Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyou/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Both The0Professor and ALRALR are already blocked for sockpuppetry based on duplicative vandalism at Muhammad's wives ( for The0Profesor and for ALRALR). Now comes along Unrememberedperson making the same disruptive edits (e.g. ). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Added Historyou as the correct originator of this sock farm. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:35, 30 September 2021 (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

 * Account has already been CU blocked and tagged by Ponyo. Closing case. Spicy (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Opposes pictures of Muhammad in hell ; same comparisons of marrying age of Aisha with marrying ages in medieval Europe and Byzantium  ; same general focus on opposing criticism of religions. Loudly quacking duck. Pinging, who engaged with both this sock and the last one. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 17:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * it's much broader than being offended with regard to Islam-related articles, as shown by the fact that MEMEMEMER's first two edited articles were Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Judaism (cf. Unrememberedperson' user page: The most article I hate in wiki is the criticism of religions as they are full of lies and frauds paid by propagandists to edit). Also, do you suppose they picked up the very specific example of King Richard II of England from the Aisha talk page, or from some form of off-wiki campaign? But of all possible things by which they could be offended, they then go on to protest the very specific phenomenon of depicting prophets in hell? I think the behavioral evidence is very strong indeed, but if you think it's not, then it's at least strong enough to request a CU (which I did in this edit). ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 20:09, 13 October 2021 (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
I'm responding to the ping above. Islam-related articles frequently attract disruption from people who object to content they consider offensive, but that isn't evidence of sockpuppetry. The other user that I interacted with,, had a different mode of editing from MEMEMEMER, who deleted much larger swaths of sourced content from multiple articles than the other socks, and posted abusive complaints accusing Wikipedia of lying and racism. That didn't occur from the other socks, who blanked out things to a lesser extent and at least seemed to know what talk pages were for, unlike MEMEMEMER. So while this user has been disruptive and possibly a sockpuppet, I am not convinced on behavioral evidence that it's a sockpuppet account, because the behavior is so typical of new Muslim editors who are confronted with an unprotected article that offends them. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser has already blocked the account. This case can be closed. I don't know how to go about doing this. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing per above. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)