Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibiBamizrach/Archive

Evidence submitted by Supreme Deliciousness
Admin Sandstein saw through the facade of he who controlled the LibiBamizrach account/puppet who was abusing multiple accounts. Sole purpose of the LibiBamizrach puppet was to spread a non neutral, pro-Israeli pov.

The LibiBamizrach puppet was indeffed on the 24th for abusing multiple accounts, last edit by the LibiBamizrach puppet on its talkpage was on the 26th and this IP has shown up only a couple hours later and started edit warring and spreading disruption to a variety of articles, in the same manner as the LibiBamizrach puppet:

Back to the LibiBamizrach accounts/puppets version at Israeli salad: -  also notice that the IP says: "this does not belong here" while previously the LibiBamizrach account/puppet had said on the talkpage: "does not belong in article about food"

Back to another blocked sockpupptes version at Um al kanatir: -

Reverting Tiamut

Reverting RolandR:

Reverting Nableezy:

Also reverts Nableezy at another article that the LibiBamizrach account/puppet edited:

I don't think its a coincidence that all these people he is reverting are "well known" editors within the Arab-Israel conflict articles, Me, Nableezy, Tiamut, RolandR, only shows that this IP is controlled by an old user.

Also notice that the LibiBamizrach account/puppet had previously changed "Bethlehem, on the Palestinian side" to "Bethlehem in the West Bank" at Israeli West Bank barrier:, and the IP did almost the same thing at Palestinian freedom of movement: "The restriction of the movement of Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territories" to "The restriction of the movement of Palestinians and Israelis in the West Bank"

Other similar patterns: LibiBamizrach: "participate in discuss" IP: "section that dicuss"

I want a Range Check and a CU. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser will not connect IPs with named accounts. The account is already blocked indefinitely - just which returning troublemaker this might be is a moot point, I think. If the IP continues to disrupt, they can be reported to AIV. TN X Man 16:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, CU has been used for named accounts and IPs:, what are you talking about "moot point" ? He is blocked, he has no right to edit Wikipedia and he has come back, how is this a "moot point" ? What am I supposed to do at AIV? He is evading his block, there is nothing to do at AIV. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case to which you linked, I don't see anywhere that a checkuser connected an IP to an account. The findings there were that a user and IP weren't connected. Having investigated, I can say the same thing here - the account listed and the IP are ❌. TN X Man  17:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you do a range check? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This came back as unrelated. If it had come back inconclusive or possible, then it'd be a different story. But the CU says that they're unrelated, and there's really not much more to do here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)