Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Tariq was blocked for edit warring on December 3rd, primarily focused on claims that Zeno of Citium was Syrian and arguing such on the talk page

Block was then extended for IP editing after block

The next day the new account George51725w5218 shows up to continue the discussion on the article talk page  Grey joy talk 07:53, 4 December 2020 (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 following accounts: are all ✅ as: Please move the report to the oldest account and tag.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Which user is this ? Tariq afflaq seems to be oldest and this is already named that. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gah, you're right. I was using popups and misread Tariq sofian as the older account at a glace.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 00:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagging as confirmed socks of Tariq afflaq. Close. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * now also ✅ and blocked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Hi. A user who has a history of using sockpuppets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tariq_afflaq/Archive) and creating new accounts after the newest account has been banned appears to have returned again. The suspected new user is: AlexanderTheLevant. The new user is editing in the exact same way (POV pushing to link to a certain article [Syrians]). He also consistently uses minor edits to hide himself, something that the original blocked account was famous for (and warned against). His way of arguing is the same.

This is his talk page when I warned against misuse of m edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tariq_sofian This the contrib page for the suspected new account: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AlexanderTheLevant New account that deliberately hides edits by using "m"? Also it covers the same topics, and the same editing style (nearly the same wording) and the same pushes that the other socks displayed, for example compare above contribs with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tariq_afflaq

For specific edits compare for example: 1. Adding that Marley is Syria with blocked account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Marley&diff=prev&oldid=992124260 2. Adding Marley was Syrian in new suspected sock account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrians&diff=prev&oldid=995113134

I think this is enough but if it's not I can show more diffs. This is my first time here thank you. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2020 (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

 * Block evading sock continuing the campaign to label everyone/everything as Syrian. Cabayi (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Hi. This is the user archive for the other socks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tariq_afflaq/Archive After the latest sock was confirmed and banned, an ip address emerged on the same date and then proceeded to do the same thing, obsessively linking articles to [Syrians] and talking in the same way.

This diff by the suspected account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_al-Shatir&diff=prev&oldid=996944886 Is the same as one by the blocked account: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_al-Shatir&diff=prev&oldid=995213080 But with the two sources switched to make it appear different. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: Here is another IP of theirs: 2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:3047:7733:2995:704 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:3047:7733:2995:704) Proof it's same user: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Julia_Domna_Ba%27al&diff=997074989&oldid=996722633

EDIT2 Stop playing games and lying and making accusations. You got banned from wikipedia and told not to make a new account, but appeal your ban and reach an agreement with the admins. Instead you didn't listen and kept breaking rules and kept making new accounts when you've been repeatedly told it's not allowed. You know what you're doing since you tried to hide your activities, you tried to change names, IP, you tried to use minor edits to hide your activities even after multiple warning, and so on. You know you're breaking the rules, you are not a victim of "censorship". Besides, your first five bans were not done by me, check your archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tariq_afflaq/Archive Everyone is saying you're breaking the rules, this is not a personal thing. There is a good way to edit wikipedia and there is a way that's disruptive and wastes time, that's what you're doing. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

