Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Md iet/Archive

14 December 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The user md iet was topic banned and soon after this uname : qazxcv1234 was created. I strongly suspect that both are same by seeing the language constructs they are using:

eg: frequent use of "please", "pl" etc. Summichum (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Also see the interaction report:

Page Min time between edits Qazxcv1234 edits Md iet edits

Dawoodi Bohra 8 days — (timeline) 5 119

Talk:Dawoodi Bohra 11 days — (timeline) 10 57

Mufaddal Saifuddin 14 days — (timeline) 8 180

Fatimid Caliphate 16 days — (timeline) 1 6

Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin 31 days — (timeline) 1 159

Note both are also now topic banned

They may definately not show the same ip address as this new one is only editing from mobile phones as shown in edit history. Hence need to see other clues.

i had later included above CU and informed the last CU report which also gave some hits DeltaQuad. I had asked to merge this investigation with the last one earlier too:

Mike V Yes see the below diffs, and regarding authorship clues, the talk page discussions provide indicators that they come from same author, by frequent use of words like "please".


 * 2014-11-27 10:11 UTC  /* Civil war and decline */
 * 2014-12-13 10:35 UTC /* Civil war and decline */ Missing link added.


 * 2014-11-29 04:33 UTC /* Female genital mutilation */
 * 2014-12-10 04:59 UTC /* Female genital mutilation */

Dear Mike V and User:DeltaQuad who was involved in recent CU computation:
 * See following diffs, frequent use of "please", "may please" at the end, generally we begin by "Please ..." but this sock ends his sentences with "please"
 * The user md iet wrote On dawoodi bohra talk page:


 * "This article is mainly on Dawoodi Bohra, main generally acceptable feature only are described here please. --Md iet (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014"


 * Also see the recent suffix "please" by the sock:


 * "Sources used are Milli gazette and Tehelka.com type. Its again something fishy. May like to see please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)"


 * I found many such occurrences, which even you can verify in the talk page communication. Also see that the user is using only mobile edits to thwart IP address detection.
 * I have moved evidences to this section, also request User:EdJohnston to look into this as he has recently topic banned both Qazxcv1234 and md iet

Summichum (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Further New evidences

Having talked with Md iet since over a year and having a linguistic background ,I had distinctly marked md iet typical use of a very typical non native and at times highly nuanced grammatical signatures which I guess even other experienced editors like User:Anupmehra can discern.


 * IN his recent defence Qazxcv1234 has used this peculiar phrase "community as whole"
 * one more such language phrase he uses in his rants is "community as whole" instead of the correct phrase "as a whole", in all the three talk pages of bohra articles I found this peculiar unique usage by md iet:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_%28Dawoodi_Bohra%29&oldid=605559874
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=602519225
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dawoodi_Bohra&oldid=604113916

once you open the above diffs search for "as whole" also there are many other linguistic markers I have identified which give me 100% confidence that both Qazxcv1234 and md iet are same. Md iet has used a sock earlier too as can be seen in his log.

Summichum (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, very interesting, now you are investigating on each sentence and words. 'community as whole' is correct phrase or not is immaterial for me till it convey my fillings. I have clearly emphasized that I am influenced by md. That is not a fake statement. It is proving itself true. I have gone through md's comments. This information was the most convincing part of it. I am also just like md in the matter of language. In fact I may be rated further low. Whatever I liked made an impact on me. Every thing can not be explained sumi. But now you cannot hide your intentions.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ok its nice that you have carefully used words to avoid lying which is an Islamic principle, you are influenced by mdiet agreed but now answer this question: are you and mdiet same editors? (I know you both are same for sure)

for the editors also see how he is now trying to change his typical natural language markers after this report and removed his silly  excuses :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qazxcv1234&curid=44716269&diff=638785220&oldid=638784197

