Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa/Archive

Evidence submitted by Esowteric
Falconkhe: edit diff
 * "Stop preaching self-made teachings."

Spiritualism: edit diff
 * "I think you seriousely need to read Wikipedia: Five Pillars, wikipedia is not a platform to be used to preach your self-made teachings and by using this sort of names you are preaching your dogmas."

Truefighter: edit diff
 * "Stop preaching self-made teachings."

Falconkhe: edit diff
 * "Omi you are again lying as RAGS wasn't founder of this cult and this cult and younus don't belong to RAGS. This article is lacking in references, that's why this is the most appropriate tag."

Spiritualism: edit diff
 * "You are lying Omirocksthisworld again as ASI was Found by Gohar Shahi and this is the only organization."

Spiritualism and TrueFighter adding talk page comments in support of Falconkhe, regarding an article naming dispute at Talk:Younus AlGohar. See edit diff

11 March 2010, after checkuser confirmation, a second vote was cast (the two were by TrueFighter* and Falconkhe) at Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi. *His signature shows as "Your Message".  Esowteric + Talk  13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved in weeks-long, partisan edit wars over several articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar. See RFC.  Esowteric + Talk  11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour: As you'll see by the contribution logs which are littered with reverts, these accounts are pretty much single purpose for pushing content, edit warring (circumventing 3RR and to a lesser extent pretending support, eg about a page he/they want renaming and also to tilt the RFC). There could also be possible COI, but that's another story for another day.

As a result of edit warring / content disputes, three of the articles named in the RFC have been fully protected.

There is more than one side to this war and I hope we can also address the accused's own grievances.  Esowteric + Talk  09:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

12 March 2010 addendum: We appear to have another old edit warrior at the RAGS article just after the block: User:Asikhi. Worth keeping an eye on. Not sure how or whether to add that user here. edit diff.  Esowteric + Talk  10:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Has also previously added to the other socks/meat support for the page renaming: edit diff.  Esowteric + Talk  10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Sometime I prefer to copy/paste comments in order to save time, it doesn't mean that I will be hold responsible for Sockpuppet investigation.--Your Message (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, does that mean this ID (Your Message) is the same person as User:Falconkhe? Because you seem to be answering for User:Falconkhe, as this is an investigation on User:Falconkhe.-- N Y7  ☆ 00:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I have reason to suspect an editor who is now blocked, Stragewarior (talk) could be a sockpuppet of User: Falconkhe. Comparison of comments:
 * Falconkhe: "This is a fact that MFI is a selfmade cult, which was introduce by younas and younas writes name ALGOHAR just to dodge that he belongs to HH Gohar Shahi and the NAME & PICTURES of HH Gohar Shahi are used by MFI for its' ill-deeds."diff
 * Stagewarior: "They don't belong to gohar shahi, remove delebrately the name & picture of gohar shahi in this article and use Muhammad Younus (as his original name was this) instead of Younus AlGohar" diff
 * Falconkhe: Includes list- "Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.These are the only suggestion in my view"diff
 * Stagewarior: Includes list- "Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.These are the only suggestion in my view."diff

Note: An IP copy-pasted the same comment as well. diff. An IP was blocked and it was also speculated that the user could have been Falconkhe. See here. It was also mentioned there that the user reported was using Mobilink-Infinity. Omirocksthisworld( Drop a line ) 12:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to SPI and I'm not sure what checkuser: "confirmed, unambiguous" and current status: "completed" means. Are we still awaiting a conclusion? Thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  10:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are these editors/sockpuppets to be restricted from editing? Off2riorob (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info. The case is now under "Checked cases awaiting administration."  Esowteric + Talk  12:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  Esowteric + Talk  11:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

