Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student/Archive

17 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Targeting the same articles w/ disruptive editing, has been PoV-pushing on many articles such as Algerian War, Sand War and Turks in Algeria, and these two accounts has been adding, since they started editing, on the same articles putting back Historian Student's versions/edits that have been reverted since :(Algerian War: Historian Student's edits (examples), M.Bitton's edits , Kaka322's edits  ; Sand War: Historian Student's edits , M.Bitton's edits , Kaka322's edits  ; Turks in Algeria: Historian Student's edits: , Kaka322's edits ). Note that IP had the same edits than  on Turks in Algeria  and Algerian War  (+many similar edits in 2014). Note that had previously used many SP's (+ evading block) such as  and. -- Omar-toons (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

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

It would be interesting to ckeck these as well:



-- M.Bitton (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * First, that obviously my IP... because sometimes people could forget to connect to their account.
 * Second, please consider starting a request for a different investigation, not asking for it here.
 * Regards,
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You accuse others of bad faith and expect them to assume good faith. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Behaviorally, for Kaka322,. However, M.Bitton does not appear to be the same. The content he provides is similar, but follows through different formatting, and support (ex. references not French). In addition, when a sockmaster stops using an account and moves to another one, he tends to completely abandon the previous account (my OR may not be right). Kaka322 edited after M.Bitton started. It is more likely that M.Bitton supports Kaka322, than is a sock of Historian Student. As to this comment by, M.Bitton probably edited as an IP before creating his account. Hence his rapid contributions, and knowledge of Wiki policy. -- Orduin  Discuss 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that had previously used two SPs at the same time:  and  --Omar-toons (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. There's more than enough here to warrant a CU (nothing having to do with Omar-toons, obviously).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * M.Britton is ❌ and Omar-toons was not checked. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts are now indeffed and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * M.Britton is ❌ and Omar-toons was not checked. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts are now indeffed and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * M.Britton is ❌ and Omar-toons was not checked. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts are now indeffed and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * M.Britton is ❌ and Omar-toons was not checked. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts are now indeffed and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * M.Britton is ❌ and Omar-toons was not checked. . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All confirmed accounts are now indeffed and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

24 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (blocked earlier by Drmies)
 * (blocked earlier by Drmies)


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

Following the last round of blocking, there are more fun and games taking place at List of wars involving Algeria, leading to semi-protection by for sockpuppetry and some blocks. Then Chemsdine-badouri pops up and asks, in its first edit, for (who brought the last SPI) to be blocked for editwarring. Obvious sock is obvious, but a CU check for sleepers is requested, particularly as Sidihmed was blocked earlier today for more of the same. See this ANI thread (permalink). BencherliteTalk 19:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I support a check; I blocked the first user as a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE, and it is a clear sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I could have blocked the first user myself but prefer not to be judge and jury in such situations! BencherliteTalk 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't it be User:M.Bitton evading his blocking ? Blaue Max (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
. The thing that's clearest to me is that the two listed accounts are the same person. Whether they are in fact related to the master is not as clear, although there's certainly enough evidence to suspect that they are. However, the edit summaries of the first are much closer to M.Bitton's edit summaries than the known puppets. At the same time, M.Bitton was cleared of sock puppetry by the last CU, so it strikes me as strange that he would risk his status in this manner, but I can't be sure. Hopefully, a CU will clear up these issues as well as check for sleepers.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Check is requested by two admins above.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of these accounts are editing from proxies - one just blocked by me - but their details make it almost certain that they are the same person. However, they don't appear to match either Historian Student or M.Britton. Unfortunately, . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

21 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User comes out of nowhere, making the same edits was making earlier: this revert undoes my revert of Sidihmed's edit. I'm going to block them per DUCK, but I'd like CU to see what else might be going on-- has looked at this before: thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * The sock is blocked and tagged. Closing the case. I see no need for CU at the moment.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how "this moment" is different from the moment in February, when CU found a half a dozen socks besides the first one brought up. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

15 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Hi, I am bringing this from another SPI/Carlstak meant to scrutinize sockpuppeting in Morisco article. Will stick to what is relevant to just sockpuppeting, while much more could be said on other behaviours seen not sticking to or skipping WP standards and criteria. After lengthy debate and investigation, it was established that Carlstak was not a sockmaster, which was not my goal, but determine who it actually is (initial suspect Carlstak but quickly shifting to Asilah1981), pretty frustrating. Anyway, the relevant period spans 10 February to 1 March.