Summichum (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * sumi, I don't have to ask your permission for any correction to my own matter, which I made in hurry. Please ask yourself before questioning others. Husain will remain Husain. A person who makes silly excuses only will remove them.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Mike V  This new sock came up with a new fictional phrase "taiyyabi bohra" to mislead editors and bypass topic ban on "dawoodi bohra", Admin User:EdJohnston has warned him several times which is why he is using such tactics to able to edit bohra articles. "Taiyyabi bohra" is a phrase which has been only used by these two socks. Another evidence that both are same.
 * Another Evidence

Also IP address detection won't yield much info as this is an experienced user who was earlier also involved in sock investigations and was caught as such on reporting. The user Qazxc1234 used to edit only from mobile to prevent IP address tracing, after I reported this behaviour, he cited wifi problems and then he started to use normal non mobile editing.Summichum (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Sum, you are now trying to mislead everybody. This is a limit. I was trying to connect my WiFi, and able to connect only now. On my mobile I am not able to open this page and can't see your tactics. I am really surprised with your activities. I don't need to use all the tactics you presuming. Anybody can check my IP on which I opened my account and this IP and system on which I am working now. People of your thinking can only do things like this. I have also gone through md page. Your tactics has worked there. You himself has tagged notices of our common Taiyabi saint Hasan fir and Fakhruddin Shahid. you tempted him to work there than complained.--Qazxcv1234 (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Please refer following of Alavi Bohra: "After the division of the Mustaalid community, the Yemenite Dawah followed at-Tayyib Abi l-Qasim as their Imam, and the Bohras are the modern descendants of Taiyabi converts and immigrants."

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

I am surprised to see so many action on me at a time. I am new to Wiki and welcome in this manner. Is there any harm if somebody uses please. If it is ones habit he will use it frequently, whenever he fill it. It can be one person or many.

Regarding selection of Bohra article by me, it is my interest which is my origin. I noticed that md is working for fatimid article and I also found interest because of my origin.

I noticed that sumi is taking special interest in the articles and behind bohra community as whole. He is not behind any specific bohra but he wants to harm all Taiyabi in fact all Shia.

Please look at my editions. I have done limited editions, and never undone any edit twice. I tried to take matter on talk page. I am influenced by md and tried to see all his edit and also tried to help him if I can.

I am new to Wiki. It will take me to get acquainted with Wiki rules and all bohra related articles. I am banned, and blocked by my well wisher Sumi. Please visit my talk page. I have given all explanation and even done the simulation to prove that I have not done the mistake for which I got banned.

Regarding using mobile, I have poor WiFi connection at home and I am lucky that I got connected today and able to, give you explanation on my PC which I have used earlier also.

Hope admin will further analyze my case and help me that person like sumi don't use Wiki as platform for his partisan activities.--Qazxcv1234 (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I came to know today only that too accidentally about my this complain. Is there any provision to send message for this type of important actions? If not, some provision may be made please.--Qazxcv1234 (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * May please refer, this will make sumi intention clear. He is trying to delete article of 11-12th century Taiyabi bohra wali.--Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Qazxcv1234, for your kind support. You seems to be a Taiyyabi follower, your help is very much required to restict activity of partisan editor 'X', we have on Wiki.

Admin please note, that this follow has joined Wiki after incident of late Syedna demise and unilaterally editing in favour of his candidate Khuzaima Qutbuddin, he has pretended of being a social reformer and crossed all the limit of disruption on Wiki and got repeated blocked on all the front.

He has tried to eliminate all editors doing edit for the subject articles, and left alone to do whatever jugglery he want to make.

User Qazxcv1234 has come to rescue the subject and he is also trying to eliminate him also. The diff, pointed out by him is a good proof of his activity. He is trying to delete articles related with 11th AH (14th AD) century saints to propogate his hate and defame community as whole.

I am also going through analysis Qazx has given and will try to expose the trap this X is upto for Qazx.

