Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thehistorian1984/Archive

18 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The user Saheehinfo keeps reverting to a +1 year old edit of the user Thehistorian1984 that was added when the former was nowhere near the wiki article. Saheehinfo reverts to this edit even though the info in it isn't even found in the citation—it is falsified to fit an agenda—and despite the fact that i have informed him of this several times. This leads me to strongly suspect the former has a vested interest in the latter's edit that goes beyond sincere motives. Compare Thehistorian1984's edit here to Saheehinfo's edit here and you will find the reversion to the exact same content with other content that was added over time—my apologies if this complicates the comparison. Saheehinfo is fanatically attached to keeping this edit and i wonder how he knew about it (he has mentioned this edit specifically on 10:29, 30 March 2016 towards the bottom of Talk:Mawlid) when it was so far back in the past and he didn't start editing the article until much later i.e. 15:12, 28 February 2016‎.--Mawlidman (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Mawlidman (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is this being closed when a blaring issue seems to have been ignored: how did Saheehinfo know that Thehistorian1984's edit was the last relevant edit when there were so many intervening edits before the former got involved with editing the article? Could it not be that Saheehinfo knew of this edit because he was the sockpuppet of Thehistorian1984 and simply protecting his previous edits using a one-off identity? --Mawlidman (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but how on earth can I be considered a sock puppet? If you look at the history of User:Thehistorian1984 edits they were made over a year ago. His entire editing history consists of only 4 (four) edits. I have started editing about 5 months back and already have almost 400 edits on a range of articles. User:Thehistorian1984 was the original editor who added a few lines to the article Mawlid here over a year ago. This portion of the article has remained in place for over a year until User:Mawlidman amended it with a new version. I did not agree with the new version and per WP:BRD reversed this to the consensus version added by User:Thehistorian1984 until we get agreement on the talk page for a change. I have mentioned this on the talk page on a number of occasions already (e.g. here and here) for example and also on the edit summaries (here and here). I also made clear that consensus can change (here) and that we should work together to come up with a new version that takes into consideration all reliable sources per WP:RS. Are we not meant to follow WP:BRD? If so, then obviously the text of the article reversed by me will be the same as the consensus version (in this case Thehistorian1984). Otherwise what does the 'R' stand for in WP:BRD? Saheeh Info 07:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Admin action needed - Compare with  (and, if it helps, Crtl+F "The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of one"). Please issue such blocks as are appropriate. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 13:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but how on earth can I be considered a sock puppet? If you look at the history of User:Thehistorian1984 edits they were made over a year ago. His entire editing history consists of only 4 (four) edits. I have started editing about 5 months back and already have almost 400 edits on a range of articles.
 * User:Thehistorian1984 was the original editor who added a few lines to the article Mawlid here over a year ago. This portion of the article has remained in place for over a year until User:Mawlidman amended it with a new version. I did not agree with the new version and per WP:BRD reversed this to the consensus version added by User:Thehistorian1984 until we get agreement on the talk page for a change. I have mentioned this on the talk page on a number of occasions already (e.g. here and here) for example and also on the edit summaries (here and here). I also made clear that consensus can change (here) and that we should work together to come up with a new version that takes into consideration all reliable sources per WP:RS. Are we not meant to follow WP:BRD? If so, then obviously the text of the article reversed by me will be the same as the consensus version (in this case Thehistorian1984). Otherwise what does the 'R' stand for in WP:BRD? Saheeh Info 07:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're right. I misread a date (thought it was January 2016, not 2015) and that set off my entire analysis. Therefore, and on further consideration, I'm closing this. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 12:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)