WP:NLT block via their primary account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

04 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

user:Banimustafa making a fake case to attack me cause he thought that I am the one who nominated article "Bani Mustafa" for AFD. Now he make his sockpuppet Amb04 to nominate articles I edit for AFD. Kindly, have a look here: 1, 2

I would like to note that user:Banimustafa has been blocked for sockpuppetry (Sockpuppet investigations/Banimustafa/Archive)

Banimustafa has a history of vandalisim; user:Wakwakwiki is a banned sockpuppet of Banimustafa, who has his own history of blocks user:soufray is a banned souckpuppet of Banimustafa. Thank you  HF  ► 21:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I'd just like to point out that Banimustafa is under restrictions of only having one account (see Bwilkins' comment here), and to me this seems fairly obvious that it's the same user, and technical evidence saying that it's likely seems like enough to not AGF. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 14:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a "bad faith" accusation made by the user:Historyfeelings as a revenge for reporting him earlier for puppetsocketry and because of ower content dispute over the article Jerash. I would like to highlight important facts here:


 * - The user:Historyfeelings has been blocked several times and was banned for his bad and unlawful practices as shown here. Now, the user is violating his unblocking conditions by accusing me with vandalism (see above). Please review his unblocking conditions here.


 * - The user:Historyfeelings has also violated these conditions again by practicing puppetsocketry, where he used 2 different user names and 7 different IP addresses. Please note that:


 * 1. The user:JohnRak is only a sockepuppet of the user:Historyfeelings or a hired crowd as it is obvious from the history of his contributions which were all relevant to the dispute between me and the user:Historyfeelings in the article Jerash. The user:Historyfeelings expanded the dispute to cover the pages Souf and the article Bani Mustafa. The first contribution of the user:JohnRak was dedicated for complaining about the sources provided in Bani Mustafa article as shown here, while the second contribution was adding AFD to the article Bani Mustafa as shown here.


 * 2. The user:JohnRak admitted in his talk page that he has a real life connections with Historyfeelings, as he claimed that they work together, which prove that he is either a sockpuppet or a hired crowd. In addition, the user:Historyfeelings used the the talk page of JohnRak as a platform for attacking me, which also support the argument that he is only a sockpuppet for the user:Historyfeelings.


 * 3. The IP address 46.185.160.11, was used in the edit war in "Jerash" article. Please notice the similarity of the contribution:
 * change made by 46.185.160.11
 * change made by Historyfeelings


 * 4. The IP address 94.249.93.242 was used by the user:Historyfeelings for evading his blocking.


 * 5. The IP address 80.90.168.29 was used by the user:Historyfeelings for vandalizing the article Bani Mustafa by deleting information that affects its quality and credibility in order to justify the deletion proposal made later by the socketpuppet user:JohnRak. Here is a summary of the changes by the IP address 80.90.168.29.


 * 6. The IP address 80.90.168.138 was used by the user:Historyfeelings for adding hoax to the article in order to justify its deletion as shown here


 * 7. The IP address 46.185.141.158 was used by the user:Historyfeelings for influencing the discussion regarding the dispute in Jerash article. Please see section protected in the discussion of Jerash article. The english was made broken intentially, but the style of writing and the purpose of the contribution is the same. The words which were used by the claimed contributer was almost identical to those used previously by the user:Historyfeelings.


 * 8. The IP address 94.249.72.86 was again used by the user:Historyfeelings for influencing the discussion regarding the dispute in Jerash article. Please see section "protected" and the section "Edit request on 19 May 2012" in the discussion of Jerash article. Again The english was made broken intentially, but the style of writing and the purpose of the contribution is the same. The words which were used by the claimed contributer was almost identical to those used previously by the user:Historyfeelings.


 * 9. The IP address 46.185.138.244 was used by the user:Historyfeelings in editing the article "Jordan" to evade the block of his account. Please notice the similarity between the contribution made by the user Historyfeelings and the IP address 46.185.138.244:
 * change made by 46.185.138.244
 * change made by Historyfeelings


 * I kindly request investigating the sockpuppetry of the user:Historyfeelings with the same criteria applied to this investigatiosn and a checkuser to be performed, so that the same standards are applied to both parties in a fair and just fashion.


 * - The user:Historyfeelings has a history of sockpuppetry which was explained here.


 * - Unlike the user:Historyfeelings and since we have been BOTH unblocked conditionally, I have never been involved in using any other usernames or IP addresses in the dispute. This can be verified by reviwing my the history and the context of my contributions.


 * - As my username banimustafa is the same as my family name, I still believe that I reserve the right of using an alternative account in order to conceal my identity which is a legitmate use as stated in wikipedia policy: Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area. Banimustafa (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
That does strike me as a bad faith nomination, and a technical connection is definitely and looks. WilliamH (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No action. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)