Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iqinn/Archive

20 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As I noted at the edit warring noticeboard there is a great similarity in the style of User:27.122.16.74's edits and those of permanently blocked User:Iqinn. In particular taking my warning at User talk:27.122.16.74 and leaving a reversed version on User talk:Geo Swan is typical of how Iqinn responded to good faith expressions of concern, ,. Further, Iqinn would frequently respond to a good faith expression of concern by stating or implying the other contributor was being disruptive, violating policy, making a personal attack -- instead of offering a meaningful reply -- as 27.122.16.74 did here. This is my first use of this form, and I am not sure how many diffs should be supplied. Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (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 IP was blocked as an open proxy. We're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

14 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Iqinn is the only contributor who accused me of being a shill -- until User:Birdmight did so here. Birdmight, a contributor with only 3 edits, could hardly have a meaningful opinion as to whether I was a shill -- unless they were an old wikipedian posting under a new ID. Given the similarity to Iqinn's style I strongly suspect a check-user will confirm it is Iqinn. This exchange is also typical of Iqinn. Iqinn is not a native speaker of English, and regularly misunderstood what other contributors had written. In this particular case Iqinn's accusations are based on misinterpreting who was responsible for this edit. The "delete or rewrite" is also reminiscent of Iqinn. Another contributor used to call Iqinn to task for stating in other {afd}s that he or she wanted either their preferred version kept, or the article to be deleted. Iqinn routinely attacked contributors who challenge them. This exchange illustrates that the writer has a long history of interactions with me, and is typical of Iqinn's attack style. I initiated an earlier SPI when I thought I recognized Iqinn's style in a IP contributors comments. These are the only two SPI I have initiated. During the 2 years prior to Iqinn's block he or she made close to 20,000 edits. Over 80 percent of those edits were to material I contributed, or about material I contributed. So I feel pretty comfortable that I can recognize his/her style. Note: Iqinn was indefinitely blocked in August, and their last edit to their talk page was just under three months ago. I mention this as it is my understanding there is a three month limit on using technical means to confirm sockpuppetry. Geo Swan (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Baseless accusations coming from an editor who obviously has repeatedly violated BLP and NPOV without listen to to all the people who told him that instead of improving on his skills he tries to drive people away. Just looked up his talk page where i found a large number of other editors who have problems with the BLP's he wrote: Just to name a few i found i a short time. Yes i am not a native English speaker as 2 Billion others who speak English. I registered Jrwikieditor and the one edit of 80.241.245.242 is one incident where i forgot to log in and where it is obvious that it was me. I have nothing to do with Iqinn and Birdmight. Jrwikieditor (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dozens of BLP violations noted by user Fram
 * Large number of BLP issues noted by user THF
 * user Stifle and user Yachtsman1


 * The whole pattern with User:Birdmight, from the types of articles he focuses on, the nature of the edits he makes to those articles, to the obsession with following Geo Swan about, to the pattern of grammatical mistakes where he omits definite articles when he is in haste, to the use of certain phrases and words when engaging in personal attacks; are curiously reminiscent of Iqinn, which whom I have had personal dealings. Greg L (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: User account Noda297 (long gone now) was also a nuisance at one point. I wonder if he might be related as well. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don’t think V7-sport is related to Iqinn. Iqinn was blocked 03:17, 19 August 2011 and V7-sport exhibited an equal level of activity before and after that block. Moreover, the nature of V7-sport’s edits and manner of writing posts on talk pages looks nothing like Iqinn to me. More pointedly, Iqinn’s contribution history shows numerous reversions of V7-sport’s edits; I hardly think this was pre-planned diversionary theater. However, Birdnight (and Jrwikieditor now) are clearly single-purpose accounts dedicating to wikistalking Geo Swan. Moreover, the totality of the circumstances—all the way to the nuances of writing style and unusually quick familiarity with Geo Swan—are striking hallmarks of Iqinn, who also was a single-purpose editor dedicated to wikistalking Geo Swan and reverting his edits on terrorism-related articles; typically to delete well cited material that cast accused terrorists (individuals who somehow manage to do things that result in their being sent to Guantanamo) in a less-than-flattering light. Given the totality of it all, Geo Swan’s smelling a rat doesn’t seem at all unreasonable when he made this observation: Iqinn is the only contributor who accused me of being a shill -- until User:Birdmight did so here. If it walks, talks, waddles, edits, and flosses its beak with the same brand of dental floss as a duck, it’s a duck (Iqinn in this case). So… Given the totality of the pattern and the uncanny resemblance to Iqinn, I motion that these two accounts (Birdnight and Jrwikieditor) be banned and that Iqinn’s block be made indefinite. Greg L (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Alexandria (chew out) 14:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ that the following users are related: that the above are related to: --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC) I blocked V7-Sport and Iquinn indefinitely on the same day. Both edit warriors, but on the opposite sides of their interminable petty dispute.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Something tells me is related. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  17:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I worded that wrong and didn't really look into it before I said anything. Sorry about that. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  23:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagged and blocked Jrwikieditor and Birdmight. The combination of the behaviour and "possible" result is sufficient confirmation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