, these look fairly likely, however, as they're older accounts I'd prefer it if a checkuser could run over it please, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, unambiguous. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've blocked &  indefinitely and  (as it appears to be the earliest account) for 1 week. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a week? For blatant vote stacking disruptive socking, that resulted in three articles fully locked and that he has continued even today? I would like to see a month. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another adminstrator is free to change the duration at her/his discretion -- I'm not the type to be offended. I chose 1 week because I believe it's possible this may be more of a WP:MEAT issue than straight-up sockpuppetry (though, of course, the outcome is the same) and that a slightly more lenient approach (rather than full banhammer swing) may be more conducive towards future productive collaboration involving this particular editor perspective with greater potential to avoid further violations. I am quite possibly wrong and overly optomistic, though. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything at all in this editors contributions that would lead you to that conclusion, he has not even commented in his sock investigation, a month would give him chance to move on or discuss and perhaps make a commitment to correct his multiple issues, your way we will just get him back exactly the same in a week. It would not have been surprising to have seen him indef'd. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, and I'd like to get a little more feedback, too (hence my post at Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi). The important thing is that the block has already occured, so the disruption should have stopped, and we've got time now to come to a good consensus on a possibly more appropriate length. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's meat, it's meat-in-the-same-room; this group of usernames, and only this group of usernames, were alternating edits on the same article on the same IP with the same computer. In particular, deceitful sets of edits such as this followed by this are hard to explain away. This is not an isolated incident, either; a month ago, we found this followed by this. Using sockpuppets to feign consensus is one of the most harmful things to do to community on Wikipedia; I'm somewhat surprised at the lenience of the block. Note that Falconkhe immediately claimed innocence. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional clarification. I find this and Off2riorob's comments to be compelling reasons to extend the block to one month and will leave an unambiguous message that indicates future violations will warrant indefinite blocks. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to you all. It's appreciated.  Esowteric + Talk  16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my March 12 addendum before closing. Thanks again.  Esowteric + Talk  10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * closing as seperate case has been opened for Asikhi SpitfireTally-ho! 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Esowteric
We appear to have another old edit warrior at the RAGS article just after the block: User:Asikhi. edit diff. Possibly WP:MEAT? (has a wider article editing profile than the others).

Is engaged in the same pattern of edits to RAGS and associated articles.

Has also previously added to the other socks/meat support for the page renaming: edit diff.

Sorry, not sure how to turn off the checkuser bit.  Esowteric + Talk  10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to spitfire (Clerk). Okay, found AN/I: will file a report there. Many thanks.  Esowteric + Talk  11:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
All accused parties are of the opinion that I am not being fair in singling them out. Their own grievances against the "other side" in the disputes are stated at Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and elsewhere.  Esowteric + Talk  12:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As this new sock account was actively block evading and reverting articles from the dispute after falconkhe was blocked and after he denied having any socks at all I would say the block on this disruptive sock master should be raised to indefinite. if at some point he wants to discuss he can but after being blocked for disruptive socking he has simply socked again. Off2riorob (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Also suggest keeping semi-protection. IPs and a blocked user have previously made what were construed as death threats at Younus AlGohar. See User talk:Stragewarior and follow the breadcrumbs in the article history.  Esowteric + Talk  16:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, I am sure the protecting Admin would agree to that. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the overwhelming evidence presented here, with clear examples of abusive sockpupptry and a disturbing case of what looks like a thinly-veiled death threat against an article subject, I think an indefinite block is fully warranted. &mdash; Scientizzle 18:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
any reason why this user didn't have shown up in the previous checkuser? If not then I'm inclined to lean towards suspecting this is more likely to be a friend/associate, in which case AN/I would be a more appropriate venue, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AN/I is a page for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Click here to open a new section. SpitfireTally-ho! 11:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many tnx, have done so. With apologies for the typo in the heading, interested parties see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Esowteric + Talk  12:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go over your head here Spitfire, actually. Asikhi might very well have been caught by a checkuser, but nothing was reported because he had only made a dozen or so edits within the range of the checkuser, nothing in particular of which links him to Falconkhe. I am going to a checkuser here; if nothing turns up, we can evaluate for WP:MEAT violations. NW ( Talk ) 12:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Again, unambiguous. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked... &mdash; Scientizzle 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, indeed, this username showed up with the others, but didn't seem recently active, so I left a bit of rope. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking a look at ? Seems likely based on history and recent patterns of interactions... &mdash; Scientizzle 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one too. Not sure why I didn't add it to the list originally. Perhaps I was in a sloppy mood! --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks...this has really cleared up a lot. I'm off to block that one, too. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a shot in the dark. What about User talk:Stragewarior? User talk. Please unblock me "Because this is my aim of life to not spare the lier and Younus and MFI is a lie." I bring this up because edits by the user and IPs were construed as death threats.  Esowteric + Talk  17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good eye. Same IP, same day edits as one of them. To add some ammo: any time more than one username has been on any of the IPs I've found, it's only been one from the list we've put together here (in other words, none of these are "a lot of people on the IP, and it included these ones.") --jpgordon:==( o ) 17:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What a day! Many thanks. Then falconkhe must surely be indefinitely blocked?  Esowteric + Talk  17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, full support. Considering all of this I would request raising of the block of the sock master Falconkhe to indefinite. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like the 'tizzle tozook care of it. -jpgordon:==( o ) 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