EDIT3 Here is another account for the same user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OhioanSBR Just comes out of nowhere and uses this account to build rep while the other ips emerge and the first thing they do is continue the campaign of the blocked account. Proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julia_Domna&diff=next&oldid=997200764 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Domna Ba'al (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I’m not a sock 🧦 just because I added to some figures their Syrian nationality you conclude I’m a 🧦? I provided reliable sources and I love to edit this platform in fact I did with lots of other pages but until now no one claim I’m 🧦 except you. I do edit with reliable sources I just saw your editing list it really revolves around the Arabian ethnicity, you seem to be very ideologically motivated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:3047:7733:2995:704 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC) You really reminds me of the Arab leaders any one who has a different mind disappears, it’s creepy how you told me enjoy your ban when I talked with you in your talk page your editings revolve around the Arab ethnicity you see it’s because of the likes of julia why people always accuse Wikipedia of being a platform where agendas fight. The editings you’re reporting are recent my ip number changes from time to time I made lots of edits for the Berber and Greek ethnicities I just focused on the Syrian one recently because I found lots of biased editors who disregard the reliable sources. How did you conclude that I’m a sock 🧦 There are 20 million Syrians on earth And please? What kind of disruptive edits I did? why your editings are not disruptive but mines are? You seem to be very ideologically motivated and if anyone checks your editing history he will see that you only edits about Arab nationality so why your edits aren’t disruptive? How can my edits be disruptive when im providing reliable sources ? So is that a law in Wikipedia ? The 20 million Syrians are prohibited from editing if they found Syrian figures aren’t mentioned as Syrians in Wikipedia? I don’t know who’s tariq but I’m really sad for him. I saw your old talks with editors you claimed that Quraysh tribe is originally from Syria which is against any reliable source you really seem to be an Arab nationalist And why did you insulte me when I talked with you in your talk page? You told me to enjoy my ban! Ironically you’re saying in your home page: This user seeks the peaceful resolution of disputes. It’s sad that because of the likes of you Wikipedia is always accused for being a corrupted and unreliable source   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.193.128.47 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Special:AbuseLog/28499039 looks interesting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comparing Special:Diff/997204432 to 5.193.128.47's and 2001:8F8:1E23:73AF:3047:7733:2995:704's messages above... At very least this is a case of disruptive logged-out editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per my above comments,
 * blocked for 3 months.
 * blocked for 3 months.
 * blocked indefinitely.
 * The connection to Tariq afflaq is established by Special:Diff/996944886 and Special:Diff/995213080. Closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)


 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I only have Sidocs's own statement at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philip_the_Arab&curid=633466&diff=1012475160&oldid=1012473186&diffmode=source If you think that block will affect me You must be living in a fantasy, i have literally tons of extended confirmed users accounts.

I am requesting CheckUser as a matter of course. I trust those with the access to the CheckUser tool to make an informed judgement as to whether this is necessary. Peaceray (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I wish to thank &  for your comments & bringing your expertise. This was the first time that I referred an editor for investigation, & I am unfamiliar with the process. As Oshwah wrote, a confession from a user like this would be grounds for checking. Thank you for your efforts in ferreting out sockpuppets & identifying false positives. Peaceray (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi, the investigation isn't important because it won't change much, but if I may add my opinion. Please check this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lensig#Hey

BlondeKarren is 100% Afflaq. Afflaq sent his comments to "Chris O'Hate" AKA Marc Frier to copy paste. They have a facebook group and numerous pages that they gather in and plan ways to "fix" wikipedia. They have strategies how to make confirmed accounts, building up rep, creating "friendships", even contacting Jimmy Wales to "convince" him their sources are reliable. They cross copy paste between articles and add small things to have a 500 edit account in ONE WEEK. This makes the whole website worse due to these extremely low effort edits. It's why they're so defensive. They make a meme saying X (Arab person) is not Arab but rather Y (invented extinct ethnicity). Then they try to dump all their efforts on wikipedia to match their post and not be called out. There are 1-3 people using 5-10 accounts each time. It doesn't matter that they're wrong, or they get banned. The things they write remain forever in the talk page and will influence someone down the line to agree with their weasel arguments and try convince through sheer numbers/gish gallop. They don't care about getting banned. They send me their things on facebook pretending to be interested in gaining knowledge, when I explain things to them they use that to "punk" me on wikipedia, like this is debate club or a warzone. Also it doesn't matter if someone is seemingly at odds with another. The same user posts conflicting things, like arguing Philip is "Syrian" but at the same time accusing me of "Pan Syrianism". It's the same person arguing for pan syrianism, then for pan phoenicianism, then anti syrianism, then anti arabism, and sometimes pro arabism (Note: Michel Aflaq is the #1 Arab nationalist and he's the namesake of the user who is very anti Arab). It's just a way to put admins off by assuming they're not socks based on "behavior". Why do you think "Afflaq" appeared merely 7 minutes after my comment to the blocked user "Chris"? They're either the same person or coordinating and have done so for over a year. Also they pretend to agree with me and spend a lot of effort squashing the behavioral similarities. Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

---

Also I just read this:


 * A 2005 Arbitration Committee decision established: "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

