Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maudslay II/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

The IP is obviously Maudslay. The IP edited two articles, the first was and edit war with User:220 of Borg, that Maudslay continued. Then today the IP reverted using the summary "reverted vandalism" to remove an AFD notice. Maudslay edited 11 minutes later and then used "vandalism" in an edit summary to describe what reliable sources say (who call this a raid). Maudslay is using the IP to help with his edit war. Free1Soul (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no relation with this IP. I did not & don't need to use in this dispute. In Lebanon, IPs (from my limited understanding of how IPs work) change frequently and are shared by different users. In Gemayel, you would notice that the IP changed from overtime from 185.130.139.35 to 185.130.139.42 to 185.130.139.31. While this was an edit war between User:220 of Borg and that IP, I solved the conflict by expanding the legacy section and keeping the overview in the lead. It's unreasonable to claim that I was part of the edit war. This edit  was not related to it, I removed for lack of sources since there was no objection in talk. -- Maudslay II (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * As I was involved, and pinged, I see it as interesting that Maudsley II returned to the lede a paragraph I moved to the legacy section on the Bechir Gemayel page to replace un-sourced ... drivel. That is the exact edit, as far as I recall, the IP/s kept making. 220  of  ßorg 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Replying to what said above, it wasn't really an edit war. There was new  sourced material in the lede. As far as I know, new content should not be introduced in the lede, it's supposed to summarise what's already in the body text. I moved it to the body, replacing unsourced peacockery text. The IP was I believe, in the wrong under WP standards/conventions to revert me. IMHO that edit removing the unsourced political views is irrelevant to this SPI. 220  of  ßorg 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - The edit history of Bachir Gemayel, and the request by for extended confirmed stating they were previously  shows someone either extremely unlucky, or habitually careless, with their accounts & stirring up suspicions about their identity and motives. Please explain ? Cabayi (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The SUL links show there's a clear case of block evasion on arwiki. Cabayi (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no block evasion, I've been checked here and confirmed by an admin in arwiki. -- Maudslay II (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's a parallel investigation running at c:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Maudslayer Cabayi (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , That investigation came back with no results due to stale data. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is now stale. A uw-login caution may have been appropriate for but I'd also guess that having this report hanging around for as long as it has is reminder enough of the virtues of logging in, and of not losing access to your user accounts on a regular basis.


 * I'd like to get some clarity for enwiki before closing this. Trying to pick the bones out of ar:User talk:Maudslay II using Google Translate (and nobody should be forced to rely on that.)...
 * has the previous accounts
 * which were blocked on the Arabic wiki to prevent reuse by at the request of . For some reason
 * escaped attention. Also questions were asked regarding
 * but they were not related. Alaa, Dr-Taher, have I read it right? Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * which were blocked on the Arabic wiki to prevent reuse by at the request of . For some reason
 * escaped attention. Also questions were asked regarding
 * but they were not related. Alaa, Dr-Taher, have I read it right? Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * but they were not related. Alaa, Dr-Taher, have I read it right? Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * but they were not related. Alaa, Dr-Taher, have I read it right? Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * but they were not related. Alaa, Dr-Taher, have I read it right? Cabayi (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly Cabayi -- Alaa )..! 11:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing, NFA., take better care of your accounts.  Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)