Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rob lockett/Archive

Report date March 13 2010, 22:59 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Evidence submitted by Epeefleche
The indicated editors (or many of them) appear to be the same person, as reflected in their edits. Largely they consist of edits to Mohammed Daniel, and most recently to edits by three of them at the just-concluded AfD for Mohammed Daniel, found at Articles for deletion/Mohammed Daniel. The AfD concluded with a deletion decision, though one of them has indicated interest in seeking to bring it back.

The IPs are all located in Kuwait, which is where Mohammed Daniel appears to be located. Most of the editors and IPs are SPAs, with most or all of their edits relating to Mohammed Daniel and his AfD.

While I originally filed this before the AfD closed, I note that checkusers are specifically suggested AFTER AfD votes (The template says, specifically: "Vote fraud, please wait until after vote closes"). So I would suggest that the fact that the AfD is over should make this a more appropriate time for a checkuser.

In addition, one of the purported socks has indicated that he wishes to bring the article back, and a sysop has said he will userfy it so the purported sock can do so. Policy as I read it is that socks engaging in vote fraud should be blocked, because that is behavior that strips one of the entitlement to continue editing. It does not hinge on their level of success. Furthermore, the guideline on sockpuppetry indicates that socks should be blocked, and clearly does not hinge on how successful the socks were. To take preventative action against continued sockpuppetry, a sock check is IMHO in order.

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, one of the suspected socks is now contesting the indicated close -- see here. this is just the sort of continued activity that (if a checkuser finds the editor to be a sock) a sock check, and ban, is meant to preclude.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate MuZ having left this open so another sysop could review/take action (see ). IMHO the evidence suggests sockpuppetry, and the checkuser now raises the likelihood of sockpuppetry (involving previously unnamed socks) and meatpuppetry, and appropriate action is warranted.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I contributed to the Articles for deletion/Mohammed Daniel and endured deceptive practices from User:AFANOF that seemed familiar but I could not quite place from where. When this user accused me of "misleading" and biased "(as can been seen by your [i.e. my] edits to articles on Ibn Taymiyah/Albani)" it became clear that this was the same person behind User:Rob lockett. I was responsible for the removal of User:Rob lockett's copyright violations to three or four pages(see User talk:Rob lockett), including the al-Albani and Ibn Taymiyyah referred to in his comment at the AfD. User:Rob lockett was also similar to User:AFANOF in the POV, single purpose edits—along with the persistence it seems we are now seeing in MD article related discussions. The POV is also the same the MD article cites "Mohammed Said Ramadan Al Buti" who figures somewhat prominently on the sites that were copy pasted from in User:Rob lockett's edits; for example: http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/Dr_Said_R_Buti.htm and http://www.livingislam.org/n/absn_ep.html. --Supertouch (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter is moot, now with the AFD closed as "delete". –MuZemike 01:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like a 2nd opinion on the matter per User talk:MuZemike. –MuZemike 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

per the DRV just opened. It's either meatpuppetry or otherwise straight socking. –MuZemike 00:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Checked by Avi.

I am very concerned regarding this edit. A couple of the suspected socks support keeping, while the others support deletion as well. I personally don't think socking is going on despite the CU results, but one may need to address that one edit I mentioned above, if that certainly is Mohammed. –MuZemike 18:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mike here; I am doubtful that actual sockpuppetry has been going on here. Marking as closed SpitfireTally-ho! 22:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)