Admin may please analyse that an article is made by the people who know the subject and also by it's critics. If we delete all the people who know the subject than article will not have main material. If critics are removed than material of nonwiki standard may come. The balance has to be made. Qwertus and Anilmehra were acting in a perfect wikipedian manner. My intentions were also good, but I was little more aggressive, and accepted my fault. But this X is doing unilateral canvassing for his candidate, removing each and every material even from the reliable sources to his intention. When this subject is covered under specific rules, it is not understood that why this single so called critic trying to disrupt activities aiming toward single goal is not questioned and warned. He is allowed to do editing at his will. Please refer diff:, this fellow has deleted material of reputed news as per his will, and tried to put his only point of favour.

Hope Admin may take up the case seriously please.

Action is taken on someone on my name and I don't have information on my talk page. I was just going through contribution of this X to analyse his activities and read the matter and came to this page. --Md iet (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If Admin permits, I also want to help him demonstrating his simulation using some IT experts.--Md iet (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike V Yes see the below diffs, and regarding authorship clues, the talk page discussions provide indicators that they come from same author, by frequent use of words like "please".

2014-11-27 10:11 UTC md iet 1 /* Civil war and decline */ 2014-12-13 10:35 UTC Qazxcv1234 1 /* Civil war and decline */ Missing link added.

2014-11-29 04:33 UTC md iet 1 /* Female genital mutilation */ 2014-12-10 04:59 UTC Qazxcv1234 10 /* Female genital mutilation */

Dear Mike V and User:DeltaQuad who was involved in recent CU computation

see following diffs, frequent use of "please", "may please" at the end, generally we begin by "Please ..." but this sock ends his sentences with "please"

the user md iet wrote On dawoodi bohra talk page:

"This article is mainly on Dawoodi Bohra, main generally acceptable feature only are described here please. --Md iet (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2014"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohammed_Burhanuddin&curid=1127899&diff=638193224&oldid=637903905

Also see the recent "please" by the sock:

"Sources used are Milli gazette and Tehelka.com type. Its again something fishy. May like to see please.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)"

I found many such occurrences, which even you can verify in the talk page communication. Also see that the user is using only mobile edits to thwart IP address detection.


 * please do the CU as I have given more then enough evidences in addition to IP analysis also put more weight on behavioural analysis of the socks. Thanks for your efforts Summichum (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Mike V, I have compared the edit being done by me and Md through the tool mentioned above. I found that I have joined recently and my total edits are only 80.

Out of these 80 edits there are only 2 edits which have been done on common day with md that too altogether on different time.

20 Dec, 14: my one edit at 09:53 and Md's 3 edits between 06:21 to 06:36 on sock puppet investigation page.

15 Dec, 14: my one edit at 04:59 and Md's 3 edit between 11:10 to 11:13 on Alavi Bohra

This clearly proves that there is no correlation between these two editors timings. Subject similarity may be due to ideology, which I have already made clear.

I have one more propaganda to declare. This Sumi has developed a new page/sect  named by  ‘Taiyabi Ismaili'. Taiyabi article was already existing from years together and it is still clearly mentioned that: “Tāyyib’īyyah/Tāyyibī fiqh or Mustā‘līyyah/Mustā‘lī fiqh is a fiqh system associated with the Mustā‘lī branch of Ismaili that split with the Fatimid supporting Hafizi branch by believing Taiyab abi al-Qasim was the rightful Imam”. Which clearly indicates that there is Tayyibi fiqh(sect). There is no ‘Taiyabi Ismaili’  name and this fellow has forcefully changed the name of article Taiyabi to Taiyabi Ismaili. Ismaili is main Shia branch, which further bifurcated in Mustaali. This Mustali branch than bifurcated to Hafizi and Taiyabi. This Taiyabi fiqh (sect) is common for all Bohras.Qazxcv1234 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Could you provide more information on how the accounts are related? For instance, could you give diffs that show a similar type of behavior? You might have something here, but I'm not confident enough to endorse a check with only what's been provided so far. Mike V  •  Talk  20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to move some comments by others out of the admin section. Are there some headers that need fixing? I hope that a clerk or other SPI regular will visit this page and do whatever is necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , also the pings above didn't work. Try using ping next time? Might just be a bug. ping me when my attention is needed for the case, I trust your judgement. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  07:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad, may like to see simulation, where I have given the possibility that editing conflict system of Wiki do not work when two simultaneous edit done within one or two mins. In between edit did not save and shown as being deleted by last editor. I was also banned due to none of my fault. Please have a look at itQazxcv1234 (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the evidence presented is enough to warrant a check. I also noted that all four accounts have the same editing timeframe, so I think you might have something here. Mike V  •  Talk  20:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Highly Qazxcv1234 to Md iet. With uncertainty, i'm going to list Ramiericson as  given that he has his own investigation where it was an easier identification, and data doesn't match that investigation. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  05:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Md iet and Qazxcv1234 indefinitely. Mike V  •  Talk  16:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

