Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frotz/Archive

11 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

there has been a dispute on the dhimmi-page for a while now involving contentious edits. the dispute was more or less settled but an ip-69.12.173.8 showed up and made contentious edits again. after i reverted the ip-account user frotz reverted me. i find it highly suspicious that frotz reverted me immediately after i reverted the ip. in addition, the ip-account has less than 20 edits and jumped right into a conflict, making edits that are advocated by user frotz. frotz also follows my edits, reverting me blindly on several pages, as evident from his contribution history.  altetendekrabbe  09:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

another spa-warrior has arrived to the scene,. please note he has a total of only 3 edits, and a charming name. clearly a duck. update: the duck has now reverted 5 times in less than 24 hours. highly suspicious that he came out of nowhere and started edit warring.--  altetendekrabbe   22:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Hmmm, sockpuppet, eh? Well I guess I can understand the accusation because the reality of two people looking at the dhimmi page and coming to the conclusion that it is whitewashing the subject would be a bit too much to admit to. The fact that random people with even a cursory knowledge of the subject would come to the conclusion that the page was not accurately reflecting what happened to people living in dhimmitude implies that you are trying to enforce a point-of-view. The point-of-view you are trying to enforce is that dhimmitude was a sunshine-and-lollipops life for dhimmis. The Koranic justifications for dhimmitude were all regarding tolerance and respect for religion, as if tolerance entails treating people differently-- defining a special class-- for their religious beliefs! It defies logic. While "restrictions" are mentioned, any enumeration of them will be quickly removed because they aren't pretty and they aren't manifestations of tolerance.

Edits made to the page are removed with some astonishingly pathetic excuses. A source is not allowed (Bat Ye'or) for the reason, I guess, that her scholarly work yields an opinion that is not shared by you. Then there's the ad hominem dismissal-- "Bat Ye'or line of argumentation". The rejection because the source is "too obscure" (Antoine Fattal, who was produced a "seminal work" on the subject according to wikiislam). And when an edit refers to a previously accepted source it is rejected on "sock puppet" accusations.

So no, I'm not a sock puppet. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at your own behavior where you are so quick to jump in, reject edits with the flimsiest of reasons, and leap to conclusions and make rash accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatdafuq (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I never use sock puppets. I am not Whatdafuq nor am I 69.12.173.8. I have accidentally edited without logging in from time to time. All of them were small wikignomish edits that to my knowledge were never disputed. Altetendekrabbe's complaint here is in bad faith. Examine his recent posts to Talk:Dhimmitude and see for yourself. -- Frotz(talk) 10:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User name "Whatdafuq" is maybe an issue for the unacceptable usernames people, too. Pesky  (talk ) 06:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Both registered accounts are ❌; no comment with regard to the IP address. --MuZemike 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 04:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)