I am also bringing the case over to this SPI after this talk in clerk Richwales' talk page. IPs previous to 2.136.207.64 in the article history may be involved. The suspect seems to have shown dishonest behaviour, as described below. Not only that, I had to hear misleading comments on the talk page, such as "Please desist from removing sources and sourced statements from this article." If I ever removed any sources (I have spotted once after scanning it), it was reactively trying to undo his/her removal of other sources that s/he singled-handedly decided at that point were not good. S/he also put down the semi-protection of the page to me, which I did not (Carlstak investigation).

The suspect may have used different IDs, whether IPs initially or names (Sidihmed, Historian Student), until it was forced to reveal little by little (pushed by ongoing discussion, semi-protection and investigation) its main identity behind 2.137.191.198, despite knowing that variety of IDs is a very contentious point to bear in mind (WP:ILLEGIT), especially when arguments like "no one agrees with you" are being used on the talk page. Sidihmed and Historian Student were blocked at one point, but no driving force behind them was revealed. Was it just a doubled ID "loner" acting in the same manner as Asilah1981 does? (Revealed to be 2.137.191.198, with the same initial digits as 2.136.207.64) Sorry, that does not hold water.

I should point to the IPs and Asilah1981 (except for Sidihmed, Historian Student?, with blank on the summary line) showing a consistent pattern of faltering in their use of capital letters (marocco, spanish, european, Spain, etc.).


 * I add below some critical diffs I have noted down after I started to intervene in the Morisco article. I should point out, however, that I joined the article on 23 February 2015, and have not tracked all previous history that seems to add further enlightening information:
 * Asilah1981 categorically claimed on the SPI/Carlstak that it had "consistently used the same IP". However, early IPs exist like 163.117.203.65 with almost identical explanations on the summary line as 2.137.191.198 / Asilah1981; note that s/he writes "spanish", like 2.137.191.198 / Asilah1981 in the Morisco talk (23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)): "european", "iberian") in this diff), or 163.117.203.65, in 05:44, 12 February 2015‎.
 * Names also are telling enough: sockpuppet "Sidihmed", looks just about the same as sidi Ahmed, Arabic for 'lord or sir Ahmed'. Asila1981 speaks Maroccoan Arabic (userboxes); a town named Asilah exists close to Tanger in Marocco.


 * 2.136.207.64, 08:30 18 February 2015 Edit summary: Non academic substandard source (as per wikipedia policy)


 * 2.137.191.198, 13:53 	22 February 2015 Edit summary: as per source  *2.137.191.198, later to be confessed as Asilah1981 by himself during investigation when the ID link was about to be unveiled.


 * 2.137.191.198, 06:48	23 February 2015  Edit summary:


 * Sidihmed, 06:19	24 February 2015 Edit summary: *Linked to sockpuppet Historian Student, another sockpuppet. Sidi Ahmed?, little doubt, of Arabic origin. Insists on 2.137.191.198 – Asilah’s claims (adding the sources on genetics). Sockmaster? Undisclosed.


 * 2.137.191.198, 08:00	24 February 2015  Edit summary:  Deleting irrelevant section as per talk page *Last time Asilah1981 uses his 2.137 IP


 * Asilah1981, 12:51	24 February 2015 Edit summary: As per sources


 * Asilah1981 Talk page, *Recent account (November 2014), but extremely good command of WP resources. Note allegations over previous accounts.

