Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flagrantedelicto/Archive

03 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Flagrantedelicto was blocked after a thread on WP:ANI for three solid days of harassment and personal attacks; the block was initially for one week to end disruption on the article talk pages in question, then switched to indefinite after a private email exchange with the blocking admin. Per Special:Contributions/Flagrantedelicto, the user only ever edited a handful of articles more than once but the main relevant page here is Muawiyah I and Talk:Muawiyah I. The evidence is in two forms: the behavior of one long block of text on the talk page followed by several repeated edits making small "tweaks" to said block of text, and pushing the same POV. For the behavior, notice this example of how the master account would perform small changes to larger blocks of texts literally second apart:
 * 07:30, 22 June 2013 (+1,373)
 * 07:31, 22 June 2013 (+204)‎
 * 07:33, 22 June 2013 (+40)
 * 07:35, 22 June 2013 (+14)
 * 07:36, 22 June 2013 (+97)
 * 07:38, 22 June 2013 (+1)

A quick look at even the first page of the user's activity log shows that this pattern of talkpage editing is repeated, and that is consistently the case with the user's talkpage editing behavior all the way back to the user's first conflict on Talk:Yazid I in October of 2012. Take a look at the talkpage editing behavior of Zulfinder on Talk:Muawiyah I, the only page the account ever edited:


 * 15:50, 24 July 2013 (+2,332)
 * 15:52, 24 July 2013 (+6)
 * 15:55, 24 July 2013 (+25)
 * 15:56, 24 July 2013 (+27)
 * 15:58, 24 July 2013 (+94)

The user's only other talkpage comment was then adjusted afterward in a similar way. As for the POV pushing, then both users have displayed a strong dislike for the subject of the MuawiyahI article, a controversial figure in early Muslim history, and their strong conviction that any editor who opposes the insertion of strongly anti-Muawiyah I point-of-view is secretly a Wahhabi or a member of the Salafi movement. Note the comments from the master account Flagrantedelicto:


 * "Equally misleading is the Salafi/Wahhabi POV being represented as SUNNI views."
 * "...you are a latent Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV."
 * "It is my stance on the Muawiyah I article which genuinely represents neutrality and a three dimensional perspective: The classical SUNNI literature, the Shi'ite literature, and even the Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced revisionism."
 * "If you do have pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi-influenced ideology, admit it and don't evoke words like "neutrality"."

There are many more diffs but this is sufficient to show the user's view that any attempts to neutralize the article are historical revisionism by Wahhabist or Salafist forces. Notice the same view from Zulfinder:


 * "It seems these pro-Wahhabis or Salafis (under the guise of being Just Muslims or even Sunnis) are all over Wikipedia's early Islamic historical articles."
 * "Only the Wahhabi/Salafiyya revisionists have been pushing this altered image of Muawiya as an Islamic hero (audhubillah)." (Note: "audhubillah" means "I seek protection from God," used to display a speaker's sense of moral outrage.)

Additionally, the IP address 99.179.148.221 edited one of the master account's comments on its own talkpage, again displaying the behavior of one long block of text followed by further edits of that text minutes after here. Were that not Flagrantedelicto, he surely would have responded. I am also requesting a checkuser as it is already proven that this user is a sockpuppeteer and this there is no telling how many other accounts they may have on hold. If we check the block log for 75.150.223.177, we can see one IP address was already blocked for socking by the master account. That proven case of sockpuppetry, in addition to what appears to be a very clear second case of sockpuppetry, is grounds to believe that this user has no qualms about using sockpuppet accounts to evade their indefinite block and engage in the same disruptive and abrasive POV-pushing and personal attacks which got them blocked - see Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801 for the fiasco that led to the block. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/99.179.148.221 clearly is Flagrantedelicto - the evidence for this is this edit on 26 May 2013 to User talk:Flagrantedelicto. If someone else had done this, Flagrantedelicto would have reacted. However, the edits as 99.179.148.221 were not a case of abusive use of socks. It was clear at the time that the IP-editor was Flagrantedelicto; he/she just forgot to log in.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Zulfindar may well be Flagrantedelicto. I was corresponding with Flagrantedelicto on talk pages since the start of this year. When I first saw Zulfindar's comments on Talk:Muawiyah I, I thought that he/she was probably a sock of Flagrantedelicto; I did not say anything though. It is interesting that someone else has independently come to the same conclusion. Similarities include: I think that checks on the IP used are necessary. Whilst Zulfindar and Flagrantedelicto seem to be the same, it is possible that that they might be different people. If, for example, Zulfindar were editing from Pakistan, then I would conclude that he/she was most likely a different person, because both the IPs that Flagrantedelicto used were in Illinois, near Chicago.
 * Abusive language about another editor, for example: "nonsense spewed by deceptive, fraudulent pseudo-editors like this Johnleeds1" (Zulfindar 19:50, 24 July 2013 on Talk:Muawiyah I)
 * The claimed knowledge of sources written during the Abbassid Caliphate (it is odd that he/she sees no need to reference more modern history books except Gibbon's).
 * The over-the-top abuse of Muawiyah - if you look in my talk page archives you will see walls of text by Flagrantedelicto making similar sorts of comments about Muawiyah's son Yazid.
 * The editing pattern of Zulfindar is similar to that of Flagrantedelicto and 99.179.148.221 as mentioned by MezzoMezzo.

