Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammed al-Bukhari/Archive

21 November 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Mohammed al-Bukhari has been given a warning and a 1-week block on editing for edit-warring and infraction of the 1RR rule in the article Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The suspicion is that this user has opened a new account under another name in order to circumvent the block.

Background

(1) Warning on 19 November (turned into a block the next day). (2) Block on 20 November.

(1) Warning

Previous version reverted to: (See first sentence of Lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18 nov 1.25 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)  → 1RR broken
 * 2) 17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)
 * 3) 14 nov 13.46 (sentence about Khawarij added to end of Lead, against consensus)  →  1RR broken
 * 4) 13 Nov 22.53 (whole para added to end of Lead, against consensus)
 * 5) 4 Nov 1.17 (last Lead para wording changed against consensus)

(2) Block

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19 nov 17:30  → 1RR broken (He reverted the correction and disrupted the article again)
 * 2) 19 nov 17:21 (I reverted the disruption)
 * 3) 19 nov 17:17 (Disruption)
 * 4) 19 nov 16:53 (Correct version before the user's disruptions)

NB The diffs for the warning and block notification on the user's Talk page are here and here.

Evidence of suspected sock-puppet account

On 20 November, the same day as the block, this appeared on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Talk page, signed by Swaywoof, at 15:48. The block was imposed at 1:56. The subject-matter – Khawarij – is the same as during the edit-warring. It looks as if the Swaywoof account was opened by Mohammed al-Bukhari to circumvent the 1-week block imposed for edit-warring and violating the 1RR rule that this article is under, so that he could continue pursuing his point.

The Swaywoof account is here and is obviously a new account, and on the Talk page appears a message from another editor in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This message on the user's Talk page is from the same editor,

While technically the user's two comments on the ISIS Talk page may not flout the block on editing per se, the point is that a sock-puppet account seems to have been opened to evade the block. There have been no attempts to edit since the block or make further comments on the Talk page.

The user's own account seems to have been opened on 25 October this year, so he may not be aware of the seriousness of warnings, blocks and sock-puppeting, or even know that opening a new account in another name is a serious matter.

This may be more information than you need, but this is the first time I have taken an editor to WP:SPI. P123ct1 (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Background

A second account seems to have been opened by Mohammed al-Bukhari, on 25 November. This new account-holder Tipszelig contributed one edit to the same article and disappeared after suspicions were raised on an editor's Talk page. This account-holder has not reappeared since on the ISIS page.

Evidence of suspected sock-puppet account

Compare . with . The userpages are identical. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

I am grateful to P123ct1 for notification of the above report.

I was the editor that placed the report on the "extremist/Khawarij" case. Link is here. Amongst content I stated that the case "constitutes vandalism and deception al-be-it to a typically limited extent." From the time of the filing of the report the editor stopped this disruption.

The second case is here. In this case edits occurred in the context of a particular consensus agreed edit here. While meeting some very specific article needs the edit also made a split in related section of content. To cut one long story short this raised significant problems. I'm happy to justify this if required.

To cut another story short Mohammed made his 1RR infringements in the context of arguably sensible edits. He was given notification not to continue such edits. He stopped.

Shortly after this time the exact text that Mohamed had attempted to move, was moved into the upper part of the lead in this edit although clearly the edit was now made in a far more holistic fashion.

Since this time another unknown editor has added another content on criticism at the end of the lead. Criticism in the lead still isn't all together.

I was also one of the two editors to interact with the suspected 2nd login (which I am convinced was Mohammed) and, from the time I placed content on both user pages calling for the use of the 2nd login to stop, it has.

Gregkaye ✍ ♪  20:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * please note that I was previously working by a view to WP:Assume good faith with regard to your edits and that, when confronted with unacceptable behaviours, you changed. I now see that this was not the case.  It is important, when you join a group such as Wikipedia, that you act as a team player.  While I think admin may fairly consider parts of the above defence, I certainly don't object to content being ignored at admin's discretion.  gregkaye  ✍ ♪  14:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Based on duck, I've indeffed and tagged the two puppets, and blocked the master for one month. , for your first time at SPI you did a better job than some who have been here multiple times. Thanks for making my job easier. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)