Julia Domna Ba&#39;al (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've looked at Testtestes's edits, and I noticed a few things. First, T intersects a great deal with Chris. Second, although I struggle mightly in this particular subject area, it looks behaviorally like they are at odds with each other, which would lower the possibility of them being the same person. At the same time, I noticed another sockmaster on these pages, User:Tariq afflaq, and it's possible that T and Sidoc are related to that master. I doubt that Chris is related to that master because he edited a great deal at the time checked the various accounts at SPI, and I imagine she would have uncovered Chris. But it does make me curious as to whether Sidoc and T are socks of Tariq afflaq.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * for obvious reasons.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a closer look in case you haven't already done so. See User:Chris O' Hare. And, again, if you haven't already done so, a check for more than two accounts might be in order. Regards from a former (incompetent per some) CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - I originally declined due to no other account being listed in this SPI other than the user himself. I guess a confession from a user like this would be grounds for checking. Anyways, ✅ to .  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this report should not have been filed because it had only one account. However, on my own, I went deeper and saw the comment that Sidoc made on the article Talk page that fairly clearly implied that Sidoc and Chris O'Hare were the same person. It would have been on that basis I would have run the check. I assume you didn't uncover Chris, though, but did you check him independently? I would be surprised, although not for the first time in the wacky world of socking, if they were not the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - I did not check Chris O'Hare independently. I only checked Sidocs.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the comments I mentioned on the article Talk page, there is also the timing. Chris O'Hare was blocked March 16 at 15:05. Sidoc was created on March 16 at 15:25. If you're concerned about whether an independent check of Chris O'Hare is "justified", I would think that the talk page behavior and timing are more than enough, even to satisfy the almighty powers that be. But of course it's your call. :) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you check the CU logs from my check of here, you'll see they're editing from the same /49 range, ISP, and location as . Obviously behaviour needs evaluating, but the remaining CU bits from the log don't discount a technical connection. --  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Testtestes without a tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - I am running a second check on these accounts from a different angle. Please don't close this case yet. Mz7 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The following accounts are ✅ to Sidoc:
 * (appears stale due to edits, but there is CU data thanks to logins)
 * Those last two accounts, OhioanSBR and AlexanderTheLevant, were previously blocked as sockpuppets of Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq, which appears to corroborate 's suspicion above. I also agree with Bbb23's suspicion with respect to Chris O' Hare, and I found that they are ❌ to this case (looks like an attempted joe job—the 4353Phone account was previously involved in a dispute with Chris O' Hare ). All accounts . Please merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Outstanding work. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (appears stale due to edits, but there is CU data thanks to logins)
 * Those last two accounts, OhioanSBR and AlexanderTheLevant, were previously blocked as sockpuppets of Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq, which appears to corroborate 's suspicion above. I also agree with Bbb23's suspicion with respect to Chris O' Hare, and I found that they are ❌ to this case (looks like an attempted joe job—the 4353Phone account was previously involved in a dispute with Chris O' Hare ). All accounts . Please merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Outstanding work. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (appears stale due to edits, but there is CU data thanks to logins)
 * Those last two accounts, OhioanSBR and AlexanderTheLevant, were previously blocked as sockpuppets of Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq, which appears to corroborate 's suspicion above. I also agree with Bbb23's suspicion with respect to Chris O' Hare, and I found that they are ❌ to this case (looks like an attempted joe job—the 4353Phone account was previously involved in a dispute with Chris O' Hare ). All accounts . Please merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Outstanding work. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (appears stale due to edits, but there is CU data thanks to logins)
 * Those last two accounts, OhioanSBR and AlexanderTheLevant, were previously blocked as sockpuppets of Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq, which appears to corroborate 's suspicion above. I also agree with Bbb23's suspicion with respect to Chris O' Hare, and I found that they are ❌ to this case (looks like an attempted joe job—the 4353Phone account was previously involved in a dispute with Chris O' Hare ). All accounts . Please merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Outstanding work. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (appears stale due to edits, but there is CU data thanks to logins)
 * Those last two accounts, OhioanSBR and AlexanderTheLevant, were previously blocked as sockpuppets of Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq, which appears to corroborate 's suspicion above. I also agree with Bbb23's suspicion with respect to Chris O' Hare, and I found that they are ❌ to this case (looks like an attempted joe job—the 4353Phone account was previously involved in a dispute with Chris O' Hare ). All accounts . Please merge this case to Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Outstanding work. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Moved as requested. Closing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)