Iñaki LL (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize if the comments on thread below do not belong there, just on the heat of the moment, I am leaving them as they are. I could check Historian Student. I do not know how old her/his account was, but the connections in the summary line and way of acting is pretty the same as Asilah1981. However, I did not go comprehensive enough to find Spanish/spanish sort of evidence (faltering in capital letters) on the summary lines. There seems to be a pattern of block evading and ID migrations in Historian Student and like behaving editors in the recent past, like Asilah1981. By the way, we are all improvising here, I am not a full time dedication editor, at all, I was still creating the post when you, Vanjagenije, intervened. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know what Historian Student's activity was but for its relation to Sidihmed and Omar-toons' comment on its support to Asilah, I left a message to Omar-toons so that he can contribute to this investigation. I do not want to start anew the debate on sockpuppet/sockmaster, especially since there seems to be continuous migrations of identities. Asilah is the one with whom I interacted, so whatever fits in the formal aspects of this SPI will be fine. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With regards to closure of case, certainly a very bad day for the WP. I am not going to delay this further, too much time wasted and headaches for a resource that is meant to help. The Carlstak SPI (main suspect) was initiated with a view to determining what was going there, since there was obviously something foul (check also edit summaries, just awful) and I did not know who was doing what, that is true, aggravated by the personal, dismissive accusatory tone of some users investigated in the SPI.
 * It seems like needing to take up a course on the resource for what is a straightforward thing. A user is pulling the strings of other IDs, I know very well what sockpuppetry is, I am accusing Asilah1981 since that is the main character (with a voice in discussion) with whom I interacted, the lesser point is to judge whether that is the head or it is another, it just the same octopus with eight legs, so no matter what the main leg is, it is the same mastermind, right? The resource needs a whole review if the regular user is not to feel defencelessness/impunity in a maze of technicalities and formal aspects. Did you check at all inconsistency in the use of capital letters? The timing and Asilah1981's false and inconsistent statements and behaviour (just check my comments/evidence), talk page, etc. That is just key evidence, unfortunately I cannot check Historian Student's history, since he is blocked, that would be your task. Very sad, I hope this does not set precedent, for the sake of other good editors. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * , what are you doing? I already told you once (here) that you have to present some evidence when you open the SPI case. You already tried to accuse Asilah1981 of being a sock of Carlstak, and you opened a new case. But, the case should always be opened under the name of the oldest account, and Historian Student is older than Asilah1981. That means that the case should be opened under the name of Historian Student, but guess what: there is already a case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student, and Sidihmed was already confirmed as a sock of Historian Student. Anyway, do you have any evidence against Asilah1981?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, at this point this is being a joke. Does it really matter weather it was the older or not? Second, as I say it, who the hell is Historian Student??? That has not shed any light, nothing. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was advised to start a new SPI with Asilah1981! This a complete maze that is taking a hell of a time, when it's in front of everyone's eyes there is an irregular use of IDs. I cannot access Historian Student. The evidence of ties among a larger or smaller number of accounts is overwhelming, ties to Asilah1981, sorry. As far as I see it, the credibility of the resource is at stake. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've renamed this SPI page for (and left a redirect from the  SPI page to here).  To minimize the possibility of duplication / fragmentation of SPI cases, we try to consolidate reports under the oldest account (on the assumption that the oldest account is the most reasonable choice of "sockmaster").  My apologies to, when I advised him to file his report under Asilah1981, that I had not noticed at the time that Historian Student was older.  Let's proceed from here.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm closing this case with no action taken for several reasons. First of all,, it seams to me that you do not understand what WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is, and how the WP:SPI works. It seams that you claim that is a sock-puppet, but you do not know whose. First, you accused him of being a sock-puppet of Carlastak, than you claimed that you are sure he is a sock-puppet, be you are not sure that he is a sock of Carlastak. Than, you accused Historian Student of being a sock of Asilah1981, although Historian Student account is much older than Asilah1981. Sockpuppetry needs at least two accounts (or IPs) that are operated by the same person for the WP:ILLEGITitmate purposes. The oldest of those accounts is than called a "sock master", while all other accounts operated by the same person are called the "sock puppets" of that master. The SPI is than run to determinate whether the socks are operated by the master or not. You cannot accuse Asilah1981 of being a sock puppet, if you do not know who is his master. That would be like if you accused him of a murder, but you do not know who is the victim. The evidence you presented is not enough to link Asilah1981 to either Historian Student or Sidihmed. Editing same article with the same point of view is not an evidence of sock-puppetry. I do not say that we can be sure that they are not connected, I just say that there is no enough evidence. Few similar edit summaries and/or similar edits are simply not enough to connect them without doubt. All three IPs mentioned have been inactive for more than a month, so even if we prove them being connected to each other and/or Historian Student, we wouldn't block them (see: WP:IPBLENGTH). Evidence to connect them to Asilah1981 is simply too weak.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)