10 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Please see the contributions of this user.The user md iet was blocked indefinately for socks and again showing exactly same behaviour and linguistic patterns on talk pages of bohra articles, he also had a indefinate ban on bohra articles. Summichum (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2015 (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

 * Checkusers will not directly link named accounts to IPs in SPIs; such cases need to be handled on a behavioural basis.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide diffs that demonstrate the similar linguistic patterns that you've mentioned? Thanks, Mike V • Talk 21:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The user md iet uploaded photos at commons eg:  and soon after made edit requests to include them on the main dawoodi bohra page and other pages even though they were denied repeatedly by admins and other users. The user is now on an image uploading spree to advertise a particular group, hence maybe even commons permission should be withdrawn, to prevent him from linking such images in bohra articles for propaganda purposes.


 * some linguistic markers both account used :"He may be warned/restricted doing so." I dont need to take pains to give detailed lingusitc analysis as this is already blocked and ip soc Summichum (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

14 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

The contribution log directly points to earlier sockpuppet for which MD iet was blocked and topic banned indefinitely on bohra. Again disrupting bohra articles Summichum (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2015 (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

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qazxcv1234&diff=prev&oldid=639557809 Here, at the talk page of Qazxcv1234] this IP signs an edit as Qazxcv1234, This seems to be persuasive evidence they are the same person so I'm blocking the IP for three months. Qazxcv1234 is already blocked as a sock of Md iet. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

19 January 2015
‎*
 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Same linguistic behaviour showed, main account blocked now doing same activities using IP addresses. Summichum (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Also the user is editing from exactly the same long \latitude in jaipur India.

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/106.215.137.61

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/106.215.133.223

hence I request and  to look into it and block the IP range 106.215.x.x as md iet is editing from these IP addresses while on GPRS, to avoid getting detected\blocked. Also see other requests on this page for more evidences. Ideally the talk pages of bohra articles should also be protected from edits by random ip addresses as daily many edit requests are recieved on bohra articles from these ip addresses. Summichum (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

There is complete community on one side and a single person doing complete partisan activities on another. I have checked his contribution page. Complete page is full of all destructive matter. Request Admin to analyze the behavior.

There is definitely a small opposition in community. The main section not at all bothered about the small tit bits. Observe the response of more than 300 thousand DB coming from 55 countries all over the world almost one third of total community.

Mufaddal heading the peaceful mass ceremony that too in capital of Maharashtra state and State chief joining main function chaired by Mufaddal.

Is any further proof required?

This is live survey of community and it's peaceful agenda.

We are sorry for behaving at Wikipedia in the manner which is not at all required.

The community don't require any certificate from Wikipedia for the activities its doing for humanity and peace.

The pain is that a single person is using Wikipedia as his tool. Complete community reaction is termed as disruption.

There is definitely some abuse due to excessive tilt and blind faith of community members. But it is not acceptable from Wikipedia that it cannot observe a single person's behavior done for a one specific purpose.

