Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist/Archive

Report date August 19 2009, 14:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Nableezy

Historicist was recently blocked for edit-warring on Rashid Khalidi. Prior to this Historicist had created False Moshe Ya'alon quotation and had been going around inserting a number of see also links about "media manipulation" in a number of articles, see, , ,. Since being blocked for his actions on Rashid Khalidi, the account Hamilton23 was created. This new account has been focused either on the False Moshe Ya'alon quotation page and on reinstating material from Historicist's edits that have been reverted by other users. See,. The "new" user has also participated in the AfD on the Ya'alon quote article adding it to the Israel deletion sorting list, a page not often found by "newbies".  nableezy  - 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by  nableezy  - 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * . NW ( Talk ) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * , different shared computer, same location. -- Luk  talk 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Indef blocked and tagged. NW ( Talk ) 16:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the indef block on the main account has been reduced to two weeks. NW ( Talk ) 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nableezy
AMuseo's first edit in 9 months comes 3 hours after Historicist and a sock of Historicst are blocked: (edit, blocks in Historicist's block log and Hamilton23's block log) to a page that Historicist started and largely wrote. Since then, there have been a large number of articles common between the two users. Wikistalk shows ~100 common articles. There are shared interests both in articles dealing with "terrorism" and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as articles dealing with various and notable architectural sites. Historicist spent his last months largely editing articles on attacks by Islamist groups and controversies related to Islam. AMuseo has largely focused on the same topic.

I realize that CU data for Historicist will be unavailable but I request a CU to see if what I believe is where Historicist had edited from is the same location as AMuseo. A known Historicist sock said on their userpage that he was editing from "Hamilton Hall". Hamilton Hall is part of Columbia University in New York City. Also, I believe the IP 160.39.35.50, which is registered to Columbia University, is shared by both Historicist and AMuseo. 2 minutes before AMuseo edited Articles for deletion/Palestinian drive-by shooting the IP made an edit to a comment made by AMuseo. The IP also removed from T:TDYK an entry in which AMuseo was involved in. The connection to Historicist and this IP can be seen in the timing of edits made by Historicist and this IP either following or preceding those edits as in here or here or here and at a number of other articles.

I believe the IP is also connected to the user User:Broad Wall. The IP appears to be related based on edits made here and here  nableezy  - 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that AMuseo has admitted to being Historicist I think this can be closed out, though I still have my suspicions about Broad Wall. To clear up the cause for this request, Historicist was subject to an indefinite topic ban from the ARBPIA topic area. Despite what brewcrewer claims, Historicist is still currently topic banned from the topic area. See here.  nableezy  - 20:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a clerk please remind the editors commenting here what this page is for and perhaps remove some of the unintelligible ranting below?  nableezy  - 23:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I do not believe that I have abused anything. It takes a while to learn the system at Wikipedia. I made some mistakes as historicist, learned from them, and came back as AMuseo as a means of shedding the reputation tat I had acquired as historicist. I have since made many edits as AMuseo, most in highly contested areas without edit warring, or engaging in bad manners, or calling attention to myself for any kind of poor behavior. I have, however, been highly effective adding balance in the I/P area. Especially by creating many articles on areas that had received little attention, such as the Islamization of Gaza. I believe that the true reason for Nableezy's accusations are not the fact that I came back with a new name, but the fact that I have been effective in a manner that Nableezy finds politically antithetical.

One other thing that I wish to remind you of is that you cannot ban the entire world, not even the entire university. Any banned editor who cares to do so can simply switch internet service providers and create a new identity. If he cares enough about Wikipedia. I do not. Which is why all that is truly accomplished by rules like this is to give control of Wikipedia to editors like Nableezy. Nableezy spends a truly daunting amount of time on Wikiepdia, much of it hounding other editors. And he is effective. He makes Wikipedia an exceedingly unpleasant environment. He has certainly driven me away. I congratulate him. Whether this is a good outcome for Wikipedia, I leave you to ponder.

