Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaheenjim/Archive

Report date June 29 2009, 01:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Terry0051

I would appreciate help with a problem about possible sockpuppetry to evade an indefinite block and continue disruptive editing.

A while back (March/April) there was a problem of disruptive editing of a somewhat indirect kind over at "Orbit of the Moon", the March/April diffs are atdiffs here but it seemed to go away by itself when the editor concerned (Shaheenjim) disappeared, and it turned out he had worked his way into an indefinite block entirely due to his activities elsewhere and complete refusal to get the point about what the trouble was.

Now another user has popped up (Geologician) with just about exactly the same arguing style as Shaheenjim. Even though Geologician is not a new user I strongly suspect this is the same Shaheenjim under another name.

The following characteristics of Geologician's recent edits in Talk:Orbit of the Moon seem to match what is described in WP:DISRUPT and the linked pages under the headings 'tendentious', 'cannot satisfy WP:Verifiability', 'does not engage in consensus-building', 'refusal to get the point', and also much resenble Shaheenjim's style:

Recent diffs are at

Given these two sets of diffs, new and old, is there any way to check this is a sockpuppet as it seems to be? If it is the same person, then he appears to be using the alternative account to circumvent the block on Shaheenjim.

Terry0051 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions

The diffs provided show a very similar connection to Shaheenjim. As such, I have blocked and tagged the sock. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note by ArbCom

This editor has appealed his block to ArbCom and the account has been checkusered. In the light of the checkuser report, editing patterns were closely compared and they are considerably less compelling than they first appeared. In the circumstances, the Ban Appeal Subcommittee has decided to provisionally suspend the block for three months. The details are on the editor's talk page. If the three months pass without incident, the unblock becomes permanent. Roger Davies talk 10:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)