From history of the editors comments I could gather some altogether different motive. Comments on Shia and Mumbai riots stink a vicious conspiracy and doubtful involvement of some destructive agency against this peaceful community.

Wikipedia is a prestigious platform valued for its material and coverage. There are always some negative point involved of every systems as they are run by human beings. The resistance offered here by us is only for not allowing a single person to portray community image which is not true. Our aim is not to disrupt Wikipedia activity.

Thanks for patience hearing and sorry for trouble caused.106.215.133.223 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * from the above users linguistic patterns and evidences provided so far this user is none other than md iet, the user has been answered back by other 3rd party editors including anupmehra, qwertyus , his bans were a culmination of his unwillingness to abide by the rules of wikipedia , and the talk pages are testimonies to that. I would not waste more of my time on false allegations by random ip addresses, pinging and other admin for response as these ip addresses are again flooding talk pages with edit requests, and all of them are being denied by the admin Summichum (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

From the history of Md it seems that the fellow is too aggressive and difficult to get convinced.

No boss or superior would like to hear 'no' or arguments even he is sometime wrong and junior is always at loss in the end.

First impression is last impression, and I request fresh consideration to be done in the case. Hope requests made above shall also be considered.106.215.180.10 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There is recent disruption by the User: Summichum, listed at 3RR notice page, may like to see it.106.215.133.47 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

22 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

starts with same ip range as the earlier one reported and edits the same articles everytime. Besides the same linguistic patterns Summichum (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

23 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Filed another malformed 3rr report after they were removed twice when he had recently filed them as an IP, and he still talks about "humanity".  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Helping a fellow for his community support is not against huminity. Mobile edit and to retype the matter was difficult for an IP. Any body can see record, this account not used for disruption or partisan activities. This OccultZone and Summichum seems have connection using same format for SPI case status|CUrequest. --YaFatimid (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * YaFatimid blocked indef as a suspected sockpuppet. If he isn't a sock of any of these, chances are that he's avoiding a block on another account. User:106.215.180.10 filed a complaint against User:Summichum at WP:AN3, was reverted, and YaFatimid refiled the same complaint right after. Bjelleklang  -  talk 20:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN3]]

27 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

New user directly editing bohra articles and using wiki terminologies on talk page for the same issues for which MD iet was blocked Summichum (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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


 * I just issued a duplicate report for this user. Ruksakba registered three days ago, and is already flinging wikijargon like "POV" at Summichum. The grammatical mistakes the user makes are also very similar to the ones Md iet made. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked this account per the behavioral evidence. The unfortunate thing is that there is too much collateral damage on the IP range to consider blocking it. The IPs switch very often and we don't see any activity resuming on the other ones. The user has only recently begun switching from IPs to accounts and they have been easily visible due to the behavioral evidence, so I don't think a check will pick up very much. I've semi-protected Alavi Bohra‎ for a month to help with the sockpuppetry. I think the best advice here is to report the IPs and the accounts as they appear. We can indef the accounts and issue short blocks for the IPs. If there are articles that receive a fair amount of attention from the user, we can semi-protect those articles. My apologies for this case being open for quite some time. Mike V • Talk 01:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

31 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

first contribution itself bought false allegations and wiki terminology. 100% confidence md iet Summichum (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (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

 * Yep, that's him alright. I've blocked and tagged the account. Mike V • Talk 16:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike V Thanks for prompt response, but you should rather block the ip range from where he is editing like 106.215.x.x. As he is wasting precious admin time and has severely abused wiki for his own vested interests.Summichum (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

31 January 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

first contribution directly reminds wiki terminology and dispute Summichum (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2015 (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

 * IP blocked. While I wish I could, blocking the IP range would have too much collateral. Before we consider that, I think it's best to try and block the individual accounts and IPs and use semi-protection. If that still persists for a long time, then I'll consider short term range blocks. Mike V • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

01 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Geolocation Information Country:	India in flag State/Region:	Rajasthan City:	Rajsamand Latitude:	25.0667 (25° 4′ 0.12″ N) Longitude:	73.8833  (73° 52′ 59.88″ E) Postal Code:	313326

