Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tahafarooqui/Archive

16 March 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Both have been posting copied articles from techspot (see deleted contribs). Also, both found their way to Ray Marcano and its deletion discussion. ansh 666 18:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added several others. Same reasoning: tech website spam or just general strangeness in user sandboxes and/or Ray Marcano deletion-related activity. ansh 666 06:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * seriously? Tahafarooqui is the only one with more than 5 edits, I'm sure you can look through those easily enough. Besides, the most damning evidence between them and Foxdevelopers is deleted (the articles they tried to create). ansh 666 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, it's not like I'm new at this. Evidence does not strictly need to come in diffs, especially when the accounts have so few edits. Anyways, I don't have the energy to deal with this right now, so I'll let others do it if they wish. ansh 666 05:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

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


 * See this diff and this diff. Note in both cases there is a space left before the full-stop/period, in addition to the unsigned comment. Also note the capitilsation of words part way through a sentence.
 * Also note the exactly identical comments made here and here less than 20 minutes apart. Stickee (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In which both request are to "kindly" delete the page  . Stickee (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Your second comment compares edits of two users who are already blocked." It is entirely within policy to CU for sleepers. Stickee (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let's have a third editor walk in here. User:Rmarcano blanked the Ray Marcano page here. They appear to be a boxer of some kind, as they then hijacked the page with . After a reversion, a single-edit account named Boxerman2010 did this. So those two are clearly the same person, but they're not named here - this is just for a bit of back story, as far as I can tell as an uninvolved editor. Presumedly, based on the initial Rmarcano edit and the request for deletion on a user's talk page, Tahafarooqui did this - blanking the page. None of the named accounts here edited the article directly. So, now I come to look at the AfD. Rizwansiddiqui98 and Arshi777 are blatantly the same person - their AfD edits are practically identical, they appeared within a few minutes of each other, and their sole other edits (that haven't been deleted) were both to their own sandboxes. Robokop91 made this edit, which is a tad odd; it's hard to determine exactly how they found out about this relatively obscure case if they're a new editor. Foxdevelopers is also extremely suspicious - shows they just copied another (non-sock) editor's vote. I am of the opinion, with two accounts blatantly belonging to the same person in that list, that a CU scan is necessary; if, as the case initiator says, they have also spammed the same site as well, then that only strengthens the case. It is unfair to ask non-admin users, who have no access to the deleted edits, to somehow present them here - we cannot do so as we don't have access to them, it's as simple as that.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, good job I stepped in then, otherwise the Rmarcano sock farm would've been missed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -, please provide WP:diffs for all accounts to show their connection.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously. Please, provide names of deleted articles and diffs of non-deleted edits to show the similarity. We do not use CheckUser without evidence.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thank you, . Your second comment compares edits of two users who are already blocked. I need more evidence to connect them to Tahafarooqui. Both putting a space before full stop is not a great peace of evidence. And, please, do not change the status of the case as you did here. Only clerks and CheckUsers are allowed to do that.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Thanks you, for those evidence. I'm endorsing the CheckUser to compare accused accounts, but also  and . By the way, I did not ask non-admin users to present deleted edits. I specifically said "provide names of deleted articles and diffs of non-deleted edits" (see above).  Vanjagenije   (talk)  17:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is ✅ from.
 * ,, ,  , and   are ✅.
 * ,, , , and   are ✅.
 * All three sets of socks are ✅ to each other. is ❌. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  23:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, did you check the accounts Vanjagenije mentioned above? Mike V • Talk 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that somehow. The ✅ socks/sleepers in this group are, , , and . These accounts are ❌ to the other sock group above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking. :) I've split off the second group in a separate case here. Mike V • Talk 22:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)