You have my permission to close this case. I am logging off and have no intention of returning.AMuseo (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I see no point to this SPI. Historicist is not a banned or blocked editor. Historicist has not edited in a long time and has not even edited in the same time span of Amueso. There is no sockpuppetry violation.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As nableezy just noted, Historicist was topic-banned from the Israel–Palestine conflict, an area on which AMuseo has chosen to focus her/his attention. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nableezy truly fascinates me with his perfection of investigating editors seen as political adversaries. Wow! Given that, Just by looking at AMuseo's talk page and contributions shows that he is one hell of a contributor of information on wikipedia. If only Nableezy could show for himself 1% of that effort for improving and building wikipedia instead of trying to decapitate and editor like AMuseo who frankly, has not shown any exceptional aggression or detrimental behaviour. AMuseo has apparently been too good and Nableezy feels threatened enough by such a good editor working here to file this spurious claim. Nableezy can't beat AMuseo at editing, so he goes for the legal technicalities. Fascinating! --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nuh uh, really? This page is for investigating abusive sockpuppetry. The editor in question has admitted to being an editor who was topic-banned from ARBPIA area, which by definition is abusive sockpuppetry. Is there anything that you are any other person has to say about the only topic that matters here? If you wish to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of AMuseo's or my edits please find a more appropriate place. This page has a specific purpose.  nableezy  - 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since when is evading a topic ban a "legal technicality"? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A topic ban is put in place to put an end to a disruptive editor or editing behaviour. AMuseo is clearly a rehabilitated editor compared to the other one. In hindsight, should have just requested an appeal and asked for some voluntary limits. Frankly, with more time, I would have nominated AMuseo for admin. His efforts remind me of you and Al ameer son. Technically, Histo was topic banned. While physically, AMuseo admitted to being Histo, the editor AMuseo is clearly not the 'same' editor who was banned. Nothing abusive, nothing disruptive. Yes Malik, just an attempt to shut up an editor on technicalities. --Shuki (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected regarding the topic ban, however I completely agree with Shuki. There was no editing from both accounts at the same time and the edit warring problems seemed to have been rectified. In all likelihood he would have been relieved from his topic ban had he promised to abide by the rules. After all he is one of the most prolific content creators on Wikipedia. I feel I have to say this: Its really sad to see prolific edit-warrers who have added little to this encyclopedia have the gall to call for the head of such a prodigious content creator.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sectiontitle says it: Wikipedia:Ban#Bans apply to all editing good or bad. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The ban is considered to be in effect against the person who operated the Historicist account. This includes any accounts made and/or operated by him, appeal needs to be sorted out at WP:AE, see: WP:UNBAN. Simply making a new account and behaving differently doesn't mean that the ban no longer applies. The nature of the ban evasion is irrelevant, see: BAN. I hold no interest in editing Palestine-Israel topics on Wikipedia, yet I find it surprising that some users don't seem to take issue to someone using a sockpuppet to evade a topic ban. I'd suggest that the effected user sort themselves out with a ban appeal, but they've apparently discontinued editing. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho!
 * I agree with Shuki. It is just not right to drive away good editors. I'd also like to ask, if all those talks about the editors location and IP address is wp:outing.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * User:AMuseo did no harm to Wikipedia, on the contrary. It takes a while to learn the system at Wikipedia. This poor student left crying, literally. I guess that is what made Nab so mad. Not that I support disruptive editing, looking here provides decent word count on the complaining party. Nab should remember that there is catch22 in Wikiland and it is anonymous. I guess Nab is just enjoying pissing people off. If any administrative measures are applied against User:AMuseo then Nab should be also topic-banned indefinitely from I/P articles. In any case Nab should be administratively warned about harassing people he does not agree with. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Spitfire was correct when he mentioned there is an appeal process. It sucks because AMuseo was doing a fine job and I am sure there are numerous editors who believe Nableezy deserves a topic ban. But Spitfire is again correct when he points out that this isn't the correct place to go into those details. AMuseo can and should appeal his ban sometime down the road and editors can open up an AE or RFCU on Nableezy in their respective venues. So probably time to just close this out and watch Nableezy strike out all of the banned editor's comments.Cptnono (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Back on topic: the accused parties here wrote: "I [AMuseo] do not believe that I have abused anything." and "I ... have no intention of returning". Which does not indicate an understanding of the wrongdoing, nor is it a tough promise of no-recidive. Still, it is SPíng and evading topic ban. On top of this, this party did not mention User:Broad Wall, identified as a SP. Which leaves us with the risk of more SPs. -DePiep (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it is not currently noted here as far as I can see (and isn't immediately obvious); I will point out that the account User:Broad Wall was indeed also used to evade the topic ban previously imposed on User:Historicist. Two quick example diffs are here and here although there are probably hundreds of others. Those diffs are from June and July 2010, whereas Historicist was "banned indefinitely from editing any Wikipedia page related to Israeli-Palestinian issues, broadly construed" in September 2009. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: here, at the bottom of this page, the SPI is clear about User:Broad Wall. -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, indeed; I wasn't noting the fact that Amuseo and Broad Wall were the same person (since that had already been officially established, as you say.) I was merely noting that Broad Wall had edited in areas covered by the topic ban for Historicist. This particular fact had been implied on this page, but not explicitly mentioned, as far as I could see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The participants of this discussion will probably be interested in this WP:ANI thread. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
please limit discussion on this page to debating the merits of the accusation of sockpuppetry, nothing else please. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