Earlier IP of MD iet also have same location in geolocate

Hence alternates between using his corporate IP and home ip. I guess there are mechanisms to alert his ISP and block the abuse by him Summichum (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2015 (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

 * I've blocked the IP for a few days for block evasion. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

02 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see contributions in md iet sock page, himself accepts the sock. Summichum (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2015 (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

 * IP has been blocked and I don't see a need to run a CheckUser given there isn't a history of sleepers. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

04 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Again same ip range and the same reasons. Please block the ip range for 3 months from editing. WHAT collateral damage can result? Is this ip range being used for editing? editors with usernames are already allowed so I dont think it will cause any collateral damage. Summichum (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocking an IP-range will affect any other users editing anonymously using similar IPs. Semiprotecting articles may be a better choice here, please see WP:RFPP. Bjelleklang -  talk 09:32, 4 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked for 48 hours. The collateral damage refers to IP editors who also use this range that are unrelated to the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 18:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

05 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Directly participating on delete discussion page and know wiki procedures; see contribs Summichum (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

I had joined Wikipedia since 7th December, about 2 months before. This Summichum see everyone a sock. Since my joining I am watching the activities on Bohra articles. The fellow, a single man army seems bent upon doing all destructive activities aiming at single faith. From the details revealed by the group I also felt helping them as I am also 2 month old and learnt many things about Wikipedia. I noticed that the other group trying hard to counter the fellow. The group not doing any vandalism as such but because of their location and same faith they seem to be in disadvantage. Definition of sock is very wide and there is ample chance of sincere getting trapped. Law breaking is law breaking and their sincere efforts are also counted crime.

I could not resist removal of Moulai Abadullah article. Details which are collected (by the 106) seem to me sufficient to reinstate the important article on the historic fellow. I used the information further. Summichum is seems bent upon removing all the history from Wikipedia, which is rarely known to outer world.

I am also using my ID extension provided by my company. The details shown above are pointing toward my co and also feared similar repercussion. I am a separate individual request Admin to act decisively. Is this MD so intelligent planner, planned this account two month earlier? Thanks,--Recon12345 (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per username reminiscent of previous sock, as well as the fact seems to have picked up the discussion on Sandstein's talk page right where  left off. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * is ✅ to previous blocked socks. There is also the imaginatively named sleeper .-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Accounts blocked and tagged. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

07 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see contribs and previous block log of md iet, himself signs as recon1234 and this ip is used by him before and is a private static ip which should be blocked indefinately. Summichum (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked for 2 days. This IP is not static, it was only used by the individual today. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 22:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

08 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see contribs Summichum (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 22:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

09 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OccultZone#A_gentle_request he is now imposing that they will continue to edit irrespective of blocks, after accepting sock. This is consuming admin time and hence a very strict action need to be taken. Summichum (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2015 (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 hasn't made an edit in 5 days. There's no need to block it right now, especially since it seems he/she/they use dynamic IPs. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 15:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

10 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

same contribs Summichum (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 05:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

10 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Interest in the Dawoodi Bohra community, particular phrases ("we all are one way or other defined as meat"). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:45, 10 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

16 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see contribs Summichum (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

19 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see contribs, and geolocate Summichum (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2015 (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

 * IP blocked. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

24 February 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Directly edits borhra articles as first contrib unconstructively, can be either of above considering the past logs   Summichum (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I would say that Rukn950 cannot be a sock of Md iet, it has been checked before as well. I don't think that Acader2 is a sock of Md iet either, Acader2 reminds me of Ramiericson, who frequently referred these reference as "biased" ones.,,  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I would add  as a sockpuppet. The person with this IP left a comment here, which I deleted  and signed as, which is basically acknowledgement of sockpuppetry.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - COuld you, please, provide some diffs? Diffs should show how the suspected socks edited the same or similar way to the sockmaster or blocked socks.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  11:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for a week. I've reviewed the edits of both users and I'm not convinced that they're socks. In regards to OccultZone's comment, the account hasn't been checked as a sock of Md iet, so that case can't be used here. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 02:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

