Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greyshark09/Archive

07 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

One user was still unconvinced after a consensus was reached for a spiny issue. Greyshark was the lone proponent of one view. Several days passed after the agreed upon changed were made and today an unregistered user reverted to greyshark's POV. The IP holder (which, like GreyShark is based in Israel) was notified on the talkpage. Shortly after another NEW account was created solely to revert to Greyshark's edits claiming to go by the consensus but actually doing the opposite. This user was also notified. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I had the same hunch about the edits that followed GreyShark's. Is it possible for the checkuers to check if the following account is also related to the above. There was a 5 - 1 consensus on the said page, and GreyShark kept reverting to a POV that was not supported by reliable sources. George Al-Shami (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I understand what you're saying, and I'm kindly requesting a checkuser check to see if there is any relation to the above accounts, because (1) I don't have the tool myself (2) Jonney2000 came out of the woodwork with a very nonconstructive comment 1, just to back up Greyshark; even though he was never involved nor has he edited the said article. (3) However the most suspicious evidence against this account is that the user says that he mostly edits articles on computers and engineering on his user page 2, however an inspection of his edits revealed that only 147 edits out of 2535 are actually related to the topic he says he "primarily" edits, that's less than 6%, which means that 94% of his edits are related to the same subjects and topics that Greyshark edits. Why would he say that he "primarily" edits articles on computers and engineering when 94% of his edits are devoted to religion and religious politics? I know that this is a not a smoking gun with regards to evidence, however I would it appreciate if this suspicion is put to rest, if this doesn't take too much time to check. George Al-Shami (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, the dispite is over and done. I'm disappointed of your assumptions and all I ask for is a quick investigation and appropriate action if due. I have the full right to report suspect behavior and if you will not proceed with the investigation someone else with less bias will. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 21:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is a circular reasoning here, because the complaint assumes 1. There is only one propagator of a view, they try to present as fringe, and hence all other editors are his socks 2. That the user is desperate enough to be a sock master 3. The suspected user (me) must be idiot enough to undo his own "suspected socks" . Good luck with that guys. Seems to me however you are living in a fantasy world.GreyShark (dibra) 05:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was my migraine talking and i do get quite incisive and arrogant. Sorry for that. I get the impression that Grayshark is comfortable with a quick check, right ? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 06:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering your strong interest in that - i would rather like to check you and George as well. You don't mind right? Frankly however, i think it is your own Maronite brother might be responsible - one which used to be very active on this page recently.GreyShark (dibra) 18:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The new account showing up is really weird. A CU should be done.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - considering the fact that i tried to compromise both POVs in the article, but was myself accused of POV - i find it very amusing and amateur. The fact that i was blamed for alleged sockpuppetry is rather disturbing.GreyShark (dibra) 18:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * you know the process by all means go ahead. ,~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 20:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * SPI is not a forum for resolving content disputes. First, you're asking us to sanction a long-standing editor based on a new user with one edit. Second,, if you want to add another alleged sock, then you have to present evidence. Otherwise, it's worthless.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of bias, which is just plain silly, is not going to assist you. You don't get to pick and choose who decides what to do with this report. I can decline the report and close it without your permission. I haven't made that decision yet, but if I were you, I wouldn't respond to my comments unless you have something constructive to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * for lack of evidence. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)