, indefinitely topic banned as here, evaded as  here, admitted to evasion here. Historicist is, but I'd appreciate a quick sleeper check on , please. SpitfireTally-ho! 21:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

are the same. Since AMuseo admitted to being Historicist, that's confirmed as well. No comments on any possible IP connections. TN X Man 02:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mark this for close. Both AMuseo and Broad Wall are blocked and there is a discussion at this ANI thread about further action. I don't think there is much left to do here. TN X Man  00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

28 November 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Account created the same day as Historicist was blocked, this account is agenda-driven with the same interest in the Holocaust, deniers and antisemitism. User portrayed immediately experienced edits and policy understanding and yet denies any previous accounts or blocks. I brought this up at the last blocking admins MastCells talkpage here. They also added another possible account sockmastermaster as User:NoCal100. Checkuser required to check for additional sleepers. Off2riorob (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Evidence submitted by User:Carolmooredc
 * Spaceclerk repeatedly refused to acknowledge that I had admitted I misunderstood the purpose of the article in my first couple postings, making it necessary for me to add a disclaimer to them. He kept accusing me of wanting to change the purpose of the article, even created an obnoxious accusatory section misquoting me here.
 * Then Spaceclerk clearly violated policy in reverting this properly referenced edit, claiming I (and evidently the WP:RS who had written similar things) were “obfuscating” the issue. When I brought the issue to talk, with even more WP:RS, he was dismissive and uncooperative.
 * At his talk page I discovered the question about his account which made me suspect he was indeed one of the banned editors/sockpuppets on these issues because that type of behavior over several articles inevitably would lead to banning. At this diff Spaceclerk deleted from his talk page 2 editors’ questions about his account, and his uncivil replies, replacing them with negative comments against us. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Response by User:Spaceclerk

I am quite sure the CheckUser process will demonstrate that the charge by Off2riorob and Carolmooredc is false. (In fact, if I'm reading the text below accurately, it already has, and I thank you.) I am not User:Historicist nor any other banned or blocked user. As I have posted on my talk page, if these two users — one of them running for ARBCOM! — continue to make false accusations about me in this fashion, this will become a matter for WP:AN/I under WP:HARASS. It is ironic in the extreme to be called 'uncivil' by someone in the very process of falsely accusing me of being a sock of a banned or blocked user. I would appreciate it if these two users would quit wasting my time. Spaceclerk (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The last check was done on October 6, and this account started on October 9. Worth a look, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While Spaceclerk appears to be, is ✅ as being the same as .  TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged VKempner. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

31 May 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

It looks like I.Casaubon is another sock of Historicist/Hamilton23/AMuseo/Broad Wall/VKempner


 * Special:Contributions/Historicist is currently indefinitely topic banned from the ARBPIA topic area under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for Israeli-Palestinian articles and is currently blocked for recurrent abusive sockpuppetry and topic-ban evasion.


 * Confirmed Historicist sock 's userpage said that he was editing from Hamilton Hall, Columbia University in New York City.


 * Here IP 160.39.35.50 (registered to Columbia University amended a comment by confirmed sock.


 * Here I.Casaubon signs a comment by IP 160.39.35.50.


 * Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation was created by confirmed sockpuppet AMuseo. Here I.Casaubon comments at the contentious AFD for the article.


 * In the Philip Weiss article, an article that is infrequently updated, that gets about 20-30 views/day, and that has fewer than 30 watchers, both Amuseo and I.Casaubon added content from critical opinion pieces sourced to tabletmag.com (Amuseo diff, I.Casaubon diff). This is an improbable coincidence. (Added in response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's request for more behavioral evidence.)


 * The Arab lobby in the United States is another fairly obscure article with around 30 views/day and only 129 edits since August 2006. And yet, it has been edited by Historicist, AMuseo and I.Casaubon (specific edits show below). Again this seems like an improbable coincidence. (Added in response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's request for more behavioral evidence.)