09 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Directly edited Bohra Imam article on Tayyab and the last edit was from the same 106. ... ip range after which royal master started editing directly as new user. Also recently edited editwar notice directly from my contributions. Summichum (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a new account, many mdiet accounts have been detected as sock and he continues to do the same inspite of all warnings , here is the diff where royalmaster directly jumped to an editwar? How is he knowing this except to see my contribs? and that too directly adding info to edit war . ALso he is editing bohra imam tayyab article and his language style is very similar to Md iet Summichum (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2015 (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

 * -, please provide some diffs to show connection between Royalmaster1 and Md iet or his proven socks.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the contributions and I'm not entirely convinced it's him. The user has edited the same articles, but the behavior seems off and they're not focusing on the same things. I'm going to close this case with no action taken. If you find something more conclusive, please feel free to re-open the case. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 01:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

18 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

see contribs, the user has linked the same link which Mdiet sock had earlier linked to prevent deletion of Fatima Sughra article, he again created the article after it was deleted by AFD. ALso is maliciously editing "List of Dai" article to purposely remove links to 53rd syedna succession article. The user has recreated many articles which were created by Md iet and were deleted by afd after discussion. Clear sock puppet with 100% confidence

The user has continued creating over a dozen socks and most have been reported by me were found to be correct. Please find a permanent solution to this problem as md iet is creating accounts to evade block and bans and wasting admin time.

Summichum (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As per diffs requested, here is his list of articles created by him, see his contrib page he has created them after AFD deletion presenting the same evidences which were present in the AFD discussions:
 * evidence 1:

royalmaster has above used the word "fellow" which is very commonly used by md iet apart from the typical style of writing which can be seen in the following diff: 
 * evidence 2

His contributions itself are evidences that it is a sock of md iet as he directly jumped to bohra articles, came to edit war discussion, supporting another COI user ruqn who was also previously blocked as a sock. 
 * evidence 3:

Summichum (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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

I am surprised to see my name here when I was looking at summichums contribution today due to his removal of my contributions. As such this complain doesn't matter me, but I could observe tussle between Rukn and him. His behavior seems somewhat strange. I don't know of Md, but for me early Tayyibi development in Egypt, Yemen and India are of lot of interest and there is lot of confusion prevailing amongst history books on these topics.

I have chosen these topics and tried to gather information and correlate them. At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim and Indian missionary like Moulai Abadullah etc. were amongst them and tried to bring the pages back as redirect with reliable quotes provided on respective talk pages. If users agree we can develop these articles further.

In this process I could observe that this fellow summichum has deleted earlier articles. As such he was right because authentic quotes were not there but we can always search for it.

Dai page I only touched due to involvement of Moulai Abadullah, Syedi Fakhruddin And Jalal Shamshuddin of 10th century.

What malicious observation he found at Dai, I am unable to see? I have restructured Dai list with mention in the index and for 53 rd dai I have repeated same thing available and in heading included both name appearing there.

Regarding Fatema sughra case, I can just say that while looking at articles deletion list of this fellow I could not resist the deletion of article of daughter of Imam Husain an Icon of Islam. I don't know what link he is talking about, but I only mentioned quotes I found in google books list on 'Sughara'. This also I have narrated only in talk page of sugra.