moved from Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe to /Iamsaa SpitfireTally-ho! 18:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Esowteric
Created within an hour of the creation of sock who was indefinitely blocked on 15 March 2010 at AN/I. AN/I thread.

Only contribution thus far is to comment at the RS noticeboard about a "reliable souce" proposed by another sock: edit diff.

Final offer of help: Please note that has made a final offer of help to the sockmaster, if he logs in with that account, agrees to abide by rules and is willing to discuss matters. See talk page offer.

Thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  09:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: OK, I can see that Iamsaa is negotiating to be unblocked. See here. The accounts were created on the 12th, so this should not prejudice current negotiations.  Esowteric + Talk  09:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm? He was also creating new accounts on the 14th; and as far as current negotiation is concerned, he's still claiming not to be (among others) User:Falconkhe. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know... *eye roll* I've asked point-blank about this account. I'd like to see a checkuser report on this account if there's a further denial. The "negotiation" is one last suuuuper long-shot to get through to this person and stop the disruption. We'll see... &mdash; Scientizzle 20:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually...can I assume, based on your block, jpgordon, that there was a check performed? The behavioral evidence is mind-numbingly obvious, so I was planning on blocking anyway. &mdash; Scientizzle 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just block, ignore and move on and continue to block  all socks. Checkuser is no longer required, new accounts are quacking like ducks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm quite happy to keep running checks until he quits. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, many thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
3 IPs blocked 3/30/2010 by Scientizzle as User:Iamsaa socks:

Evidence submitted by Esowteric
Continuing daily disruptive editing to a range of articles relating to Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International which follow the same pattern as other usersocks and ipsocks of Iamsaa.

Banned is still claiming that he has nothing to do with the edit warring and sock puppetry which is still rife in the Younus AlGohar - related articles and redirects.

Since he wishes to be unbanned, rather than go for WP:DUCK it would be helpful if we could ascertain conclusively whether or not he is telling the truth. Is there any way you can link the recent IPs to Iamsaa, who also edited his talk page later today? Words like "same machine, same room" or even a "definitely not" would be useful.

If in doubt, please refer to and/or  Thanks in advance,  Esowteric + Talk  13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by  Esowteric + Talk  13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ There's no mystery here. Iamsaa has a very distinctive footprint (I can't recall one more distinctive and unambiguous), even if his editing habits were not so obvious (which they are). For example:
 * This edit by 116.71.15.95, followed immediately on the same IP by this edit by Iamsaa
 * This edit by 119.160.14.43, followed immediately on the same IP by this edit by Iamsaa
 * But more to the point, each of the suspected IPs has all the precise characteristics of the Iamsaa account, and nothing to indicate otherwise. The problem with blocking these individually is that the ISP (Pakistan Telecomm) uses highly dynamic IP assignments; it the underlying range for most of them, 116.71.0.0/19, also has a lot of legitimate editors, anonymous and logged-in; I'd hesitate to slam an entire country because of one obvious liar with a mission. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work, JP. I was more interested in this precise information than any kind of range ban. Many thanks,  Esowteric + Talk  15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I figured as much. Since IP blocking has proven largely ineffective, I'll focus more on semi-protection. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 15:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)