 * Here is a wikistalk comparison of I.Casaubon and AMuseo showing multiple topic ban violations by the latest sock.


 * Here is a wikistalk comparison of I.Casaubon and Historicist again showing multiple topic ban violations by the latest sock.


 * Here is a wikistalk comparison of I.Casaubon and Broad Wall showing a topic ban violation by the latest sock. (Added in response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's request for more behavioral evidence.)


 * Here is a wikistalk comparison of I.Casaubon and Hamilton23 showing a shared familiarity with WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel, a somewhat obscure technical deletion listing page. (Added in response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's request for more behavioral evidence.)


 * Historcist et al seem to like to use pithy taglines on their user pages (Added in response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's request for more behavioral evidence.)
 * Historicist - Interesting place, Wikipedia. However, since it is regarded and used as a reliable source, it is wiser to try to make it accurate than to carp about the inaccuracies.
 * Hamilton23 - Here, in Hamilton Hall and on Wikipedia, to put the power of reason, evidence and ideas to use in a troubled world.
 * AMuseo - In love with Bernini
 * Broad Wall - Archaeology buff.
 * I.Casaubon - Shining sunlight on the enemies of democracy and political freedom. Everywhere.

Comments

It seems that this editor is currently incapable of being open, honest and complying with mandatory policies. Despite saying "I am logging off and have no intention of returning" in October 2010 they apparently feel compelled to return and repeatedly break the rules. Blocking this latest sock seems unlikely to stop them returning. Is there an alternative ? Perhaps some kind of counseling/mentoring by an experienced admin to help them learn how to edit in an open and honest way, stop socking and stay away from topics they aren't allowed to edit ? It's clear from their contributions and some of their articles that they are perfectly capable of working constructively on things outside of the topic area. Are any admins prepared to work with them towards a WP:CLEANSTART ? The first step would be for the editor to agree to stop and mean it.

I should add for the benefit of minimising drama here and for anyone who comes here to comment in an attempt to justify socking as happened in the 04 October 2010 case that I will file an arbitration enforcement report and request that a topic ban is imposed on anyone supporting sockpuppetry. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for unarchiving. Yes, I misused the term cleanstart somewhat and should have referred to the WP:STANDARDOFFER. It's clear from Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents that there has been disruption even just looking at this account in isolation. That thread seems likely to result in a topic ban from the concept of apartheid in general or something similar on top of the I-P topic ban on the sockmaster. Nevertheless, I.Casaubon, clearly Historicist's latest sock, does seem capable of making constructive contributions when they have nothing do with the Middle East. I think it would be better in the long term for everyone if an admin were to invest some time in trying to persuade this editor to go for the standard offer or else we are going to be back at SPI again in the future trying to deal with this editor's behavior. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I'd like to see a stronger presentation of behavioral evidence. The likelihood of there being multiple users affiliated with Columbia University interested in Israel-Palestine issues strikes me as being pretty high. Alternatively, a showing that the IP involved was somehow likely to be associated with a single user, as opposed to campus WiFi or a (semi)public use terminal, would strengthen the case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is sufficient evidence to connect the accounts but I will try to add some more if it helps. I would of course like to know the opinion of the SPI admin. As to the likelihood of it being an unrelated user, if there were multiple users affiliated with Columbia University interested in Israel-Palestine issues I would expect to see that reflected in the edits by IP 160.39.35.50. However, as you can see here, in fact a very small percentage of the 2138 edits by IP 160.39.35.50 are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic broadly construed. The IP's edits that do fall within scope of that topic can be tied to the articles of interest to Historicist/I.Casaubon, see the Revision history of the Apartheid article for example showing the IP's/I.Casaubon focus on Arab Apartheid and related matters presumably as a counter balance to the accusations against Israel. You can see the connection in his editing history here for example.
 * 16:30, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) N Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid ‎ (←Created page with 'Lots more material is available on this topic. In particular, google: sudan Darfur arab apartheid.') (top)
 * 16:04, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid ‎ (→Accusations of Arab Apartheid)
 * 16:00, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) Israel and the apartheid analogy ‎ (→See also)
 * 15:59, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid ‎
 * 15:38, 21 March 2011 (diff | hist) Israel and the apartheid analogy ‎ (→See also)