I am not worried about me but discussion of him and Rukn and deletion rather then improvement of selected article of early historical figure of Tayyibi seems objectionable to me.Royalmaster1 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I had given the evidence of his own page where he showed his created articles, please compare it with his creation log and you see he has created the same subset of the articles. to give an example he recreated following articles

I have been terse in my responses as I dont think this much effort is required to give detailed evidences for person who has dozens of reported socks and comes out with new socks after he has been banned and blocked each time and except in one case all the dozen time I was correct in reporting him as sock and the admin User:Mike_V was himself involved in most of the cases and in later cases he agreed to CU requests without giving any evidence from my part. If you compare the creation log and md iet diff page I linked keeping in mind the aggressive behaviour of this sock in creating new socks each time to evade bans is all the reason to contemplate. Hence I request User:Mike_V to also intervene Summichum (talk) 05:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -, please provide some evidence. Show WP:diffs of "user linking the same link which Mdiet sock had earlier linked". Show diffs of "maliciously editing of List of Dai" and explain how is that connected to . Show us those articles he created that "were created by Md iet and were deleted".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , the previous case, in which you also accused of being a sock of Md_iet was closed just ten days ago. Closing clerk wrote: "If you find something more conclusive, please feel free to re-open the case". You did re-open the case, but I don't see anything more conclusive this time. You failed to show diff of "user linking the same link which Mdiet sock had earlier linked". You also failed to explain how the user "maliciously edited List of Dai", although I asked you to do so. You failed to name articles he created that "were created by Md iet and were deleted". You made a lot of accusations, but presented no evidence to support them. Only "evidence" you provided is both using the word "fellow", and both edit warring on the same article (but you also failed to provide diffs for those). That is very inconclusive, so I'm declining the CU request.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This case involved a bit of digging, but I do think it's reasonable to conclude the account is a sock. Royalmaster1 was drawn to a number of articles that 106.215.178.67 previously edited. On the Al-Amir bi-Ahkami'l-Lah article, 106.215.178.67 (1 and Royalmaster1 2 added the same year. On At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim, 106.215.178.67 (3 and Royalmaster1 (4) both used the same 1132 AD/526 AH year. Note that both the user and the IP performed a mobile edit through the mobile app. The same IP's first editswere to the edit warring noticeboard, where the user cited a notice placed on Edjohnston's talk page. The notice that the IP was referencing is a result of previously blocked Md iet IPs who left notes to Edjohnston about Summichum. The comments in the previous link show a similar tone and grasp of the English language as the message left by Royalmaster1 left above. Also worth noting is that the IP used the mobile app to perform a mobile edit as well. Take note to how the IPs provide the same format on the edit warring noticeboard. (106.215.178.67, 117.239.216.82, YaFatimid, a blocked sock of Md iet) Given this information, I've blocked Royalmater1 as a sock of Md iet. Summichum, in the future, you must provide more information to link the accounts to the master account. The burden is on the filer to establish the connection and performing my own behavioral analysis takes some time and prevents me from assisting with the other cases we have in a timely fashion. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

16 April 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

See the talk page and contribution history of the user the earlier socks of md iet also made attempts to redirect deleted bohra dai articles to list of dai page. Also the user is operating from a confirmed sockpuppet ip as informed on his talk page. Most of  his edits are on bohra articles on which he was banned and later created dozens of socks all reported by me and found to be true after sockpuppet investigation  handled this caseSummichum (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2015 (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

 * I did some digging and I found enough evidence that would justify a check. (Some of which I can't discuss openly.) Sanjaysingh12 is ✅ as well as Royalmaster1, whom I previously blocked based upon behavioral evidence. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 02:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, it's best that I post what I saw. Sanjaysingh12 had a intertwined edit history to LHD_(Load,_Haul,_Dump_machine). Both accounts contributed to providing interwiki links to the article. (Royalmaster1, Sanjaysingh12) Royalmaster1 also redirected Moulai Abadullah to At-Tayyib Abu'l-Qasim (subsection Taiyyibi Da'is), to which Sanjaysingh12 continued to contribute. (1, 2, 3, 4) <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

27 July 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

This "typo fix" seems to be written in Md iet's writing style. It's also actually an instruction on how to deal with another user, with whom Md iet had trouble in the past. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 07:37, 27 July 2015 (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 has made no edits since the case was open. It is not active any more. Closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)