I am also concerned that this user may also have other accounts. So I think that a check-user is necessary both to confirm whether Zulfindar was editing from Illinois like Flagrantedelicto, and to have a chance of finding other accounts this user might be using or storing as sleepers.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  16:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - Per the excellent evidence posted by Mezzo, to both confirm the connection and look for more socks. No rush for me to block on this one since Zulf hasn't edited in over a week. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Courcelles 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note; user now blocked. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing.

19 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

In the previous SPI, Flagrantedelicto was discovered to be using the sockpuppet account Zulfindar based primarily on three forms of behavioral evidence:


 * 1. Posting one long block of text on the talk page followed by several repeated edits making small "tweaks" to said block of text,


 * 2. Pushing a certain POV against the historical figure Muawiyah I, and


 * 3. Hostility to those holding opposing views.

Additionally, the original account (Flagrantedelicto) was blocked for severe incivility on Talk:Muawiyah I. S/he displayed an obsessive dislike of the subject - evidenced by their usage of one sock account and one IP just to continue pushing their POV - and anyone who didn't share said POV. If the user is smart, and intends to continue socking, they will avoid overt personal attacks, long blocks of text followed by smaller tweak edits and overly anti-Muawiyah I POV.

The MesKalamDug account was created on 16 August 2013 at 14:53. At 15:24, 16 August 2013 - exactly 31 minutes later - this brand new account posted in the discussion in which the Zulfindar account had been participating at Talk:Muawiyah I with the awkward lead in: "I know this is a very late date to jump in. But I just discovered this conversation was going on." Why does the fact that a user with a brand new account just discovered the conversation warrant mention? How are they familiar enough with Wikimarkup (the edit was NOT made with visualeditor) to indent their comments to the same exact number of colons as the immediate preceding comment (as Flagrantedelicto did several times at Talk:Muawiyah_I, for example)? S/he did the same thing with the exact same indent length in the account's third and most recent edit here. It goes without saying that the MesKalamDug account's description of the article as "abysmal" is similar to the condemnation of the article by the Flagrantedelicto account "lopsided" at 20:09, 23 May 2013 and by the Zulfindar account as "largely bogus" at 19:50, 24 July 2013.

Finally, the "street talk" attitude does still appear to be there, though less "in-your-face" and more passive aggressive. The MesKalamDug account's reply to these concerns on his/her talk page (the second of the account's only three edits to date) was titled "Why so Angry?" and started with the line: "I fear you jumped into a conclusion - and missed." It also contains this gem: "Once upon a time I had hopes of making the Wikipedia pages on Islamic Origins sober, scholarly and fair to all parties. Silly me." The confrontational attitude, though toned down this time, will likely be familiar to User:Ironholds, User:Someguy1221 and User:Toddy1, all of whom have experience with the attitude and online demeanor of the original account Flagrantedelicto. To top it off, that diff in particular shows the characteristic obsession with the person of Muawiyah I, though like the other behavioral markers, it is toned down - if this is indeed a sock of Flagrantedelicto, then s/he is learning very fast to avoid detection based on evidences the Wikipedia community has used before. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

It is absolutely certain that this editor created his/her account to participate in the discussion at Talk:Muawiyah I. However that fact is not evidence that he/she is a sock of Flagrantedelicto. With Zulfindar the pattern of editing and the way he/she phrased things immediately suggested Flagrantedelicto to me - though I waited until there was a second independent opinion before saying anything. The patten of contributions for this new user does not suggest that he/she is Flagrantedelicto and the way he/she words things is not particularly like Flagrantedelicto. In the long run it is very hard for an editor who wants to make lots of edits to disguise his/her personality. So it is probably best to wait and see. If and when there are more contributions, things will be clearer.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I respect your view and your caution, I don't think it's guaranteed that a sockpuppeteer will reveal their personality via behavior - it might happen and it might not happen. My concern in this case - and I'm not arguing the case here so much as wishing to clarify the main point - is that Flagrantedelicto was busted last time based on X, Y and Z editing patterns. If I were a sockpuppeteer busted on X, Y and Z and wanted to do it again, I would expend all my efforts on not falling into X, Y and Z again - hence my emphasis on the convenient coincidences I mentioned above rather than the characteristic patterns (blatant personal attacks, big edit followed by small tweaks, etc.). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The question here is whether there is evidence to justify action. I do not think there is at this time.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Requesting checkuser since this could be someone who created an account to join the discussion or a sock continuing the discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. Tiptoety  talk 05:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. Rschen7754 19:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)