 * My preference would be for the editor to confirm that they are a Historicist sockpuppet and for them to be able to benefit from the cleanstart process so that they can contribute outside of the topic area. Since it's unclear at this stage whether that opportunity will be available to them, everything I do here is likely to either get them blocked or drive them back underground to a new account, neither of which addresses the long term problem in a way that maximises the benefit and minimises the disruption to Wikipedia in my view. I am reluctant to ask them to openly admit to sockpuppetry unless there is an opportunity for a cleanstart. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

CLEANSTART does not allow for a user to return to an area which they are currently banned from editing. Historicist has, several times now, socked around a topic ban. The user listed here is clearly Historicist, the common interests, the same tactic of making articles that supposedly "balance" ones that he feels are unfair to Israel, and the shared IP address. What else would you need to establish the connection? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Historicist and all of their socks are stale, so there's nothing to run a CU against. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've unarchived this. Regardless of the conclusion we ultimately reach, Sean's evidence deserves something better than a single word. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tim. Cleanstart does have a clause in it though about being disruptive again, and I haven't clearly looked in to see if edits are disruptive, but if they are we can wave cleanstart. Also he has the option of WP:STANDARDOFFER and being a sockpuppeter, I would put that more to the user than clean start. But it's all on whether the user is disruptive or not. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  02:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm calling this. (Why do I always end up with these cases?) The individual pieces of evidence, by themselves, are hardly conclusive evidence. At some point, though, the aggregation of those individual pieces of evidence makes it more likely than not that those two accounts are controlled by the same person. I think that the point has been reached here. Accordingly, I have blocked I.Casaubon indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP's been quiet for awhile, so I'm closing this for now. (Finally.) —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

28 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

A user at ANI brought up the sockfarm, and while I think they are the same user this will focus on the known sock of Historicist. Wikichecker shows similar timing in edits between Historicist, Broad Wall, Amuseo, and now Rembrandt Peale. There are similarities in the style of argument during AFDs, compare Rembrandt Peale to AMuseo. The user also shares the commonality of blue-linking their user page with a right-aligned image of some historical significance: Historicist, AMuseo, Rembrandt Peale. There is another behaviorial give away I'd rather not, uh, give away, so if whatever clerk is looking at this could let me know I'd be happy to email additional evidence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC) 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * KOH, enabled. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * RP vs Historicist - overlap at article with only 50 edits.
 * RP vs AMuseo - ditto + overlap of comms with editor currently advocating saving RP's article at here.
 * RP vs Broad Wall - overlap at article with only 62 edits.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Nableezy, I believe you need to enable email. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked per WP:DUCK, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

29 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Re-created Murder of Ariel Sellouk, which it appears was previously created by a sock of this master. This sock has repeated the pattern of ascribing the term "beheading" to non-beheading-related articles having to do with Islam and violence. This sock was created back in April, so requesting CU to screen for additional accounts. VQuakr (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2014 (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

 * Data from previous socks is, there are . This will need an admin to check the behaviour, it would help if you could provide diffs of this account and accounts in the archive incorrectly using "beheading". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. This started when I came across Killing of Ariel Sellouk. After standardizing the title to Murder of Ariel Sellouk, I noted the article creator had created other articles with the "Murder of..." prefix, so it seemed strange that they went with "Killing of..." in this case. Checking the log, I noticed that the article had previously been created by a banned sock of Historicist. Before a cleanup edit by me, the article incorrectly contained categories and see also sections related to decapitation and beheading.


 * To sum up:
 * ShulMaven:
 * (subject not beheaded)


 * Rembrandt Peale:
 * Articles for deletion/Beheading in the name of Islam (basically the entire AfD, and presumably the entire deleted article as well).


 * Ultimately, I think upon further reflection the decapitation thing is really just one symptom of the overall pattern of behavior that originally necessitated Historicist's topic ban. I also emailed you an additional behavioral observation, which I think should stay nonpublic per WP:BEANS. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had another look, and did not see the same marked connection as specifically related to beheading to the earlier accounts as between these two. I did find another example of a dubious article recreation, though. Beheading in the name of Islam that was created by Rembrandt Peale and deleted 30 May 2013 was recreated by ShulMaven as Islamist beheading on 3 September 2014. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The behavioural evidence for this one is simply not convincing enough for me. Simply being concerned about Islamic-linked violence isn't unique enough IMO to establish convincingly that two people who both share an interest in this subject area must be the same person.  I'm going to close this SPI without any further action.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)