10 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Iqinn made something like 15,000 edits either to material I originally contributed, or about material I contributed. While doing so whoever was behing this ID typically adopted the same kind of hostile passive aggressive tone seen here in these edits -- you are useless, more mess Geo Swan (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2012 (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

 * Stale request, IP last edited over 6 week ago. The  Helpful  One  12:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

01 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In July 2009 User:Iqinn blanked the sections of articles which covered new third party reports that several dozen former Guantanamo captives had been characterized as “recidivists” by the DIA. ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. After several other contributors reverted those excisions. Iqinn reacted by placing disputed section tags on those sections in multiple articles -- including the article on Moheb Ullah Borekzai. Moheb Ullah Borekzai was recently nominated for deletion. In trying to clean up remaining issues with the article I removed that tag, and explained why on the talk page. A few days later brand new contributor Gyrojeff left this comment on my talk page, ''“Hi Geo, i saw you added “DoD claims he returned to supporting terrorism” to this biography. I do not think that is the case. Could you please point me to the relevant reference or correct the error?”''. I took their questions seriously, and left an additional explanation. The response of this brand new contributor echoed all the tendetiousness and misinterpretation of wikipolicies that was routine for Iqinn. They acknowledged understanding that this individual was one of the individuals who had been identified as a suspected recidivists by the DIA. Part of their response says ''“Looking at the given references, to me it seems to be clear that they do not support your claim ‘DoD claims he returned to supporting terrorism’. Nor do other sources support this. You still do not see the problem?”'' This is an almost word for word echo of the kind of typical misinterpretation of policy Iqinn used to put forward -- where they acted as if their PERSONAL doubts over what WP:RS reported could over-ride the opinions of verifiable, authoritative commentators. I strongly suspected User:Iqinn was still wikistalking me, and that User:Gyrojeff was yet another of their sockpuppets, and I said so. In their response they used the phrase “wall of words” to refer my comments. This use of this phrase was one of Iqinn's favorite ploys to avoid meaningful, substantive discussion -- further confirming my suspicion Gyrojeff was a sockpuppet of one of the contributors who used the Iqinn ID. An additional confirmation was how the wording of Gyrojeff's reply echoed the idiosyncratic patterns of Iqinn's ESL response. Gyrojeff's comments in the section of WP:BLPN they initiated over their concern first echo Iqinn's idiosyncratic English --, , ; second, they echo Iqinn's routine misinterpretation of WP:VER -- Iqinn used to act as if they could remove neutrally worded coverage of published claims -- when they hadn't been proven true to his or her satisfaction. While Gyrojeff didn't remove the section themselves, they are calling for it to be removed -- based on their PERSONAL doubts. Geo Swan (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2012 (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

 * Indef blocked sock based on strong behavioral evidence. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

02 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

78rose has made just two edits. One to create User:78rose, and one to User talk:Geo Swan. I suggest this is definitely not the work of a new contributor. I suggest it is extremely unlikely a contributor returning to the wikipedia after a good faith exercise of their right to disappear would randomly choose to raise a very obscure question on a talk page.

This may be a sockpuppet of someone else, but I think it clearly a sockpuppet. Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2012 (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

 * Editor was indef'ed as a sockpuppet of someone. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

18 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I think it is clear that these edits are not the work of a newbie, which triggers a concern of sockpuppetry for me, all by itself. I think this comment is typical of the kinds of comments Iqinn would make -- on a purely surface read the comment looks reasonable. On close examination it suggests a misunderstanding of key policies -- routine in Iqinn's comments. Jumping immediately to implying bad faith is also typical of Iqinn. Iqinn devoted something like a thousand hours to wikistalking my contributions, and would show up very shortly after I made them to challenge them and revert them, and this challenge followed relatively closely after I made the contributions. Both 69.86.115.143 and 64.197.111.130 are static IPs, geolocating to Philadelphia. How does a single individual end up using two static IP addresses? Geo Swan (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 04:08, 18 April 2013 (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

 * Re "How does a single individual end up using two static IP addresses?": Plenty of users edit from two or more computers regularly. By itself there's nothing suspicious about that. Jafeluv (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you provide some diffs showing similarities between the IPs and the master? Thanks. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 18:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing the connection. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

21 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This IP has made only one edit -- a reversion of of an edit I made, that was unexplained other than an edit summary that said "Exactly Undid revision 555928235 by Geo Swan". This kind of reversion by an IP looks like a sign of wikistalking by a sockpuppet. It is certainly an unlikely first edit by a genuine newbie. Geo Swan (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Geo Swan (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2013 (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 one edit may or may not be linked. It is pretty hard to judge based on a single revert with this master.  Holding off. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One edit that is debatable, from a dynamic IP almost a week ago... I can't see anything useful to do here at this point, though please re-open this case if further evidence or suspected socking occurs. Closing for now, though. Courcelles 07:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)