Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khabboos/Archive

27 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

I find it highly suspect that the day before Khabboos gets a TBAN, a new editor turns up to make essentially the same edit as he had done, and misrepresented the source in the same way as which led to Khabboos getting the TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I share the belief that these two editors are linked. Please can we have a check user.  I doubt that Khabboos is as new as he/she claims to be.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Per above. Not WP:DUCK though. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌. Tiptoety  talk 22:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

14 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Saharadess is a very new account which has appeared at Talk:Homeopathy to support Khabboos's position. For example, Khabboos [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=616593856&oldid=616582098 argues] that the Shang source should be removed, which the very new Saharadess [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=616843963&oldid=616842850 jumps] in to support.

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&offset=20140714100000&limit=25&action=history This selection] of the page history combined with Khabboos's contribs shows that Saharadess has stepped into Khabboos's place.

A perhaps more definite example of the connection between the two is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khabboos&diff=prev&oldid=616844390 this comment] from Saharadess defending Khabboos on K's talk page. This almost seems too obvious (which at least one of the sockpuppeteers in this area does) which is one of the main reasons I've requested CheckUser. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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

I would suggest adding, and checking all as possible socks of. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not Saharadess. From what I heard from friends, an admin can find out the IP address of a user, even if he logs in and posts. I therefore request an SPI clerk to check and dismiss this allegation. Thank you!—Khabboos (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * and are technically ❌ to . If there are different permutations that need to be checked under alternative sockmasters it will need to be done in a separate SPI with relevant difs please.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

28 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility (Predone for you guys)

Our "newcomer", Raam2 appears to be topic banned user Khabbos. This would not be the first time nor the second time. He is trying to use it to violate his topic ban. There are various edits that clearly relieve that it is him behind this puppet. Such as:

1. Same active edit time as Khabboos.
 * Khabboos

2. Edits the same exact articles as Khabboos (one example per article).
 * Khabboos

3. Trying to use the same "sources"
 * Khabbos

4.Adding/restoring the same exact content that was previously removed just like Khabboos then claims that they were wrongfully removed on the talk page even when it was clearly discussed.
 * Khabboos, talk page

5. Claims that a friend on wiki has helped him. it even turns out that their "friend" is wrong just like that of Khabboos.
 * Khabbos

6. Spams us with "useful sources" that he has not read or explain it's purpose just like Khabboos
 * Khabbos (see the last reply, there's 7 links)

7. Oddly asks for others to look for sources because his claims are "true". Which is weird since they started the discussion and provided useless "sources" for his supposed "truths".
 * Khabbos

8. Using edits summaries, such as "grammar fix" to completely change sentence, change it's meaning, or violate polices just like Khabboos.
 * Khabbos

9. Doesn't seem to get what wrong with his edits
 * Khabboos, do I really need to provide a dif for this? :)

I doubt such sheer amount of ignorance and all the things mentioned above are just a coincidence. This is clearly a duck. AcidSnow (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Khabboos, your not being hounded. Your only being reported for your socks and your disruptive edits. In fact, it was just confirmed that you are socking! AcidSnow (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Zad, that's true. I doubt he will learn anything from a block and should be banned all together. AcidSnow (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Comment: Probably enough for a checkuser. --Neil N  talk to me 14:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of the wikihounding here (if you see my Talk Page, you will understand what I mean). Anyway, I hope an SPI clerk/admin closes this at the earliest.—Khabboos (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is a ✅ sock of .-- Jezebel's  Ponyo bons mots 18:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Khabboos already has an active 6-month topic ban from India/Pakistan/Afghanistan (see here), and was blocked for a month over that. They then moved to the Pseudoscience topic area, and was circling the drain very close to a WP:ARBPS DS topic ban from there.  During that time they filed this topic ban appeal, which was found to be ill-considered enough to warrant a prohibition against filing future appeals for 6 months.  In the meantime they've been socking to edit back in the area of the topic ban, and bald-faced lied about it.  I'd suggest this editor is an overall net-negative and be indef'd.   19:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree and am implementing the indefinite block.  Sandstein   19:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing, thanks all. I've refiled User:BullRangifer addition accounts and evidence as the check had already been done and admin action taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

28 July 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * (changed username to JoeEverett)
 * (changed username to JoeEverett)


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

I have added John19322, Topgrad (changed username to JoeEverett), and BonjourMM for the following reasons:
 * John19322 made a comment that could only be interpreted as an accidental revelation that he was a sock of someone who had previously commented on the homeopathy talk page: "I provided appropriate sources above." is the relevant part. He had never commented "above" under that username. That revelation was noted by TenOfAllTrades and SkepticalRaptor.
 * The only other sympathetic editors on that page were Khabboos, Topgrad/JoeEverett, and BonjourMM. Their edits and comments ALL included poor English spelling and grammar, similar to Khabboos (and similar to Dr.Jhingade), used the same arguments and sources, and mentioned and supported each other.
 * They all commented "above" on that same talk page, so John19322 must have been referring to one or more of them. They all need to be checked.

I still suspect that Khabboos is himself a sock of someone else, most likely the notorious sockmaster and pusher of homeopathy, Dr.Jhingade, who had many socks, was very naive about using them, and shared many habits which were identical to Khabboos. He is definitely the most disruptive pro-homeopathy editor we have ever had, and he could never resist the urge to come back in yet another guise. It might be good to compare them to him. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:18, Today (UTC+10)

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

Well seeing how he was busted and blocked for socking maybe he will cover up his ways? Oh who am I kinding? He did not even bother trying this time. Anyways, I do agree you should add diffs. This is a good example seeing how he forgot which account he was using. In fact, this sock does not make anymore edits than that, weird right? If they cared enough to add the "Neutrality Notice" clearly they would have stayed a bit more. AcidSnow (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Couple of points: When you've done that ping me and I'll take another look, until then. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's probably enough evidence to check John19322 based on WP:NOTFISHING, however it's a bit borderline. A good way to increase the evidence there and to link other accounts is to provide evidence of them editing in conjunction with others (either supporting addition on the talk page or who've added it before). In the diffs of the pov-check template removal one of the editors said that it had been discussed on the talk page, were there other new accounts supporting John who were involved?
 * Regarding the other accounts, there isn't enough evidence for a check as presented. Could you please provide diffs which demonstrate that they all have similar or the same spelling/grammar mistakes?
 * Closing, the sleeper check in the request two below this would have found them if related. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

8 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I just blocked this user indefinitely after a report at WP:AN3 based on duck. CU confirmation would be helpful. Evidence: compare these two edits by the master ( and ) with this edit by the puppet. The puppet is effectively adding identical material to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' Thank you, I will keep observing these pages. AcidSnow (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * is very  evading their block.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  22:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed the tag to confirmed and am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

23 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Only two edits have been to edit Khabboos' comments. Neil N  talk to me 15:54, 23 August 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

 * is ✅ and is very  another sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks TenOfAllTrades, I've tagged them and closed the request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

12 September 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Terror4us is a sock of Khabboos. Registered only a few days ago and already resembling sock master, needs a mention [e.g., ] more accurate [e.g. ] Bladesmulti (talk) 16:02, 12 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

 * , and  are all ✅ and blocked. Khabboos (et al.) is abusing the Wikipedia email system, so I've begun blocking without access to the email function.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots  16:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Account blocked and tagged. Mike V  •  Talk  16:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)